I thought Stephanie Zacharek's review of "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" was lovely - I understood her feelings of nostalgia and sudden awarness of adulthood perfectly. I could almost imagine the characters going through these emotions and I look forward to seeing it onscreen.

As for Name Not Given's complaint, I found Zacharaek's description of Hermione's dress apt and appropriate. It is terribly easy to dress someone just entering adolescence, as Hermione is, either much too young or much too old for their age. Dress them too young and they look like, well, a performer in a recital, dress them too old and they really do look dumb and/or unsettlingly slutty.

But people who have never tried to dress a 14-year-old for a black tie occasion might not appreciate this tight-rope walk, so I thought Zacharak illustration of why the dress is "a triumph" at all was helpful. Name Not Given must be either deeply attached to the dance recital circuit and its attendant costumes, or just looking for a reason to pick on Salon today (I find many letter writers to be often the latter).

Zacharek is one of the only (perhaps THE only) person taking some important pop culture moments seriously. Wasn't she the one carrying the torch for Buffy all those years before we woke up and realized Joss Whedon was a frigging genius? I admire her for covering this stuff in a humorous, light-handed way without ever descending to the reflexive can-you-believe-we're-writing-this patronage of something like the New York Times.

A very artfully written review that successfully imparted a pure sense of this movie. My 2 cents.

I saw the movie last night and it was the first in the series I truly enjoyed and loved. The opening scenes filmed at the quidditch world cup were exhilarating and funny and then terrifying, and the whole movie continues in the same vein. For the first time, nothing felt tacked on and too cutesy, it all seemed essential and so was much more deeply enjoyable.

I'm not always a fan of Stephanie Zacharek's review - or perhaps it's simply that I don't often agree with them - but for me she got this one spot on. There is an awful lot in this movie. The pacing was, at times, a little overwhelming although a good effort given the size of the book. As for whether it's for kids or not, I would say it's not for small children any more than the book was for small children. If your kids are of an age that they can read and appreciate the book without undue trauma, then I would say they would handle the movie quite well. It is dark and suspenseful, though, so maybe a vetting would be in order?

- CS

I'm no fan of Chris Columbus, but give the poor guy a break. True, the first two films pale before Azkaban and Goblet of Fire, but then, so do the first two books. And as is clear from looking at the overall progression of the saga over the last six books, this is very much by design. I suggest that anyone who finds the first two films garishly dumb go back and re-read the books. The plot, style, and characterizations are drawn in the same bright, simplified colors that Columbus uses in his adaptations. As the series has progressed, the books have grown up, and that same growth is evident in the way the film series is developing. Columbus may not be a talent on the level of Alfonso Cuaron, but he understood the books far better than people are giving him credit for.