"Potter" is Enjoyable, and Not Just for Buffs
To the Editor:
Liz Ellison's review of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire could have been wrapped up in two far less annoying and un-witty sentences: This movie won't make sense if you haven't read the book, or even seen the previous movies (although this would seem common sense) ("The Potter-Illiterate Should Avoid Goblet Like the Plague," Nov. 21). So if you haven't read Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, you shouldn't go see it.
Clearly, the Harry Potter movies are not made for people who are uninterested enough in the franchise to have not read the books -- these people are not where the money lies. Secondly, the movie versions have a lot to contend with: 734 pages, as Ellison pointed out. Keeping that in mind, here is a better review.
GoF was actually pretty good. It kept to the book remarkably well, compared to the last three movies although, in the interests of not having a 13-hour-long film, all subplots were understandably dropped. Unfortunately, Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson remain unable to act themselves out of a wet paper bag, but performances by the rest of the cast were fairly good (arguable: Ron and Dumbledore). Ralph Fiennes, especially, exceeded expectations as a graceful and wonderfully nefarious Voldemort. Visually, the movie was quite fantastic and actually fun to watch. There are a few unnecessary changes to the plot, but I'll leave you to find and be annoyed by those yourself.