Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Recent reviews of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire have been good indeed. Today's New York Times review finds the film to be a "happily satisfying film adaptation."

Manohla Dargis is clearly a fan of the Harry Potter series and s/he writes from that perspective, which I find helpful. Because, really, who is going to see these films if they don't like the books? I also appreciate what Dargis has to say about Daniel Radcliffe and his development as an actor. Radcliffe from the beginning has been a weaker actor than Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, but as Dargis writes, "Cinema doesn't just immortalize actors, locking them into youth, it also solicits our love in a way that books do not, since it isn't just the characters we fall for, but the actors playing them, too. Mr. Radcliffe isn't an acting titan or even one of the Culkins, but you root for him nonetheless, partly because you want Harry to triumph and partly because there is something poignant about how this actor struggles alongside his character."

And, apparently Ralph Fiennes triumphs as Voldemort: "Mr. Fiennes is an actor for whom a walk on the darker side is not just a pleasure, but liberation. His Voldemort may be the greatest screen performance ever delivered without the benefit of a nose; certainly it's a performance of sublime villainy."

Yikes!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
See also: recent reviews from The Scotsman and the Hollywood Reporter.