"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" was a lot better than the previous movie, it included the most important parts of the book, although they changed bits and pieces around to make it easier. I think they could have followed the book a little better. But I will admit it was fast moving, not boring and was easy to follow for those who do not read the books. Could have been a little better.

This was a really good movie. I loved it. I saw it with a bunch of friends and we all thought the same thing. It's scary, funny and just an all-round great movie.

Despite all the hype, I found the movie somewhat predictable and boring (more of the same formula and general theme but dressed up with ever more dazzling special effects). I couldn't help walking away with the aftertaste of the question "So what?"

Awesome movie. Loved it. I agree it went so very quickly, and i still think they should have filled up three hours at least, but nevertheless, kudos to Newell for transferring that monster of a book (which had action in every moment) into a feature length film that still made sense.

The acting has definitely improved but still has a long way to go (talking about the three main heroes). I would have liked to see more emphasis on the building of tension between characters, more drama that I loved so much in the book (Barty Crouch Jnr's tongue was irritating though).

One thing I loved was the humour! Really funny! It's definitely darker, definitely completely different to the other movies, but i still believe Voldemort should've been scarier (maybe he's just really scary in my head).

The best Harry Potter movie so far!!

Of course it's rushed. They said "King Kong" went for too long, and this was only half an hour shorter.

Seriously. To say it's rushed is obvious - it was a bulky book, and I think Newell did a hell of a job transcending the story to film.

Visually, it was just breathtaking enough. It left you gasping for air, but you didn't feel puffed out. The dragons, the mermaids, end especially the maze were amazing. For an elaborate row of hedges, the maze looked amazing on film.

The screenplay was great. It was natural, particularly the rehearsal scene for the dance, in which Professor McGonagall effectively makes a fool out of Ron.

All in all, it was more than anything ... stylish.

The film had pure style, from the beginning to the end it seemed like silk on screen - tight, funny, and darkly-tinged scenes, perfect dialogue, and superb acting.

This was a brilliant film, filled with suspense, romance, comedy and more.

Although to those who have read the book, it was rather disappointing and missed out on a lot of good parts, such as Hagrid's 'Blast-ended skrewts', Dobby's re-appearance, the creatures in the maze and Rita Skeeter being discovered as an Animagus.

I still think it was a great film and can be enjoyed on different levels, by children and adults alike. It is rather frightening but it really depends on what a child is capable of handling and I don't think that it would be fair to deprive children of the wonderful world of "Harry Potter".

Goodbye kids, hello teenagers; goodbye magical masterpiece hello dark circus entertainment. Harry older and more mature, film older and more immature. Too much as left out from the book. Scariest so far. Better but still not there yet.

It was a shame to see what could have been a great movie looking like a Readers Digest condensed version. For anyone who had not read the book it was undoubtedly fantastic. However to me it seemed to be very rushed and half the book was missing. Whatever happened to Dobby the house elf, and the fearsome creatures in the maze? I still loved it but was somewhat disappointed.

Great storyline, great acting, great suspense - what more could you want? The only fault was it did leave out some vital bits which the book did include but then again, this is the movie... that was the book.

This film is definitely an improvement on the work of Chris Columbus in the first and second films, but it doesn't compare to Alfonso Cuaron's inspired direction of the third film.

Kloves has tried to cram in too much - the film is much too long. Perhaps he should have cut one of the three tasks? The scenes feel very rushed, and there is a distinct lack of flow throughout the film, probably also due to the editing. The production design is wonderful, however, as is the CG design. It has notably improved. Still, the beautiful shot composition and visual symbolism that Alfonso brought to "Prisoner of Azkaban" is absent here. Not that that will bother most HP fans.

The climactic scenes with Voldemort are well handled, as are some of those that follow. But ultimately I found the ending unsatisfying - it felt much too upbeat and very forced, given the events that precede it.

Radcliffe turns in quite a good performance - he's getting better with every film. I felt Emma Watson's was forced and uncomfortable. Enjoyable additions to the cast were Brendan Gleeson and David Tennant. Ralph Fiennes is also brilliant. I was disappointed that Gary Oldman was so underused, but given his lack of involvement in the story it's understandable that his scenes were cut. I look forward to more of him in the next film.

Ultimately I felt that the film is weighed down by too much plot and the screenwriter's desire to cram everything in, and I felt that the emotion Newell tried to evoke in the climax hadn't been earned - there wasn't enough character development.

Not a bad film, but not a great one either.

I had my doubts about how this fourth book in the series would play out. "Goblet of Fire" wasn't the best book in the series, but once the lights dimmed I was treated to great effects shots and a movie that made the best of the time allowed.

Brendan Gleeson was perfect as "Mad Eye" Moody. The movement from scene to scene made the time disappear. The re-birth of Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) was worth the wait.

As speculation grows of Harry Potter's future I can at least say this movie holds its own and will please the fans. Lots of action, more secrets revealed and Neville Longbottom with that same look of bewilderment.

Check it out!

I liked the movie a lot, however, as with all the Harry Potter movies, I think one really must read the book before seeing the film. And I don't really think the movie is suitable for people under 12 - it's a bit too scary in parts.

In my opinion it is too dark for anyone in primary school. I did find it quite imaginative the way the fantasy of magic was blended with the English social structure. It really puts and interesting spin on an English boarding school and a meek boy in his early teens. Overall I found it less predictable and more enjoyable than most of the Hollywood production line.

As with any movie based on a book, minor parts were missing, but as minor as they might be, they link scene A to scene B. This of course left a few people in the dark if they hadn't read the book.

However, the special effects were breathtaking as always, the mystery was there, and romance even this time.

"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" is easily the best movie I have ever seen. I have read all six books and although some bits are missing it still doesn't make it any less spectacular.

The special effects were magnificent. This movie has a bit of everything in it - from romance to humour - and it even brought a few tears to my eyes.

I can't wait to see it again.

Althought this film was exicting it was quite disappointing to see it not sticking to the novel.

It jumped around a lot at the begging and wasn't as interesting as the first, secong and third "Harry Potter" films.

However, the acting was rather good and it was very exicting at times.

Visually stunning, but that's what we have all come to expect of Hollywood naturally. I must confess that I have not read the book, and thus found some of the narration to be disjointed and the pacing of the film rather accelerated at times, and tedious at others.

One drawback in "Goblet of Fire" is the reinforcement of gender stereotypes in this current installment of the Harry Potter franchise. While the previous films were masterfully handled, blending darkness and foreboding with moments of wit and jubilence, "Goblet of Fire" seemed to revolve around two main events: a Ball which is rendered very much like a run-of-the-mill prom night, and a series of trials/competition which seemed not that far removed from our masculine sporting mass culture, with bettings hedged and all. Hermione relinquishes all her independence and strong-willed nature when she "falls" for some one-dimensional, hyper-masculine jock. The female competitors in this film also constantly need "rescuing"- in one form or another, by their male counterparts.

Most of all, while the previous Harry Potter installments were enchanting through the fantastical employment of magic, in this film the "magic" element seemed very much muted - all that seemed to be prominent was an all too-familiar competitive, exploitative mentality.

Although the film was supposed to convey the fact that the children are entering emotional and sexual maturity, I was left with the feeling that this was not much more than an adolescent angst/adjusting to the world movie. The riveting aspects of previous installments were largely absent, and the immersion in an other-worldly fantasy realm was broken by excessive references to elements of our daily being-in-the-world.

"Goblet of Fire" has everything: fire-breathing dragons, romance, mermaids, ghosts, goblins, undead warlocks, bearded teenagers and puppy love. It's also far funnier than you would think.

This is what every Potter adaptation should be: lean, mean and starkly violent. It trancends it's novel origins and really kicks loose. Most of its numerous subplots have been dropped, and the story is propelled forward as if by cannon.

The acting is spot on from Daniel Radcliffe down - Michael Gambon is fantastic as Dumbledore, Emma Watson lights up whatever scene she's in, Ralph Fiennes steals the show as the devious Voldemort.

Brendan Gleeson and new "Doctor Who" David Tennant are also brilliant in their supporting roles, but the only real flaw here is that it's too short. This material needs room to breathe, and aother half hour of introductions and goodbyes would have made this perfect. Its finale is abrupt, and Voldemort doesn't get enough screentime, the two non-Hogwarts champions are underused and the final task - the maze - is a little underwhelming, especially with what's gone before. Sticking to the book and putting some monsters in wouldn't have gone astray, would it?

Ah well, another 18 months left 'til "Order of the Phoenix", a book that really needs trimming.

This is the honest bit of Samuel Downing's gushing review:

"Screenwriter Steve Kloves seems so desperate to cram in all the book's best chapters that many of the scenes are rushed and lose their impact."

It was OK. Special effects were great, the acting was certainly adequate, but structurally it didn't work. It was a series of cool scenes, without a properly connected beginning, middle and end.

Heck, I had a good time anyway and so did my 10 year old son.

Probably an 8/10? A lot of the main events in the book were in the movie. Although people who haven't read the books might not understand some parts, overall you would know what is happening.

Not as scary as I thought it would be, but it is thrilling at the same time.

This is the best movie I have ever seen! The magic of the book just comes to life and contains romance, comedy, horror, drama - everything you could ever ask for!