Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Daniel Radcliffe)

(Amazon UK link)

We decided to continue with our weekly re-watching of the Harry Potter films yesterday evening. A week earlier we saw ‘Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban’, so last night we watched ‘Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire’, which we had not seen since 2012. 

The book on which it’s based was my least favourite of the series when I first read it. However  it’s important in the sequence, and when I have re-read it, I liked it better. But it’s not for young children; Harry and friends are fourteen now, in their fourth year at Hogwarts. I find much of the book quite tense, and still really dislike the climactic scene. 

It’s also an extremely long book, so inevitably some sections had to be cut out entirely to fit the story into a two-and-a-half hour film. I understand why they cut out the early chapters with Harry at his appalling relatives’ home, although in the book it gives welcome light relief to the tension of the horrible dream Harry has at the beginning. 

The scenes at the Quidditch World Cup didn’t much interest me in the book, so I didn’t mind that they were somewhat cut short; but I was sorry that there were no house elves. One of the significant story-lines of the ‘Goblet of Fire’ book, and one of its best features, in my view, is Hermione’s passionate defence of the house elves, many of whom are enslaved by unpleasant families. But we don’t even see Dobby in the film, so his current career remains unknown to those who see the films but haven’t read the books. 

However I can see that it’s a side story. It is helpful in understanding Hermione's character butter, but it isn’t so necessary for the ongoing story. As a film in its own right, it's very well done. The main storyline involves the goblet of fire, and the tri-wizard tournament with visiting students from two other wizarding schools in Europe. Three exceptional older students and Harry have to undertake some dangerous tasks, and I found Harry’s encounter with a dragon very tense. I had to hide my eyes in places.

As the final task began, with the four tri-wizard competitors entering a maze filled with dangers, I knew I didn’t want to watch what happened, or the dark scene that follows, forming the climax of the book (and film). So I moved to another room until I could hear the closing, poignant and deeply moving scenes at the end. 

Of course this film is worth seeing as part of the series, if you don’t read the books. It’s well-made, with a rapid pace, and despite missing out so much of the book, it’s not difficult to follow the main story. The acting is superb (even if I still have a bit of cognitive dissonance when I see David Tennant as an evil supporter of Lord Voldemort). 

The graphics work brilliantly, the CGI scarily believable. But although it could stand alone, it’s not an enjoyable film, and I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone who’s easily disturbed by visual violence or rapid chase scenes. It's rated 12, rather than PG (which was the rating for the first three films) and I think that's correct. While there's no more swearing, and only the faintest hints of teenage hormones, there is much more violence and gore in this film, and many more extremely tense scenes. 

Our edition of this has a second DVD which has some interesting extras: there are games which didn't appeal to us, but also some deleted scenes, and some extensive interviews with the three main characters.

Review copyright 2023 Sue's DVD Reviews

Hampstead (Diane Keaton)

(Amazon UK link)

Every so often I browse my recommendations on Amazon, and come across films I have never heard of. That happened earlier in the year when it suggested I might like ‘Hampstead’. Diane Keaton stars, and I have liked some of her other films. The reviews were mostly positive, so I put it on my wishlist and was given it for my recent birthday.

There seems to have been quite a spate of films about middle-aged or elderly people in recent years. Or perhaps it’s just that I’m seeing them because I have liked or bought others. On the whole we like them, as we’re in that stage of life, and this was quite a positive one on the whole.

Keaton stars as the recently-widowed Emily who lives in a pleasant block of flats in Hampstead in the UK. She’s a bit of a misfit; the only American, in the area, although she has evidently lived there for many years. The other upper-middle class very British women in the building try to involve her in their community meetings and campaigns, but she’s not really all that interested. Nor does she want them to introduce her to suitable gentlemen friends…

Wandering around the neighbourhood she comes across a shack where it’s rumoured an old tramp lives. And indeed, when we first meet Donald (Brendon Gleeson) he’s just received a letter from the council, asking him to leave. He has a flourishing garden and isn’t doing anything wrong… but he looks like a down-and-out.

So the main part of the story is about these two misfits meeting, irritating each other, becoming unlikely friends, and learning surprising things about each other. It’s also about a battle to save Donald’s home, one which catches the imagination of the local people and gets quite out of hand. At a deeper level it’s about pride, and independence, and the importance of accepting help sometimes. It’s also about being free to be oneself, to flout conventions, to move beyond the strict confines of society’s expectations.

Diane Keaton’s role is not very different from other parts I’ve seen her in, but she does it very well and her personality fits that of Emily ideally. I didn’t remember seeing Brendon Gleeson anywhere else; he is wonderful in his role, and there’s quite an onscreen chemistry between the two. Other characters are somewhat caricatured in their enthusiastic snobbery or downright unpleasantness, but that allows for some comic moments; the pace is excellent, I thought, and the whole well scripted and beautifully made.

Sometimes I didn’t catch all the conversation. It wasn’t that Keaton’s accent is hard to understand but there was quite a lot of muttering. Perhaps that was intended, so as to give the impression of conversation rather than any important dialogue. I don’t think I missed anything.

The rating is 12, which we thought about right. There’s a fair amount of bad language, although I don’t recall anything else that would make it unsuitable for children; there's a love story but it involves implications rather than anything explicit. However it’s unlikely to be of much interest to anyone below the age of about thirty. Overall we enjoyed it very much.

Apparently this film is based on a true story, but we decided not to watch the extras so don’t know any details.

Review copyright 2018 Sue's DVD Reviews