4 of 4

Greydanus concludes that these filmmakers "have done the best job so far trimming the fat from the story. … The Goblet of Fire offers some of the series' most magical imagery."

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) calls it "entertaining, intelligent and visually delicious, but despite considerable plot-pruning … this Goblet runneth over a bit long." He also notes that it's "the darkest thus far. … From its spooky opening image, the film is probably too scary for young children."

His view on Harry's hocus-pocus? "As with the magical elements in its predecessors, those in Goblet of Fire should be viewed as time-honored storytelling devices, like those employed throughout the history of Western fantasy literature from childhood fairy tales (Cinderella's pumpkin being turned into a carriage) to Arthurian legends and Shakespeare. A reference by Voldemort about the 'old magic' wrought by the sacrificial love of Harry's mother (who died protecting him in his infancy) seems to echo the salvific 'Deeper Magic' spoken of in C. S. Lewis' Christian-allegorical The Chronicles of Narnia."

But Bob Smithouser (Plugged In) won't have it. "No matter how skillfully the story gets told or how selfless, ethical and heroic Harry may be, it's impossible for me to invest myself or my family in a series that glamorizes witchcraft."

And Lisa Rice (Crosswalk) is dismayed. "Perhaps this fourth movie … will be the one that compels us to ask why we would put this material into our children's heads. As I looked around the theater and saw dozens of little children dressed as wizards and sorcerers, watching one horror after another on the big screen, my heart broke for the sheer lack of parental discernment."

Mainstream critics are applauding Newell's installment in the series.

Gene Edward Veith (World) compares the film to its predecessors in the series and concludes, "Goblet of Fire is more mature. It does not dramatize the Muggle/Witch dichotomy, and the realm of magic is depicted not as fun but as a grim and dangerous place. … In this movie, the conflict between good and evil is genuine." But he concludes that parents need to tell their kids "that they still need to stay away from Harry Potter."

Denny Wayman and Hal Conklin (Cinema in Focus) say, "The use of symbols such as snakes and skulls to define the difference between good and evil is masterfully done within the film as well as acts of compassion and displays of 'moral fiber' within the characters."

Matt Wiggins (Relevant) raves, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is easily the best of the series in terms of story. The movie also wins out in terms of tension and suspense and feels much more watchable than the latest entry. Fans of the books shouldn't be too disappointed, and those who have only seen the movies will be very pleased. Once again, J.K. Rowling's vision has been placed up on the silver screen with great skill and proves to be an entertaining couple of hours."

first page |  4 of 4

Related Elsewhere:

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone	Printer view
Is the big-screen Harry Potter as delightful as the one in the book? And should you be worried about his witchcraft? Critics and viewers respond.

---

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets	Printer view
Christianity Today Movies did not review this film, but here's what other critics are saying ...

---

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban	Printer view

---

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix	Printer view

---

Mad About Harry	Printer view
Our readers seem to be absolutely mad about Harry Potter—both ways. They love him, or they hate him.

---

Redeeming Harry Potter	Printer view
The initial Christian outcry against the boy wizard seems to be dying down. Maybe that's because more and more of us are discovering multiple redemptive themes in the series.