Mike Newell
Harry Potter e il Calice di Fuoco

THE REVIEW

Since I've been writing on DeBaser for a while, many of those who have read my reviews might tell you that they are a bit too long and/or verbose. But this time I'll do everyone a favor: I'll spend just a few lines on this film, I swear. Also because I don't see how to fill the rest, except with useless comments, since the film under analysis was certainly not conceived by a cinema genius.

To tell the truth, the only good mind behind all the hyper-compressed chaos of "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" seems to be simply the author (J.K. Rowling), with a few rare exceptions. But I don't intend to satisfy everyone with a simple string of words. Therefore, I expect your comments. "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," I'll say it right away, could have been a great film (and for someone perhaps it is). However, despite having an excellent plot, visual effects wizards like ILM, and a strong adult cast, someone managed to turn it from an intellectual fantasy (I'm not joking) into a hasty and inconsistent teen romantic comedy, stumbling at several points until falling disastrously into an incredible and overused finale. Moreover, the blatant absence of John Williams in the music breaks the last link that kept the whole cinematic saga together, disorienting fans quite a bit. An even more serious disorienting factor is the plot's rhythm, which shifts from a too-fast beginning to an overly flat and repeatedly boring central part. The wide demonstrated intent to bring the innocent Harry and his friends into adolescent turbulence then fades in the face of typically American clichés (Harry Potter should be the manifesto of young English people) that leave no room for the film. I agree that the adaptation to the book in this case was more laborious, considering the latter's bulkiness. But in this case, for the screenplay, it would have been more fitting to cut rather than speed up scenes. A typical example of an unnecessary scene (in addition not even present in the literary work) is the dancing lessons with Professor McGonagall (McDonagall in the original language). Needless to say, the Italian dubbing (always rather modest in the Potter saga) this time reaches rock bottom, leaving many background dialogues uncovered and undubbed, besides (personal consideration) the fact that Emma Watson's (Hermione Granger) voice is unbelievably shriller and more annoying than ever. Good actors like Alan Rickman and Maggie Smith are either used too little or ridiculously, Professor Moody "Mad-Eye" is way too over the top, the only one who seems to have grown from the young cast (in terms of acting performances) is Ron (Rupert Grint). Headmaster Dumbledore, instead of being a wise old figure, hops here and there, is colder than ever and sometimes seems downright senile. Where has Richard Harris gone? He’s dead, poor man. I wish he were back. Daniel Radcliffe? No change, the expression is always the same. Cherry on top, a direction so dumb as hadn't been seen in a long time.

Mike Newell is a director of romantic-dramatic films. How could one even conceive the idea of dragging him into the Potter world? Only Warner knows. In the end, this is a film with many flaws: excessive indulgence in dark atmospheres and little room for school lessons (where has the rusticity of Chris Columbus gone?), everything happens in the last quarter hour, and nothing is understandable in the first, pompous music without depth, teen-movie like scenes, nonsense with special effects, used too much and poorly, unsatisfactory actors, and dreadful dubbing. Anything salvageable? Yes, since at least the film is superior to a lot of other garbage (Christmas in Miami, released simultaneously), there's a dramatic scene that goes well (Potter's return with Diggory's corpse, the cemetery scene is a bull****) but the most is said, and the feeling that in the other films one had, that the project was closely followed by one or more persons, in "The Goblet of Fire" the touch disappears (as well as the magic) and everything becomes purely and sordidly commercial. That is not how a film is made.