On Friday night, I went out and saw Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. As expected, the theater was packed, but with not as many kids as I expected. It seemed to be mostly adults and teenagers. I was pleasantly surprised by this. I don't have anything against kids, it's just that when there is a large number of them in the theater, they tend to make a lot of noise and interrupt the enjoyment of the movie. After seeing that movie, though, I'm glad the kids weren't there. It was a very dark and scary movie. If you have young kids, do NOT take them to see this movie. It will scare them!
The movie was a lot darker than I expected. Goblet of Fire was the first really dark story in the series, but I didn't expect the movie to be this dark! It starts off at night in a spooky graveyard that was dark, full of fog and even some scary looking tombstone decorations. This would surely scare the kids. The movie then takes off from there. This movie sure doesn't waste any time getting to the action! Almost from start to end, this movie was constant action and a lot of special effects. There were a lot more special effects than I expected in this movie. It was a very entertaining movie. I thought this movie did a much better job of capturing the story than the last one (Prisoner of Azkahban) did. The previous movie was the longest story up until that time and yet it was the shortest movie! Explain this! How can you tell a longer story in a shorter movie? The previous movie felt badly 'chopped up'. The story jumped around alot and you generally got the feeling, especially if you'd read the book, that a lot of was missing from the story. This movie was different. It was 2 1/2 hours long. While a lot of subplots were left out of this movie, it did a MUCH better job of capturing the story, and doing it in such a way that the movie didn't feel like it was missing anything. This movie had a different director than the previous one. Keep this director! Make him do the next several movies! It's always been a pet peeve of mine when a movie is short. If a movie is less than 2 hours, especially if it's based on a LONG book, then the movie is no good, in my opinion. Why? Because there is no way you can properly condense a 700 page book down into a movie in under 2 hours. You end up having to chop out so much to fit it in the time alotted that the movie just doesn't compare to the book. That's why I was very pleased by this movie and by the Lord of the Rings movies. They were long enough (2 1/2 hours for this movie, over 3 hours for each of the Lord of the Rings movies) to properly tell the story. I've always felt that considering how it costs $8.75 to see a movie these days, anything less than 2 hours worth and you aren't getting your money's worth. I feel ripped off I have to pay that kind of money for a movie that's only 90 minutes or less. This movie was the first movie in a long time that I actually paid full price for. I usually don't like paying $8.75 for a movie because most movies aren't worth it. I knew going into this movie that it was a 2 1/2 hour movie, so it fit my 'over 2 hour rule' so I decided that it might be worth the money. It was!
In short, go see this movie, but don't bring the young kids!