‘Goblet of Fire’ provides spark to series

Plenty of film series boast sequels that are good, and sometimes better, than the originals. But the fourth movie in an ongoing franchise almost always represents the point when things go rotten.

“The Phantom Menace,” “Batman & Robin,” “Thunderball,” “Alien: Resurrection,” “Rocky IV” – all these fourth entries embody a substantial drop in quality from the cinematic efforts that preceded them.

Fortunately, the same cannot be said about “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.”

Although the plot of this installment explores “three unforgivable curses,” the sequel avoids the “curse of the fourth film,” proving there is still a heap of charm left in this young wizard’s tale.

“Goblet” is the best of the sequels, primarily because it’s so different from the others.

In last year’s “Prisoner of Azkaban” review, I listed a seven-step formula that all the movies had followed up to that point. It outlined how Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) begins each picture being mistreated by his resentful relatives, who get their comeuppance thanks to supernatural forces. Then he takes a trip to Hogwarts using a unique form of transportation. He meets the new instructors, etc. (Go to www.ljworld.com for the complete list.)

Daniel Radcliffe competes in the Triwizard Tournament in Harry

“Goblet of Fire” barely adheres to three of these seven steps. Fiddling with the structure helps add spontaneity to what was becoming more predictable than a “Scooby-Doo” episode. Even the compulsory Quidditch match – usually the low point of any “Potter” adventure – is all but abandoned except as a backdrop in the introduction.

Those expecting further plot synopsis should just read the book – and probably have once or 20 times. Suffice to say, “Goblet” involves a Triwizard Tournament, dragons, “Death Eaters,” a face-to-face battle with Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) and a high school dance.

In certain respects, the last chore proves the most challenging for Harry.

The whole series benefits greatly from being shot at intervals that correspond with each class year. As such, the principal cast has gone through puberty in front of a worldwide audience.

Instead of trying to downplay this maturing aspect, author J.K. Rowling really embraces it with each successive book. “Goblet” represents the first movie to openly deal with the hormonal onset of that age, with Harry, Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) all having to endure various relationship/crush-oriented dramas.

(Reportedly, a digital “spot-removing” technique was employed during post-production to smooth out some of the more unflattering skin problems exhibited by the teen actors.)

The cast has grown up in a professional capacity as well.

Radcliffe has gone from a wide-eyed moppet to a convincing leading man. It’s really a thankless role in many respects; he has to play it straight while everybody else in the cast gets to be an eccentric, a raving villain or comic relief.

Likewise, Grint provides his best work in “Goblet.” Having been relegated to just making “the Ron face” – as fans of the series call it – in the last two pictures, Grint’s sidekick finally is able to indulge in a bit of rebellious angst stemming from all the attention heaped on Harry.

“You’re being stupid,” Harry tells him during an argument.

He replies, “Yeah, that’s me. Ron Weasley. Harry Potter’s stupid friend.”

Daniel Radcliffe, left, and Emma Watson mull a magical challenge in Harry

Only Watson still seems unsure of her role within the series. She continues to battle affectation, delivering much of her dialogue as if she were scolding a dog.

Director Mike Newell (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) is the first English director to tackle a “Potter.” He recruits even more heavyweight U.K. character actors to the ensemble. Of particular note is Brendan Gleeson (“Gangs of New York”) as Mad-Eye Moody. He’s the latest Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, who traditionally hang around about as long as a Kansas City Royals manager. Sporting a prosthetic eye that has a life of its own, Gleeson rules every scene he’s in with a combination of intimidation and hilarity.

Newell seems quite comfortable with Rowling’s material, even if he struggles like the previous directors to not become buried by special effects, and to overcome the episodic nature of the story. Whereas the books can simply start a new chapter, the movies don’t have the luxury of using so abrupt a transition between scenes.

Much has been made of the fact that this fourth film is the first to warrant a PG-13 rating. (It’s been dubbed “Scary Potter” by the British press.) Yet this makes perfect thematic sense. “Goblet of Fire” isn’t afraid to reveal the secret that adolescence is far more menacing than childhood.