Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire [Hindi] (2005) - Dubbed
Other movies recommended for you
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire [Hindi](in Dubbed Hollywood Movies) Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire [Hindi] (2005) - Download Movie for mobile in best quality 3gp and mp4 format. Also stream Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire [Hindi] on your mobile, tablets and ipads
Plot: Harry's fourth year at Hogwarts is about to start and he is enjoying the summer vacation with his friends. They get the tickets to The Quidditch World Cup Final but after the match is over, people dressed like Lord Voldemort's 'Death Eaters' set a fire to all the visitors' tents, coupled with the… Runtime: 157 min Release Date: 18 Nov 2005
Wow! What can I say? I've been waiting a year and a half for this movie and I can tell you that it was Definitely worth the wait! Even though Daniel, Rupert and Emma are much older than 14 it's pretty obvious they are so convincing as they learn about their feelings of maturity: The selection ceremony for the Tri-Wizard tournament was humorous. The look of shock on certain characters faces is unforgettable! The tasks are fun and exciting even though I already knew what was going to happen! I thought that the Yule ball was absolutely spectacular, and Ron's dress robes were <more>
awesome! The movie was so well done, I'd have to say that it is the best movie in the series so far! The movie does the book justice.
I just saw the movie for the first time and i was very surprised on how good the movie relates to the book. this was my favorite book as it was transitioning into a more serious and in-dept story. No offense to the other books before as they were great too, but this is the story were its not so childish and the characters are becoming more mature and serious about their futures. the movie does a great job on its special effects, acting, and all together the direction movie went. The movie kept me on the edge of my seat with all the action, suspense the dragon scene were especially good , and <more>
drama.If your a fan of the books, then I highly suggest that you go see it.
The Best Of The Harry Potter Movies By Far!!!!! (by Workin_Man)
I had the privilege of seeing the newest addition to the Harry Potter movies last night. I must say it was an awesome movie. Definitely the best of the Harry Potter movies so far.ACTING: In general the movie had very good acting. The trio gave us excellent performances. The adult actors were good too.SPECIAL EFFECTS: One word. Awesome!! Absolutely incredible special effects. They've gotta be one of the best special effects I have seen in a movie since The Lord of the Rings trilogy.DIRECTION: The director Mike Newell, in my opinion did an excellent job at directing this film. Right now he <more>
is god to me. Good job Mike and good luck in the future. Keep up the amazing work!!!!10/10
Mike Newell is forgiven for cutting out so much detail from the book, and JK Rowling is forgiven for writing wonderfully rich books. However, fans of the book cannot help but feel like riding a roller coaster that is so fast there is no time to enjoy the ride. I predict the huge void between book and movie will spur remakes in about 10 to 20 years. Even if the movies must be 5 hours long, Harry Potter fans are willing to sit through them. This movie doesn't get a 10 because it leaves me feeling like something is missing, but it does deserve a 9 for being the best possible portrayal of the <more>
book given a 2.5 hour limitation. All said and done, this is the shortest 2.5 hour movie I have ever watched.
Such a HUGE step up from godawful Prisoner of Azkaban it's not even funny. (by drewcollins-70255)
After the series low of the previous film, AKA the snoozefest mess Prisoner of Azkaban, it was good to see a mature Harry Potter film with an actual coherent/enjoyable story.This thankfully was an actual decent entry in the franchise, and I truly hope pray that David Yates' directing style and skill level has a ton more in common with Mike Newell and Chris Columbus than it does with the laughably overrated guy who directed the beyond boring slog that was Gravity and the single worst Harry Potter film.
A darker, more suspenseful Harry Potter... (by Atlasxxiv)
I won't give away a single plot line if you really want to know - read the book but I was much happier with this film then the last. Maybe I just don't like Alfonso Cuaron's style, but this movie had you mistrusting everyone. The Prisoner of Azkhaban seemed so frivolous next to this Mike Newell version of HP4.Goblet of Fire asks as many new questions as it answered the old ones. I loved the new characters they introduced and Brendan Gleeson's Mad-Eye Moody was amazing. Much less involved was Hagrid and Snape but we all know they factor more in the upcoming story lines.Two <more>
thumbs up - and DON'T wait until this one comes out on DVD. The special effects have to be seen on the big screen. I believe Daniel Radcliff did all his own stunts in this one as well, which makes the underwater scene all the more impressive... and this was a very impressive film.
I'd hate to face the task of condensing a 700 page book into a movie - even a two and a half hour movie, but they've managed pretty well with this installment of the adventures of Harry Potter.For fans of the movies, you'll find this installment a little darker, a little grittier, and a little more involving. The characters are growing up and are now facing more adult situations with more adult outlooks.For fans of the books, you should find this adaptation a commendable reflection of Rowling's tale. Naturally, some parts had to be modified or cut entirely - there's no way <more>
to avoid that without making it a 10 hour movie - but the parts that were cut were either not critical to the story line, or will be easy to account for in the films to come. Unless you're an obsessive nitpicker about every last detail, you should find this a satisfactory film version of Goblet of Fire.Goblet of Fire works well as a stand-alone film, as a film version of Rowling's book, and is in my opinion quite easily the best Potter movie yet.
See the movie for action, read the book for story (by imdb-10900)
It's unfortunate that so much of the book needed to be cut for time and the movie is still nearly 2 1/2 hours long. The rule of movie editing is when you must trim for time you remove the sub-plots. A lot of story and character development isn't there.But what is there is a great visual treat. If the movie leaves you with questions just read the book or get the audio version on CD. It would have taken a minimum of another half hour to flesh the movie out and that simply wasn't going to be done by a studio whose primary target is a younger audience. Note how no studio wants to <more>
release an animated film longer than 90 minutes for this reason. Perhaps Alphonso Curon would have done a better job of cohesion but there really isn't much more that could have been done in the time and the script would have been essentially the same. This movie begs for an extended Lord of the Rings type DVD, another 30 to 60 minutes to give you what was left out for theatrical release.See it and spend the bucks to see it on the big screen.
Darker, funnier, reveling in spectacular CGI, teenage angst and Brit-humor (by Tinuvielas)
the fourth Harry-Potter-film and the first to be directed by an Englishman is a fun ride. Not for the youngest fans, perhaps, because like Rowling's novel it marks the point where Harry's story transforms from a children's tale into darker, maturer fantasy. In this sequel, Harry's arch-enemy Voldemort rises again and, as the movie's tag-line has it, "dark and dangerous times lie ahead." More immediately, Harry finds himself an unwilling participant in the dangerous Triwizard tournament a doubtful Honor that alienates him from his schoolmates and even <more>
turns his friend Ron against him. And the teenagers' trouble doesn't end here. They also have to face the three unforgivable curses mind-washing, torture and murder as well as the pangs of disappointed love. Harry and Ron are pathetic when it comes to girls, and director Mike Newell "Four weddings and a funeral" makes the most of his actor's efforts when they try to secure a female companion for the Christmas ball. Ron's dismay when faced with his fancy, decades-out-of-date-dress-robe alone is worth seeing the film. In fact, it's the teenage angst topic rather than the magical plot that distinguishes this film. I was asked about the best spell in the film after the press screening, and I couldn't come up with a single one. OK, there's several "expelliarmus'" and "accio's", as well as spectacular Special Effects, but "magic"? Less than in the previous Potter-adaptations, I should say. At least it's less central. Mike Newell who earned one Million Dollar directing "Goblet", one tenth of the sum pocketed by Chris "Home alone" Columbus certainly achieved his aim to shoot "a classical thriller with lots of action, something along the lines of 'North by Northwest', without disregarding the often funny teenage angst".Thus the pacing in the first half of "Goblet" is impeccable, whereas towards the end it gets a bit rushed. Still, "Goblet" manages to tell the complex story and capture most important moments of the book even if it means that certain subplots are only hinted at. One would love to see more of Rita Skeeter Miranda Richardson , for instance, or of the death-eaters at the Quidditch Championship: a dark initial sequence, which, together with the repeated dream-sequence, sets the tone for what is to come. On the other hand, there are enough shots involving secondary characters to offer emotional or even comic relief, such as Neville dancing or Filch loping wheezily across the Great Hall. The Yule ball alone is a visual and musical feast: Hogwarts decorated with icicles and frozen seafood, the couples dancing formally to Patrick Doyle's romantic soundtrack before the whole thing evolves into a wild party featuring stage-musicians from Pulp and Radiohead.A few words about the performances. The young protagonists especially Rupert Grint as Ron were inspiring to watch, writhing in the grip of puberty. Daniel Radcliffe impressed me by managing to look very young, fearful and confused in some scenes and handsomely mature in others, especially when fighting Voldemort. In these scenes, one can almost see the grown man in him. Equally impressive is the fact that Radcliffe did some stunt-work himself; in the scene where he falls off the roof fighting the dragon, for instance, he bungee-dived 13 meters down. He took diving lessons for the underwater sequence and spent 41 hours acting in a deep pool, in murky darkness, with only the assistant's voice in his specially devised earphones giving him directions. In the short takes underwater he had to hold his breath, remember not to let out bubbles, react to non-existent monsters, then swim back to the divers to receive air not a mean feat.Of the secondary characters, I liked Miranda Richardson as flamboyant, sensation-creating journalist, although she didn't turn out as nastily insinuating as the book-character. I was less happy with Brandon Gleeson who wasn't sinister enough as Mad-Eye Moody, giving the character a comic edge it shouldn't have. The Triwizard champions, too, were mediocre: Clémence Poésy's Fleur Delacour is pale and nondescript, not the fascinating, haughty part-Vaala of the book. Worse, she's apparently hardly equal to the Triwizard tasks simply because she's female. While Stanislav Ianevski made a passable if too handsome Viktor Krum, Robert Pattinson as Cedric Diggory hardly got the chance to develop his character, which should have had a charisma equaling Harry's. The only thing that redeemed him is the scene of his death, which is appropriately chilling.Last but not least, the two great wizards, Dumbledore and Voldemort. Sir Michael Gambon simply can't make up for Richard Harris' loss and it doesn't help that he's playing Dumbledore as an old man afraid and out of control. Whoever came up with this interpretation, it does not suit "the only one Voldemort ever feared". Dumbledore shouldn't be hasty, or perplexed, or making pompous speeches, nor should he shake Harry's shoulders in panic after Harry's been chosen as champion. Ralph Fiennes, on the other hand, is genial casting. He embodies the Dark Lord with uncanny charisma, evilly human, undergoing sudden changes of mood: not a serial killer, but a scary madman. With minimum makeup a thin layer of latex applied onto Fiennes shaved head, arms and breast, giving the impression of pale, translucent, veined skin and digitally created nostril-slits, Fiennes makes a truly frightening, eerily handsome Voldemort. Dressed in a billowing black silk robe, a "floating reptile", as Fiennes describes him, barefoot, long-nailed and displaying a weird, suggestive body-language, he reminds one of a dark version of Cate Blanchett's Elven-sorceress Galadriel in "Lord of the Rings". A final comment on the CGI: I loved the dragons, great and small. Absolutely adored the scene when the horntail climbed over those rooftops to get at Harry. And I was happy to read, in the final credits, that "No dragons were harmed in the making of this movie."