 No doubt about it, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, is the best Harry Potter movie yet, most of the major critics seem to agree. The film, which opens in most cities at midnight tonight, is being ecstatically praised, even by critics who expressed reservations about the three earlier Potter flicks. One of the reasons may be that Harry has now crossed over into puberty (although the character is 14, Daniel Radcliffe, the actor who plays him, is 16), and is being allowed more intense experiences, both in terms of magic and romance. (Although the previous films were rated PG, the new one is rated PG-13.) Jami Bernard in the New York Daily News calls it "the darkest, most thrilling entry yet in the movie franchise." To Carrie Rickey in the Philadelphia Inquirer, the new movie "is the most fun and the most fraught with conflict." Kenneth Turan in the Los Angeles Times concludes: "It's taken them long enough, but the movies have finally gotten Harry Potter right. Despite the reported $2.7 billion earned by the series' three previous attempts, it's not until Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire that a film has successfully recreated the sense of stirring magical adventure and engaged, edge-of-your-seat excitement that has made the books such an international phenomenon." Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times observes, "The film is more violent, less cute than the others, but the action is not the mindless destruction of a video game; it has purpose, shape and style." Much of the credit for the film's artistic success, the critics say, goes to director Mike Newell (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Donnie Brasco). Eleanor Ringel Gillespie in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution notes that Newell "is the first Brit to direct a Potter picture. Perhaps that's why he 'gets' the books better than his predecessors. He's more comfortable with the boarding-school setting -- the rush between classes, the heart-to-hearts in hidden rooms, the petty estrangements and the unnecessary hurts." Several critics have high praise for the older actors in the cast. Manohla Dargis in the New York Times particularly singles out Ralph Fiennes, writing: "For years, the movies have tried to transform this delicate beauty into a heartthrob, but as Schindler's List proved, Mr. Fiennes is an actor for whom a walk on the darker side is not just a pleasure, but liberation. His Voldemort may be the greatest screen performance ever delivered without the benefit of a nose; certainly it's a performance of sublime villainy." Chris Vognar in the Dallas Morning News suggests that parents ought not to be concerned about that PG-13 ratings. "The film follows in the fantasy tradition of stretching perceptions of the possible, and it does so in a richly realized and recognizably human universe. Sometimes, it's better to be scared than bored," he writes. Ty Burr in the Boston Globe agrees, noting that the movie "is oddly less scary in some ways than last year's Prisoner of Azkaban -- less predicated on computer-generated ghoulies and funhouse shocks. The dread here cuts deeper, though. When we hear the wail of a grieving father toward the end of the movie, it's the first genuinely human moment in a Harry Potter film, and it is awful." A handful of critics are less than enthusiastic about the movie, however. "Count me among those just mild about Harry," writes Kyle Smith in the New York Post. "The all-out cuteness of the Hogwartsians, with their Pufnstufs and Whiffenpoofs, is fine for people of developing minds, but the story so often stops its forward motion to take us on long detours into the land of CGI effects that it amounts to a $150 million magic show." An equally lukewarm review comes from Claudia Puig in USA Today, who remarks: "It's hard to beat the last movie, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and this film is not better, but it has much to recommend it." |
