As a Harry Potter fan, I recently decided to see once more all the earlier Potter movies. Each is, of course, very different from the book on which it is based, because movies and books are different art forms. However, the "Goblet of Fire" was much less enjoyable than either the book or the earlier movies. So much was left out that I was left feeling a little breathless and disoriented, wondering how much sense the movie could have made to people who had not read the book. I shared my DVD with a friend who has read none of the books, and had to explain a lot of things to her, just so she could make sense out of the action. For example, the movie shows Neville's unhappiness over the Crucio curse, but the only reference to the impact that curse has had on his own life is one very quick mention of the use of the curse on some people whose last name is the same as his. A person unfamiliar with the book would have to be very alert to notice the connection, and even then, they would be left wondering, well, are these people related to Neville, and what exactly happened to them? Considering how essential Neville's growth from an emotionally damaged, frightened child to an heroic youth ready to do anything to conquer the evil that destroyed his parents is to the series as a whole, this was an unforgiveable gap. Movie adaptations of novels have to condense whole chapters into short segments of action, but this movie went too far, condensed too much, and left out too much that mattered.