A really big literature battle has been raging since 2005 about which book series is better: “Harry Potter” or “Twilight.” I, personally, tried to read the first “Twilight” book, but couldn't get past the first paragraph. No matter how much “Twilight” is “Eclipsing” (get it?) “Harry Potter” in popularity (at least book-wise) at the present time, “Harry Potter” will always be the winner in the long run for me. But “Twilight” fans of the books or movies (or just movies, which is unlikely) who are watching the “Harry Potter” movies with me were probably delighted to see Robert “Edward Cullen” Pattinson have a key role in how the events of the movie come out. Personally, I think he's a very gifted actor, but he's not given much to do in the “Twilight” films (his most famous role) beyond looking like a gigantic sulk-a-lot (in other words, look sulky). But in “Goblet of Fire,” Pattinson is allowed to play to his strengths quite a bit more, because of the fact that he not only looks the part of Cedric, but he also is allowed to present several emotions more. As an added bonus, it's a relief to not hear his annoying American accent and allow him to speak in his own home accent. There was a scene during the course of the Yule Ball segment where “Rob-Patt” shows more chemistry with the actress who played poor little Cho than he has, as far as I can tell from the parts I've seen from the “Twilight” movies with “K-Stew” (they didn't start dating till after the first movie, and that was the only one I've seen, so I may not be the best person to say that, but… ya know). Many of you watching this movie for the first time were surprised that Cedric died just before we'd gotten to really know him. You can't say I didn't warn you in my introduction, though. I DID tell you that there would be casualties. Plus, Cedric is only the first extremely stirring death of a major AND sympathetic character in the series. There will be at least one for remainder of the series in each film. Like I said, if you want to write about evil, you can't dress him up in a pantomime villain and say, “Well, isn't that scary?!” when it's not.
Like I said in the last post, Alfonzo Cáurón did not return to his post as director of “Goblet of Fire” due to it being in simultaneous production of “Prisoner of Azkeban,” so the first British director of the films, Mike Newell, took his place. Several people have criticized Newell for placing too much emphasis on the action sequences and too little emphasis on the personal stories and character development. While I can see while people would think so, but it has also been praised by many critics and fans for veering into more complex territory than the previous three films and for introducing the raging hormones and the whole “boys-and-girls-noticing-each-other-differntly” thing that comes with the entering into adolescence and that many of us can relate to, no matter how chastely it's handled. The experiments for new material not from the books don't work AS well as they did in “Prisoner of Azkeban,” but overall, this almost lives up to the standard set by “Prisoner of Azkeban.” Personally, I think that they could have gotten some more exposition of explanation of certain events if they had expanded its running time from two-and-a-half hours to three, maybe even three hours and twenty minutes like “Return of the King.” The next movie will be even darker than this one, as Harry's beginning his transition into manhood, so please prepare yourself for that.
No comments:
Post a Comment