Harry Potter 4 (the dissent)

(note, you can read Pat's review of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire here. If you have another opinion, let us know.)

by Shay Weiner

I realize I am in a very non-vocal minority, but I was most definitely disappointed with HP #4. To me, HP #3 got it right, and it's a tough act to follow.
The reason behind it's shortcomings? Well, I point to the director.

First of all let it be said I am anti-special effects in general. However, the sheer creepiness of the dementors and the excellent Hippogryph from #3 totally won me over because they were so damn well executed. Sure the dragon was good here, and the effects weren't bad but without the elegant story-telling to back them up it felt too flashy without heart.

#4 fell flat. I mean I can only recall being really scared maaaybe once, and a scene which should have been utter sit-on-the-edge-of-your-seat terrifying (encounter with Voldemort) was boring! boring! That's blasphemous to mess that up. But honestly, it was so un-scary. To me it's because a) Ralph Fiennes didn't look *nearly* as creepy as he should and b) there was not the same level of attention to detail/cinematography that Cuaron had in #3. Frankly I felt that was missing all through the film.

I also particularly disliked Dumbledore's performance in this film, and I feel that that was Newell letting it get out of hand, since Cuaron seemed to have managed to keep Gambon more under control. Newell let Dumbledore be portrayed as far too reactionary whereas the heart of the character of Dumbledore is that he is always mr. cool under pressure. We can count on him as the rock of stability, not some post wizard-hippie generation "cool" teacher that he was in this film.

As for Harry, well I'm with you that he is perhaps the least interesting character, but I also will refrain from getting into that now.

All in all, #4 was fine, it was serviceable, but my heart's still with #3.