sign in
register
Watch
Microsoft Store Amazon Video Vudu
+10
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Microsoft Store Amazon Video Vudu
+10
JustWatch
Remove ads

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

2005
Suspense/Thriller
Fantasy
2h 37m
Harry finds himself selected as an underaged competitor in a dangerous multi-wizardary school competition. (imdb)
Directed by:
Mike Newell Mike Newell
Written by:
Steve Kloves Steve Kloves J.K. Rowling J.K. Rowling
+1 more
Starring:
Gary Oldman Gary Oldman Ralph Fiennes Ralph Fiennes Michael Gambon Michael Gambon Alan Rickman Alan Rickman David Tennant David Tennant Brendan Gleeson Brendan Gleeson Maggie Smith Maggie Smith Jason Isaacs Jason Isaacs Daniel Radcliffe Daniel Radcliffe Emma Watson Emma Watson Rupert Grint Rupert Grint Robert Pattinson Robert Pattinson
More
Franchise:
Harry Potter
Genres:
Suspense/Thriller, Fantasy, Adventure, Mystery
Countries:
UK, USA
Languages:
English, French, Latin
imdb More information at IMDb
See title update history
Suggest an edit
Show Less
Your probable score
?

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

2005
Suspense/Thriller
Fantasy
2h 37m
Your probable score
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer
Avg Percentile 50.18% from 14083 total ratings
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

(14083)
Compact view
clear
Compact view
Show
Sort
alex_watkinsAlex Watkins
Rated 16 Jul 2007
3
38th
Rushed and sloppy; though the movie is as confident in its choices as Prisoner of Azkaban was, it's not to the same effect, because the choices are nowhere near as good. It seems fucking campy. The book is either my favorite or second-favorite in the series, and this doesn't quite hold up to it. Still, I enjoy it.
Rated 16 Jul 2007
billyshearsBillyShears
Rated 12 May 2012
75
65th
The guy replacing Dumbledore after the first two movies is such a different character. He'd spit in your mouth and call it a spell.
Rated 12 May 2012
beedubBeeDub
Rated 14 Jul 2015
85
63rd
Skims over too much narrative ground to really be effective (this book, not the seventh, should have been two movies), but still reasonably entertaining.
Rated 14 Jul 2015
kasperlKasperL
Rated 13 Jul 2011
60
50th
AKA "The One Where Nothing Happens So We'll Just Invent A Completely Unnecessary Dispute Between Harry And Ron And Throw A Ball And A Tournament".
Rated 13 Jul 2011
lucluc
Rated 09 Nov 2008
65
43rd
It's a family-movie but for me not so intresting. It's not my type of family-movie that I want to see. It's now the fourth movie and it's always the same : the same school, witches etc. I hope they will not make 10 movies like that !
Rated 09 Nov 2008
jebJeb
Rated 20 Dec 2009
67
49th
This is kind of a middle film based on likeability. It is worse than Azkaban, but greater than the first two. The noticeable production flaws and terrible character developments from the first two have remerged, but the dark and broody yet bewitching feeling of the third has been retained. Difficult to rate.
Rated 20 Dec 2009
misterlizardmisterlizard
Rated 31 Jul 2011
40
43rd
Making your kids' movie into something 'darker' should involve more than turning down the brightness in post-production.
Rated 31 Jul 2011
hellboy76hellboy76
Rated 20 Sep 2010
68
65th
More Potter, the highlight of this one is Gleeson. Newell was a mistake after Cuaron.
Rated 20 Sep 2010
evranaevrana
Rated 18 Aug 2012
51
15th
I caught it on TV. Harry Potter makes me feel old, as I can never understand what is all the fuss about it. For me, everything in it screams 'mediocre' and it is basically a mish-mash of all fantasy ideas with half-cooked social commentary. I can't even find one likable character in it. Most probably, I will watch all of the series over the next 20 years and will never be able to make sense of it. Maybe production quality gets better or something....
Rated 18 Aug 2012
grahamjGrahamJ
Rated 05 Jun 2010
67
21st
Decent. Inferior to Azkaban. Lacks that film's visual flair. Often feels disjointed; plot points are introduced suddenly or are dropped abruptly. Feels like a highlights reel of a much better and less fragmented movie. Needs longer running time, and a better use of it.
Rated 05 Jun 2010
lachapellelachapelle
Rated 14 Aug 2007
68
29th
This film is just all right, and honestly, a bit of a disappointment after the first three. The CGI is superb, but it does not make up for very large plot holes. Hopefully the fifth movie will capture the spirit better.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
overratedoverrated
Rated 19 Jan 2010
28
19th
Harry Potter is really not my thing and this is the only film I've seen, dragged into it by a group of friends with nothing better to do. At the risk of this becoming a critique of the series in general, I don't get the appeal of a blank slate protagonist thrown into the worst aspects of high-school drama and cheesy CGI-heavy fantasy. Like that test where HP has to save his friends from the lake... you're saying teachers kidnapped them and left them to die in order to raise the stakes?
Rated 19 Jan 2010
uniquenameUniqueName
Rated 15 Jan 2009
70
34th
Harry's losing it, the charm and mystery solving adventure of the first two is nearly entirely lost. And this is nowhere near the dark brooding nature of Azkaban.
Rated 15 Jan 2009
mwgerbmwgerb
Rated 14 Nov 2010
32
17th
The notably dark visual style, decent performances, and some entertaining scenes don't make up for the absolute shambles they made of the plot. Adapting a novel, even a lengthy one, is not an excuse for such a terrible, rushed exposition. Neither is cutting away from major scenes for budgetary concerns, and rushing on to the next plot point that has to be referenced.
Rated 14 Nov 2010
martintellerMartinTeller
Rated 27 Jan 2007
68
32nd
Not as distinctive (or as fun) as Azkaban, it still does a damn good job. It's a bit rushed, even with all the superfluous bits from the book cut out. There's so much ground to cover that important plot threads like Harry's increasing unpopularity arise and get resolved in the space of a few minutes. This is also a rather dark and gloomy entry in the series, and earns its PG-13 rating. Even the ending is very subdued, lacking the triumphant oomph of the previous films.
Rated 27 Jan 2007
mr_filmMr. Film
Rated 25 Jul 2010
89
70th
Second best HP after Prisoner. These both films show the matureness the latter films had, but without sacrificign the heart the early films had. All in all, these two succeed in both at being mature and having a heart
Rated 25 Jul 2010
harmonicaHarmonica
Rated 13 Feb 2019
72
40th
From a storytelling perspective the strongest or at least most involved film of the series upto this point. The plotting is engaging, even if the central premise of the inter-school wizarding tourney just seems overly grisly. Though a little light on laughs, and gloomy throughout, it has real dramatic clout. For the first time, the teachers are no longer able to wholly protect the students in the face of true peril (though you might think the PTA would step in at some point..).
Rated 13 Feb 2019
ihatemoviesIHateMovies
Rated 18 May 2008
75
35th
At points this movie is laughably awful, but I love me some HP.
Rated 18 May 2008
mini_tMini-T
Rated 09 Nov 2008
82
32nd
For the moment only have seen the first one , and this one. Expected more of the 3 'great challenges' , and Fleur and Kruml. Alsow tought hole the film would be more darker ( from what I have heard ). Liked the Potter vs Voldemort confrontation , and that's why I want to see the rest. For Voldemort. I can understand why many people love it , but I think it's just alright and fun to look at.
Rated 09 Nov 2008
purgatospurgatos
Rated 14 Oct 2012
65
40th
This one had a ghost trying to check out Harry Potter's wiener.
Rated 14 Oct 2012
corbadCorbad
Rated 03 Apr 2015
70
53rd
Misses a great deal of material, but tells what it can in a movie's time frame through occasionally lovely cinematography, solid art direction, and acting that is a little unbalanced (I'm looking at you, Hermione).
Rated 03 Apr 2015
ndkchkNdkchk
Rated 14 Aug 2007
74
55th
Best one yet.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
fake_shempFake Shemp
Rated 01 Dec 2008
5
3rd
Sister makes me take her to see the Harry Potters... bleugh!
Rated 01 Dec 2008
vengefulkbmVengefulKBM
Rated 09 Feb 2015
35
11th
Pretty ineptly put together, the clear worst of the Harry Potter movie franchise. I try to set aside my fandom for the books, but what they did to the plot here is pretty much just a mess. Spending half an hour at a school dance and going on a long tangent with a dragon chase scene, only to skip over practically all of the interesting parts for noticeably rushed exposition, is not my idea of a good adaptation of any novel. The entry of Big Bad Voldemort into the series is pretty good, though.
Rated 09 Feb 2015
naurunauru
Rated 07 Aug 2011
42
37th
The plot doesn't really make sense, nor do the motivations of the characters, but at least Brendan Gleeson is on hand to elevate the scenes he's in. Glad to see a sliver of darkness toward the end, though it isn't nearly enough for the viewer to feel fairly compensated for the self-indulgent runtime.
Rated 07 Aug 2011
elahnElahn
Rated 11 Sep 2010
50
20th
An enjoyable time waster. Worth watching, if it's on.
Rated 11 Sep 2010
willofgaiawillofgaia
Rated 14 Aug 2007
70
22nd
A disappointment after Prisoner of Azkaban.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
triffidtriffid
Rated 14 Aug 2007
83
61st
Not as good as the Prisoner, but still a surprisingly good HP adaptation. The beginning must be confusing for people who didn't read the book, but the ending is just perfect, with Fiennes as an incredible Voldemort. I have to admit I was truly frigthened in the cinema, which hasn't happened to me for a very long time.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
rihreyrihrey
Rated 19 Apr 2020
64
85th
how come absolutely everyone's straight at Hogwarts, it makes no fucking sense.
Rated 19 Apr 2020
adoubleadouble
Rated 22 Sep 2012
68
40th
Not awful, but kind of sloppy and disjointed. Ideas from the book are introduced and then either disappear after 5 minutes or are never followed up on. Gleeson is fun as always, and Ralph Fiennes' first scene as Voldemort is one of my favorite of the series. Not as good is the tottally pointless Ron/Harry arguing, the pretty dull action scenes, and the Quidditch World Cup that you get to see for like 30 seconds.
Rated 22 Sep 2012
judsonladyjudsonlady
Rated 21 Oct 2012
60
46th
Kind of a let down after Prisoner of Azkaban. Story line didn't seem to flow as well as 2&3. Guess it's your normal middle child of the series syndrome striking again.
Rated 21 Oct 2012
lightcatlightcat
Rated 14 Aug 2007
75
0th
Conventional wisdom has it that this, the fourth installement in the lucrative Harry Potter series, is also the best. I beg to differ. It's dark, scary, and even features Daniel Radcliffe in a soapsud-filled bathtub, but the whole never does add up to more than the sum of its parts. To see true justice done to Harry Potter, watch Alfonso Cuarón's "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban": sheer magic, made with an obvious relish for the proceedings at hand.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
magbMagb
Rated 07 Aug 2008
70
39th
This is a decent film, but it has a rather rushed feel to it. I imagine that some parts must be fairly confusing to people who haven't read the book. I don't think I've read the book since it was published, and I found myself puzzled by certain parts. There are also too many scenes that felt like they should've been there but that were obviously taken out/never filmed for time reasons -- the quidditch world cup match comes to mind.
Rated 07 Aug 2008
ytadelYtadel
Rated 14 Aug 2007
7
84th
A fun fantasy flick. The kid actors are noticeably improved; Rupert Grint in particular comes into his own with a surprising comic flair as Ron and won a lot of laughs from me. The major set pieces like the Yule Ball and the resurrection of Voldemort capture the feel of the book, although the movie also emulates the book's extremely scattershot storyline. Nonetheless, it's an entertaining Potter.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
vince_leoVince Leo
Rated 14 Aug 2007
60
36th
While the baggage and confusing mythos are beginning to necessitate reading the books to truly understand just what is going on during any given scene, I'm not going to succumb to the impulse. My rationale is as it always has been with book adaptations: if you have to read the book in order to understand a movie, then it isn't really that good of an adaptation then, is it?
Rated 14 Aug 2007
okkervilOkkervil
Rated 01 Aug 2009
50
38th
As with most all the Potter films, this is a perfectly okay watch, and it does nothing exceptional.
Rated 01 Aug 2009
hsncrspywlhsncrspywl
Rated 06 Aug 2013
58
25th
This film suffers from a very oppressive & bleak tone - it looks so grey and bland! While the climax of the film is very dark (and featuring Ralph Fiennes chewing a lot of scenery) the rest of the film kind of suffers from this shift in tone - while the plot becomes near incomprehensible at points, often needing resolved with the return of endless expository dialogue. The cast are great, especially the young leads, although I found their hairstyles irritating.
Rated 06 Aug 2013
angrypierreangrypierre
Rated 23 Jan 2011
71
52nd
These films are getting darker, which is good, and longer, which isn't so good. I continue to hope that Ron and Hermionie will be less whiny in the next one. I think I will probably be disappointed.
Rated 23 Jan 2011
janusjanus
Rated 15 Dec 2008
55
24th
An unenthusiastic followup to Cuaron's artful Prisoner of Azkaban. It feels rushed, cutting most of the book's amusing tangents (to be fair, the novel is over 700 pages), and the result is a film that moves quickly but gives the audience no time to savor any of the detail of Rowling's world. The three leads seem tired of their roles, and I don't blame them.
Rated 15 Dec 2008
ddrudgesd_drudges
Rated 08 Apr 2013
20
17th
Tries to be an exact reproduction of the book and unsurprisingly fails. There is no effort to adapt the story to explain the stuff that was cut due to time constraints, resulting in an incoherent mess. I actually had to have many of the key points explained to me by a fan. Apart from the very end, the movie didn't advance the main story at all. Skip it.
Rated 08 Apr 2013
myfavchordsmyfavchords
Rated 16 Feb 2012
76
56th
This is not the best in the series but it is still a good movie. The three leads do a great job in this one. If you are a Harry Potter fan then obviously check this one out.
Rated 16 Feb 2012
zioZio
Rated 12 Jun 2012
50
33rd
The tipping point for the series. It had its moments, and some very nice imagery, but this is where the angst of the series builds up and starts taking itself far too seriously. Goblet of Fire is not a bad movie as it still is fun to watch and maybe the best of the later Potter films, but it is a point of no return from the wonderment from the that the first three films had.
Rated 12 Jun 2012
basasdurabasasdura
Rated 15 Feb 2013
65
47th
These fucking haircuts, man, this is like the ugly hair year in the wizard world.
Rated 15 Feb 2013
obdurateObdurate
Rated 06 Mar 2023
80
67th
I'll give this an 80 because it ends strongly, once Voldemort shows up. It was a 75 before that because it is better than the first, on par with the second. Gleeson and Pattinson are great additions, especially Gleeson since he was given a lot to work with. There are flaws, somebody pointed out pointless Harry/Ron arguing, which is true. The directing is not as good as Prisoner, but the acting as a whole may be the strongest it's been up to this point.
Rated 06 Mar 2023
sirvasilSirVasil
Rated 24 Nov 2006
45
29th
I thought a blockbuster like this would receive better treatment. Instead, it is the cheapest looking HP movie so far.
Rated 24 Nov 2006
jarim23Jarim23
Rated 05 Dec 2006
85
62nd
Best HP movie so far.
Rated 05 Dec 2006
ofallpiecesofallpieces
Rated 01 Jun 2008
73
34th
Pretty good.
Rated 01 Jun 2008
murravenerMurravener
Rated 24 Feb 2007
75
40th
Better than the first two, however not up to par with its predecessor in Azkaban. Azkaban allowed teh characters to grow up and allowed for its entire plot to reveal itself. Goblet felt too condensed and reaimed for preteens.
Rated 24 Feb 2007
thedicemanTheDiceman
Rated 26 Feb 2007
60
62nd
Good film.
Rated 26 Feb 2007
gnalkhereGnalkhere
Rated 25 Oct 2015
60
24th
Continues the way for a currently immortalized legacy that's finally getting undusted for the flawed franchise that it is, and with the buildup to meeting Voldemort ending here it actually pays off
Rated 25 Oct 2015
alon_reterAlon Reter
Rated 13 Nov 2011
4
2nd
The worst of them.
Rated 13 Nov 2011
pro_lickPro-Lick
Rated 24 Apr 2007
30
14th
Back to the crap of the first 2.
Rated 24 Apr 2007
kain424Kain424
Rated 18 May 2007
25
7th
Pretty sad adaptation.
Rated 18 May 2007
boxcarsBoxcars
Rated 12 May 2015
6
32nd
While the narrative starts to really pick up traction with "Goblet of Fire", this film truly marks the arrival of a new set of problems that will plague the "Harry Potter" series.
Rated 12 May 2015
punqPUNQ
Rated 02 Jan 2021
70
96th
Too many one-off characters for my liking, but I had forgotten Robert Pattinson had a prominent role in a Harry Potter movie, so that was a nice surprise. The fairytale aspect managed to carry the experience to be magically thrilling, but this 4th one was probable the weakest at this point.
Rated 02 Jan 2021
thatyoungmthatyoungm
Rated 18 Nov 2023
88
59th
I actually really like the darker tone this film sets, as this is the first real turning point in the franchise where the stakes are raised and the film tackles more mature subject matter. I think there are still some really inventive sequences here and the first taste of what a Harry vs Voldemort spell battle would look like. Serves as a bridge for the back half of the series, but still well done.
Rated 18 Nov 2023
carnageacecarnageace
Rated 11 Apr 2009
65
22nd
One of the better HP films, but nowhere near as good as Prisoner of Azkaban
Rated 11 Apr 2009
matthias99Matthias99
Rated 12 Jul 2007
93
85th
Well-done, with great special effects. The fight against the dragon is phenomenal.
Rated 12 Jul 2007
teddedonTedDedon
Rated 14 Jul 2007
56
24th
No good
Rated 14 Jul 2007
muutanetmuutanet
Rated 07 Apr 2010
55
44th
This episode was less successful than the others I've seen. I liked the noseless syphilis infected Ralph Fiennes in the end of the film though.
Rated 07 Apr 2010
stamannas.tamanna
Rated 09 Apr 2009
70
14th
Love it...
Rated 09 Apr 2009
tracykraustracykraus
Rated 14 Aug 2007
5
8th
I didn't like it. I thought it was too dark for kids.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
mdruskinmdruskin
Rated 14 Aug 2007
75
47th
Just like the first 3.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
hiromiyamotohiromiyamoto
Rated 21 Sep 2016
81
34th
Mike Newell once mentioned that there were plans to split this film in two. Considering that the book is overlong but fun at best and an incoherent mess at worst, I'm glad that Newell exercised pragmatism in adapting this, but there is one plotline in particular (S.P.E.W.) that I wish hadn't been cut, as it's very important to Hermione's character. It would have been nice to see a Lord of the Rings-style extended edition, but overall, I'm still happy with the final result.
Rated 21 Sep 2016
dmbbearcatdmbbearcat
Rated 06 Jun 2011
79
56th
This was my favorite book of the series and the film didn't even come close to doing it justice. It wasn't bad, but it was not even close to being on the same level as the novel.
Rated 06 Jun 2011
oldgoatoldgoat
Rated 19 Jul 2009
83
88th
Probably the best potter movie in itself.
Rated 19 Jul 2009
juicesticejuicestice
Rated 18 Dec 2008
70
21st
Decent acting, decent story, good special effects, but I just can't suspend my disbelief for these movies, couldn't tell you why.
Rated 18 Dec 2008
silentmateosilentmateo
Rated 14 Aug 2007
91
96th
The series contunues to thrive
Rated 14 Aug 2007
tallmantallman
Rated 14 Aug 2007
60
42nd
Azkaban and Sorcerer's Stone were better, but this is very watchable.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
twillistwillis
Rated 19 Jan 2020
45
8th
A truly underwhelming movie. The most intricate book of the series is reduced to a random series of events, an uninspired video game on the big screen that hurries along to an underwhelming conclusion contrasted with its massive in-story significance. Worst HP movie.
Rated 19 Jan 2020
ranaldRanald
Rated 12 Apr 2012
60
34th
A reasonably entertaining story, even if the student-endangering propensities of Hogwarts are now approaching Battle Royale levels of ludicrousness. Robert Pattinson is an uncharismatic lump where the story's heart was supposed to be, unfortunately.
Rated 12 Apr 2012
ltmovieltmovie
Rated 11 Oct 2009
90
38th
very well doe. Good in series of HP
Rated 11 Oct 2009
ggolfman38Ggolfman38
Rated 14 Aug 2007
60
0th
It was a good movie, but they skipped MANY parts...yes they had to with a long book, but they missed many important parts. And it just skipped to one event to another for the tournament.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
jordanraidenjordanraiden
Rated 19 Dec 2017
13
27th
5/7
Rated 19 Dec 2017
ebelcEbelC
Rated 02 Mar 2010
50
28th
Worst of the saga. Though the story goes darker and darker, this one is much lighter than 2nd-3rd, specially Cuarón's. Probably direction has a lot to do with that, both Columbus and Yates reach a reasonable quality, Cuarón made the best, but Newell does just a mediocre unispired work. The story still has its points, but everything good about it is just a shadow of Rowling's book, made flat and without spirit by Newell. Watched in order, it's specially bad the worst one follows the best one.
Rated 02 Mar 2010
jacoiiiJacoIII
Rated 10 Dec 2010
40
54th
The wizard rock group seemed really stupid until I found out that Jonny Greenwood is playing lead guitar and Phil Selway is on the drums. Now "Can You Dance Like A Hipogriff" just reminds me of Kid A.
Rated 10 Dec 2010
syzygysyzygy
Rated 14 Aug 2007
79
57th
The best one so far! Still nowhere near the level of the books, and they lost at least half of it in the transition. But still, really good.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
ashercrossasher_cross
Rated 14 Aug 2007
80
61st
One of the better installments in the fantasy series, with the young actors coming into their own and the effects and script improving.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
zeronovaZeronova
Rated 19 Jan 2014
90
57th
This is where the Harry Potter series of movies starts getting good.
Rated 19 Jan 2014
ab_i_hayaAb-ı Haya
Rated 14 Mar 2022
65
19th
01.17 Hobbit
Rated 14 Mar 2022
glmglm
Rated 20 Feb 2010
82
71st
81.750
Rated 20 Feb 2010
van_baggioVan Baggio
Rated 11 Mar 2009
82
38th
Good, but always keeping that rythm, only if you read the book you catch the whole story...
Rated 11 Mar 2009
svicciarellisvicciarelli
Rated 14 Aug 2007
90
82nd
Breathless action and intruige abounding. These just keep getting better and better, both technically and dramatically.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
x_humanx-human
Rated 12 Mar 2011
68
26th
Once you realize the plot you'll see that all of it could have been done at any given time over the past 13 years. I'll give it points for trying to have a plot at least, but once again a blanket of darkness is cast over the set so that kiddie antics seem more dramatic and serious. [Rifftrax was somewhat uninspired, I found myself forgetting that they're there. While there are some good laughs left in them I think our boys are just as sick of this series as I am.]
Rated 12 Mar 2011
jennhoneyjennhoney
Rated 08 Mar 2009
65
13th
I love magic, I'm just not that into this movie. My least favorite (so far) of the series.
Rated 08 Mar 2009
annmovieAnnMovie
Rated 08 Mar 2008
100
95th
Wonderful! Magical! Great adaptation!!! A favorite! Great addition with Cedric and the changes that were made I felt were justified. I still like Richard Harris as Dumbledore best, but other than that, I adore the movie!:D LOVE the Yule Ball!!!:D
Rated 08 Mar 2008
vincentevincente
Rated 14 Aug 2007
72
55th
null
Rated 14 Aug 2007
vv238vv238
Rated 21 Sep 2018
54
56th
Newell is trying to channel Cuaron's directorial efforts in Goblet of Fire but, no offense to the former, he just isn't nearly as good as the latter. This entry seems to ride the line between the darker tone of Azkaban and the children's whimsy of the first two. As a result, it hits a mediocre middle-ground that doesn't do anything particularly well or poorly either. This entry is necessary to move the larger plot along but unnecessary viewing by any other standard.
Rated 21 Sep 2018
alvaromanoalvaromano
Rated 07 Aug 2008
80
0th
great
Rated 07 Aug 2008
wcnitzwcnitz
Rated 08 Mar 2008
73
27th
Yes, it's Harry Potter. But it's the weakest of the offerings to date, though. The drive to push Harry to win the tournament makes little sense in the movie, and it really drags at times. The rush of the last 10 minutes don't save it.
Rated 08 Mar 2008
tejascarltejascarl
Rated 19 Aug 2007
90
87th
Good movie that you can watch with the family.
Rated 19 Aug 2007
threepioThreepio
Rated 21 Aug 2007
80
79th
A good adaptation. I liked the book and the movie.
Rated 21 Aug 2007
obidyObidy
Rated 15 Jul 2010
7
28th
This is one of my least favorite Potter movies. It's just...weird. Not the charming, whimsical weird of the third movie, but campy weird. It feels like Sam Raimi directed it. There is a definitely rushed feeling as the director seems more concerned with fitting as much material in as possible rather than trying to achieve a consistent tone and pace to the movie. It feels disjointed and rushed, less constructed and more thrown together.
Rated 15 Jul 2010
shephardShephard
Rated 18 Oct 2007
65
61st
Great production values and special effects. Enjoyable and well-cast.
Rated 18 Oct 2007
oolookittyoolookitty
Rated 20 Oct 2007
50
19th
More adventures with the most passive character in fiction.
Rated 20 Oct 2007
nothingsgoodNothingsGood
Rated 16 Aug 2011
35
27th
The third act makes up for most of the film's terrible first and second acts, which both set new standards for witless and pointless portions of the Potter series. However, the completely random nature of almost everything in these movies continues to plague the fourth entry with a focus on a wizards tournament and a bunch of supplementary characters no one cares about (though at least this time Newell tries).
Rated 16 Aug 2011
matthagenmatthagen
Rated 13 Jul 2023
49
40th
I hate to say it, but this plot is a mess. I largely don't understand the chain of events or character motivations. Why is Ron mad at Harry, only for that idea to fall apart completely? How in the world did the events depicted take up an entire school year? Did some children almost get murdered at the bottom of the sea? Is anyone still down there? How in the hell did Harry get from the maze to a graveyard, and then back again? Magic I guess. It's all so convenient. It's fine I guess.
Rated 13 Jul 2023
drewlephantDrewlephant
Rated 23 Dec 2008
26
6th
By a mile, the weakest of the Harry Potter films. Of course they had a ton to abridge, but they sucked the life right out of the book. The characters are paper-thin and the situations aren't harrowing in the slightest.
Rated 23 Dec 2008
bellamyrbellamyr
Rated 02 Jan 2008
82
67th
A clever mix of the increasing dark aspects of the books with an exploration of the main characters. Still a good childrens movie but equally aimed at the teenage market this really does have something to appeal to everyone. Dragons, dark lords and great special effects with a tightly woven plot make this well worth watching
Rated 02 Jan 2008
lavos222lavos222
Rated 04 Jan 2008
18
2nd
Hated it, especially after Azkaban was so good...
Rated 04 Jan 2008

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...