Movie Review	Harry the Fourth: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by George Sax

Daniel Radcliffe and Emily Watson in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Remember the old merchandizing line, “You’ve seen the movie, now read the book”? Well, in the matter of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, this advice may be particularly appropriate. Referring to J.K. Rowling’s young people’s novel, the fourth of six “Potter” books already published, may be necessary to clear up some of what you can encounter in the new movie made from it.

It’s not that the film by veteran British director Mike Newell (Four Weddings and a Funeral) is mystifyingly opaque: its general thrust is comprehensible enough. The problem is in certain details, or their absence. The movie moves along smartly, with well-spaced amusements and excitements, as well as some fearsome events, but little trip wires of confusion are placed at several crucial junctures, and for those of us who aren’t among Rowling’s vast audience of readers, this can be a little frustrating.

For example, there’s the unexplained demise of a key character about half-way through. Even the rather tumultuously foreboding early scenes have a slightly abrupt feel, as if some backstory is missing. There are at least a couple of threads that aren’t bound up in the movie’s resolution, or even addressed.

At least part of the explanation lies in the almost forty minutes removed from the three and one-quarter hour first cut. Rowling’s novels in this series have been getting longer, but the movies can’t really follow suit. Three-hour movie lengths usually have adverse business impacts.

Goblet of Fire has a PG-13 rating, which has occasioned some surprise and comment. It’s probably apt, given the increase in violence and the threatening atmosphere in this one. The movie is not without its friendly wit and humor, but it’s also grimmer and even a little brutal, courtesy of Rowling, I suppose.

Newell and scenarist Steve Kloves (who wrote the first two Potter films) may have had trouble with the novel’s bulk, but they’ve managed to sustain an appealing tone despite the sometimes more serious material. This Potter is a lot more like a typical teen flick, not least because the three main characters are now bona fide teens, with the expectable challenges and outlooks of their station.

Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and his schoolmates Ron and Hermione (Rupert Grint and Emily Watson, respectively) have to confront inner disquiet and navigate through changing interpersonal shoals at good old Hogwarts School.

Harry has even more pressing problems. He’s been mysteriously and unwillingly entered in the Triwizard Tournament, a daunting competition among three schools. The contest itself seems a little oddly conceived. As the school head, Professor Dumbdledore (Michael Gambon), explains, this is a mortally dangerous tourney, so dangerous, indeed, that it seems a little out of place in this fantasy series. I wondered how exposing the youngsters to potentially destructive peril fits in with the entertainment and the moral subtexts in the stories.

One thing the movie establishes is Radcliffe’s dramatic abilities. This time, the role requires him to maneuver across a wider range of emotional responses, and he does so impressively. And Grint is an even more charming and skillfully ingratiating performer. Watson isn’t half-bad, either, but her rushed Brit enunciation may skirt American understanding here and there.

Gambon has more to do this time, and he does it with his usual aplomb. There is the by-now customary complement of distinguished English actors doing their bits, most prominently Ron Moody as a disheveled, cranky dark-arts instructor, and Robbie Coltrane, back as Hagrid.

There are two questions regarding the movie’s prospects. Is it an adequate stand-alone work, given its incomplete correspondence to its source? And will this matter to the great mass of Rowling’s international enthusiasts? (I think it could do a tad less well than its three predecessors.)

One thing more. I don’t care what anyone says; that goblet looked a lot more like an urn to me.