(M) Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire. (Mike Newell, 2005). Grade: B+
(Note: Potential spoilers)
As someone who's read this book twice, and forgotten maybe 20% of what happened, I feel that what was included and what was not included was sufficient enough for me to get the storyline. (But then again, you may get a different answer from someone who did not read the book at all.) And as Hedwig mentioned, there is the understanding that everything that happens in the book is not going to show up in the movie. Although I am in full support of reading a book first before watching the movie version, I do understand that a lot of things are not going to make the cut in the movie, and I am okay with that. I think if you hold onto the book version too much, you really don't give the movie version a chance. I don't like when they mess with the plotline too much, but realistically, how do you fit an 800 page story into a 2.5 hour movie?

That being said, I was disappointed that they left out most of the Quidditch World Cup. This was a major storyline in the first part of the book, and they really just glossed over it. The same with the first task of the TriWizard Tournament. However, I'm really glad they left out minor stuff (i.e. the house elves, Rita Skeeter being a spy), which I conveniently forgot about anyway, and which were not detrimental to the overall plot.

Visually, I enjoyed the special effects more in this movie than any other HP movie. If you compare the first movie to this one, they've come a long way. Compared to the Quidditch Cup Stadium, Voldemort, the dragons, etc. from this movie, the troll and special effects from the first movie seem elementary and almost cartoon-like. And thank goodness for the PG-13 rating! I've long felt that the HP books have a lot of adult themes, and everytime I watch one of the movies, I feel that they cater too much to children, with the inclusion of cheesy scenes added for comical effect only. There were some sorta cheesy scenes in this movie too, but not as bad as before. Let's not talk about Moaning Myrtle, who annoys me to no end. - Overall, the plotline is much darker, and deeper than the previous 3 movies, which felt to me like too much of children's movies.

And let's address the acting issue. Hedwig mentioned that perhaps Emma Watson's overacting is due to the director. I'm not so sure. I think she's just over-emotional on her own. Especially considering that she's been like this since the first movie until now (which have had 3 different directors). Overall, I think the acting by the 'children' is not superb. It's good enough, but they seem the same to me, like their acting skills have progressed marginally since the first movie. Daniel Radcliffe, who plays Harry Potter, always has the overly concerned or angry look on his face. Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley always has a tortured, goofy look for comical effect. However, their acting is supplemented by rather convincing actors, like Mad Eye Moody (?) and Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes). Hagrid and McGonagall are always pleasant, even though they both weren't in this movie as much. Viktor Krum was as menacing as I'd imagined too.

Overall, I did enjoy this movie more than any of the other movies. Cool special effects, deeper, more complex storyline, more adult oriented, darker themes, more of Lord Voldemort and his Death Eaters...I've never felt like I wanted to re-watch any HP movie, until I watched this one.