Just got back from Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. As a fan of the books, but one who enjoyed the book Prisoner of Azkaban more than the book GoF, I'd have to rate the films the same way. Radcliffe is definitely improving as an actor, but he still needs some substantial training to bring it up to the level he's going to need by the seventh outing. His crying/portrayal of grief has gotten better than the last film (his reaction to the events after the third task were very well done indeed) . Grint and Watson have more screen time than in PoA, and Grint has finally moved past the mugging-for-the-camera stage (thank you, Mr. Director!). Watson was wonderful in the Yule Ball scene, especially in her confrontation with Ron at the end.

As for the secondary characters, Gambon and Gleason were both just terrific. I've posted before my disappointment that Patrick Stewart wasn't casted for Mad-Eye, but now that I've seen Gleason, I like the fact that they didn't use such a recognizable face as Stewart would have given to Moody. Too bad that Rickman and Dame Maggie didn't have more screen time, but the fact that Hagrid had less was fine with me. The other students had some nice moments, especially Fred and George (they've really picked it up in the last two films, and I'm so looking forward to their grand exit from Hogwarts in OotP), the Patil sisters (loved Ron's date at the ball!), and especially Neville. Giving him the heart of an Astaire was a wonderful touch!

Overall, definitely worth another viewing--3 1/2 stars, easy. (PoA got 4 stars.)

Loved the show myself as well, for the same reasons. Wished Rickman had gotten more lines; he was at the top of my list of people I felt got short-changed. I was expecting such a thing--you simply can't do everyone justice in this framework and have the whole be any good--but still.

Did everyone else get to see the trailer for "Happy Feet" on this one? Was anyone else entirely baffled by it? If the film lives up to the tone of the trailer, I'm calling Unintentional Stoner Movie of the Decade.

Wished Rickman had gotten more lines;

Question: was Gary Oldman in the movie at all and was Snape's role as a former death eater / ally of Dumbledore discussed at all ?

Frank... 1) Oldman was only in one scene and that was really all CGI, so he was never REALLY there. Quite a disappointment.

2) Harry does see, in Dumbledore's pensive, that Snape was a Death Eater, but he also sees the younger Dumbledore defend him and explain his role as a spy. If I remember correctly, that was the only reference. Snape was definitely not as menacing in this one. The scene where the boys are talking about getting dates for the Yule Ball is priceless.

There was also the scene where Harry stumbles upon Snape and the Durmunstrang headmaster are showing off their tattoos. So yeah, they establish Snape's past a bit.

Grint has finally moved past the mugging-for-the-camera stage

I thought that had been severely curtailed in PoA already. I feel kind of bad for Mr. Grint since I feel like that was Chris Columbus' doing.

"You with the rubbery face! Can you play this scene a bit more like a Burlesque comedian from the 30s?! Exactly! Perfect."

I think that's what made my mother fall in mom-love with him. She cannot get enough of Rupert. She likes constantly bewildered boys. It's why she dotes on her son so.

Saw "Harry Potter." Good. Great in parts, but too rushed overall. It needed a few more minutes to let some of the story breathe a bit. I saw it with one of my sisters who has never read the books. She didn't make the connection between Neville being upset in class over the curse with the later scene in which it was disclosed that his parents were tortured with that curse by the Death Eaters. If I hadn't read the book I would have missed that connection too. I think there needed to be a short mention between Harry and Dumbledore in which Harry realizes that he never asked Neville about his parents. The failure to make that point clear to the non-book-reading audience confuses them as to what is going on. Also, the schecule and scoring for the Tri-Wizard Tournament should have been more clearly explained.

Those may be minor quibbles. I want to see the movie again (preferably in a theater where the management understands that a packed house raises the temperature and it needs to adjust to that). Loved the humor. And the Yule Ball was nicely done. The Ron-Hemione argument was well done too. The scene in the graveyard was suitably scary. Not a show for small kids, although there were quite a few at the showing I attended.

Interrupting the Harry Potter talk to just -- *hork!* *gag!* *spit!* -- ugh...sorry...say I just watched Kingdom of Heaven.

You know how Ridley Scott used CGI to map Oliver Reed's face onto someone else when Reed died during the filming of Gladiator? I think the same thing's been done with Scott himself. The man who directed Blade Runner and Alien died, and his agent got a doppelganger to continue to make movies. He figured as long as he had a lot of crap flying around in the air everyone would believe it was really Ridley.

What a freaking train wreck. A pretty train wreck, but man. I feel ill.

Saw P&P today, and the Sarah Silverman movie Jesus Is Love last night. Not much to say (head busy with other things), but I do have one line about each of them:

My gods, Sarah is really shooting for the Lenny Bruce title, isn't she?

Sad about lack of wet Colin Firth, but decent compression of the plot into the required timeline; also, MacFadyen should TOTALLY play Heathcliff one of these days.