;or, Shannon Decides to Finally Start Writing Film Reviews

An old friend of mine once observed that the titles of the Harry Potter books, and hence the films as well, sound vaguely like rather baroque gay porn movies. The Chamber of Secrets. The Prisoner of Azkaban. The Order of the Phoenix. Yeah, I know. It’s a stretch, right? But it’s in your head now, isn’t it? You can’t escape it! I know I can’t.

So now we have the movie version of the book with (what seems to me) the most vaguely homoerotic title of all: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Why is this so suggestive? I have no idea. It just sounds naughty. Vaguely. That said, despite the flaming title, the new installment of the Harry Potter franchise is very overtly heterosexual.

The titular goblet is not a euphemism, but literal, and it really takes a back seat to the angst-filled romantic yearnings of the teen characters. Harry Potter has the hots for an Asian-Scottish girl. A couple of Arabic girls have the hots for Harry. HermioOhScrewItI’mNotSpellingHerGodDamnName has the hots for an older, beefy broom hockey-player from “The North.” Harry’s buddy Ron has the hots for a visiting French witch (and who can blame him, really?). Oh yeah, and Hagrid the giant is all ga-ga eyed over the 10-foot-tall French headmistress.

If this is starting to sound like an episode of 90210, I understand. But don’t worry: it doesn’t play like that. The movie actually captures quite nicely, and humorously, the anxieties of those first steps into romantic relationships. The fact that all this is going on during a wizard tournament involving fire-breathing dragons, hideous mermaids and a hedge maze that eats people, only adds to the humor.

The effects are great, the supporting cast is excellent (especially Brendan Gleeson as “Mad Eye” Moody), and it is, as has been hyped, somewhat darker than the preceding films. While its visual style is not as entertainingly gothic as the previous picture, and it has nothing that compares to the creepiness of the Reaper-looking things in that film, death becomes an issue for the first time. This is not strictly a children’s franchise any more. It doesn’t gloss over the harm that may come to the heroes, and the ending rather reminds me of that of The Empire Strikes Back. Potter generally comes out on top, but not without losses, and it is clearly a turning point in the series. Imagine Empire without the “I am your father,” but retaining Han Solo being taken prisoner. That’s not a strict correlation, but it gives you an idea of the tone.

Why this movie was rated PG-13, I’m not exactly sure. Perhaps it’s a gambit to keep a rapidly maturing audience interested, because there’s nothing in particular that stands out as meriting the rating. There were a few shots of a nasty looking cut on Potter’s arm, but I suspect they were included just to get the rating. There are some somewhat sexual lines, but they’re not anything that someone under 13 would catch. There’s no cursing to speak of, unless you’re British, in which case all the “bloody ‘ells” will have you blushing. Like I said, the PG-13 is just to keep the darn kids interested. “If Lucas could do it, why not us?”

Final verdict? If you’re a fan of the books, go see it now. I’m sure you’ll have a good time, unless you’re one of those annoying dweebs who get their panties in a bunch because the filmmakers left out some inconsequential subplot in order to whittle the 700+ page book into a two-hour movie. Yes, I heard people bitching when I left the theater. Get a life: they’re different mediums. If you’re not a fan of the books, but you’re interested in effects work, like I am, the movie is still worth a look on the big screen. The scene with the dragon is worth it, if nothing else. I don’t think the dragon ripping up shingles as he crawls across the roof of a tower would play quite as impressive on the small screen.

Otherwise, wait for video. It’s a fun flick, but nothing to write home about. The series does seem to be getting better as it goes along (especially since Chris Columbus is no longer at the helm), so I have high hopes for future installments.

6 Responses to “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”

  1. Jon S. Says:

    Couldn’t agree with you more, Shannon. As an unabashed fan of all things Potter, I thought the movie was quite enjoyable. But I don’t know if it’s for everybody. As you mentioned, the writers and director had the challenge of whittling down a massive book into a movie that a six year old could sit through. And what is left is, by and large, a bare bones interpretation of the original work. This is not a criticism, but instead a complement. There may be less nuance in the film, but like you said, they are different mediums, and the end result is a film that is fun, enjoyable and true to the original spirit of the story.

  2. The Retropolitan Says:

    Now that you mention it, the word “goblet” sounds vaguely dirty. Goblet. Goblet. Goblet.

  3. The Retropolitan Says:

    Man, you’re going to block a lot of comments from stupid people with that “When did the US declare independence” question.

  4. Shannon Says:

    I know. Two birds with one stone, right?

  5. Robin Says:

    Damn it. I just left a comment about it.

  6. Shannon Says:

    Actually, I just realized… The Independence Day question may inadvertently filter our people from other countries…. Not EVERYONE on Earth knows when the US declared independence…. I wonder if I should change it?

Leave a Reply

google

couk