Some of you have been sitting on the edge of your seats, waiting for weeks to read my Very Important Review of "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire."

I don’t know what it is exactly about J.K. Rowling's books that have captured the imaginations of millions, including me. I can't remember when I've been so caught up in a series of books or movies. And discussing Harry Potter theories? What's that about?

One of the many reasons I "came out" as a fan was because I simply had to talk and write about these books with other people instead of speculating in my head or writing it down for no one to read but me. I'm not obsessed. Don't get me wrong. It's just fun to talk about what could happen in the final book and the meaning of things that happened in previous books.

Back to the Goblet of Fire. The movie was extremely dark and heavy, visually and metaphorically, to the point of distraction, as it was designed to be. It dragged in places and raced by in others. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is an action-packed book, and movie director Mike Newell's adaptation is certainly a valiant effort to do the book justice. If the movie had followed the book exactly as written, I'd still be in the theater right now.

The difficulty with a franchise as successful as Harry Potter is that a legion of fans have so much to say about what the movies get wrong. Screenwriters and directors must cut. Some cuts I didn't mind, but others I didn't like at all. In fact, some scenes crucial to the plot were inexplicably rejected.

I didn't mind them gutting the scenes before the Quidditch World Cup, but why eliminate the exciting tournament itself? As I watched the opening of the tournament, followed by the campsite scene, I wondered how in the world non-book readers or newcomers to the movies could've understood what was going on. Some fans argue that the movie was made for fanatics fans; others say it was made for non-fans.

Another difficulty in adapting these books to the screen is the lapse between the books and movies. We're on Book 6 in the series but only on Movie 4. Die-hard fans know what’s going to happen. Rowling's richly complex plots aren’t rendered well on the big screen, and there’s too much back story for non-readers to “get” it. Woe to the movie-goer who hasn’t read the books or seen the first three movies.

(In fact, I'd LOVE to hear from people who saw "Goblet of Fire" but haven't seen the other three movies or read any of the books.)

For instance, how will they know or care why Neville was most affected by the Cruciatus Curse demonstration in the classroom scene with Barty Crouch, Jr./Mad-Eye Moody?

How will they know or care why Hermione was so upset with Ron? There was no build-up to his admiration for Viktor Krum or jealousy toward both Viktor and Hermione. And there was no buildup to Hermione and Viktor, either. He'd been spending so much time in the library to get close to Hermione, who didn't seem to notice him at first, unlike in the movie. That's an important subtlety fans appreciate, but it's completely lost in the movie.

Here's a list of scenes from the movie that weren't in the book that I noticed and disliked the most. I tried to keep them in the same order as they appeared in the movie, but some are out of place:

1. Barty Crouch, Jr. is in the Riddle house scene in movie.

2. Hermione and Ginny were in the same tent in the movie.

3. The movie left out much-needed back story and character development.

4. Mad-Eye was not as nasty in the book.

5. During the Triwizard Tournament selection scene, Dumbledore grabbed Harry. Dumbledore is not a grabber.

6. HATED the molten lava-face fireplace scene with Sirius Black. Would it have been so difficult to have his head float in the flames?

7. Ron knew about the dragons in the tournament but didn't tell Harry. First, Ron didn't know about the dragons in the book, and second, if he had, he'd have told Harry ASAP.

8. The dragon broke away from his chains, and consequently, we were subjected to a dragged-out dragon-chasing scene. I don't have to ask "why" here. It was more exciting to show the dragon chasing Harry and breathing fire than the relatively short scene in the book where Harry tricked the dragon and flew under to grab the egg.

9. Ron and Harry’s reunion in movie was in Gryffindor common room with everyone watching. It took place outside just after first task with Hermione standing between them. Why change locations?

10. In the book, Ron magically removed the lace on his dress robes. Why leave it on in the movie?

11. The merpeople attacked Harry in the movie. They didn't in the book. In fact, they were smiling at him and "attacked" only when he tried to rescue the other people. But it's much scarier and exciting to show them attacking rather than smiling.

12. In the Barty Sr. death scene in the book, Viktor had been there. In the movie, no one was around. Just a dead body. Strange.

13. In the Pensieve scene in the book, Barty Jr. was brought in as a prisoner and described as a scared boy in his teens, not a grown, angry man sitting among the spectators. Barty Jr., though guilty, was afraid to go to Azkaban. He wasn't sneering and arrogant. And the movie never mentioned why he wasn't still in prison (did it?). Both of these facts are very important in understanding the whole story.

14. The maze, the maze…what can I say about that maze? First of all, the one in the book was much more subtle and cunning. In the move it closed it on them. Wrong, wrong, wrong. And here was no Sphinx scene in the movie. It would've been cool to see a talking Sphinx.

15. In the graveyard scene, the Death Eaters apparated. They didn’t appear from the sky conjured by Voldemort. The movie version was more exciting, I know, but still…

16. The Rita Skeeter scene was too brief and disconnected from the main plot. She was reduced to a caricature.

17. Too many main characters had to take a back seat because of time limitations.

18. This one should actually be #1. Sirius was still a wanted man. For his safety and Harry's he asks Harry and his friends to refer to him as "Snuffles" whenever they talked about him or wrote to him. What does Harry do in the movie? He writes "Sirius Black" on the front of the note! How/why did JKR allowed that?

19. Too many missing scenes were cut that would have explained some of the subplots.

20. There was virtually NO set up for Movie 5. As readers know, many events in the book were necessary to set up Order of the Phoenix.

21. In the movie, both Patil twins are seen in the Gryffindor common room. Parvati is in Gryffindor and Padme is in Ravenclaw. Students don't hang around the common rooms of houses not their own. It's a small detail, but it bothers book fans nonetheless.

22. Finally, the Voldemort-returns graveyard scene was too brief.

I wasn’t as critical with the first three movies because I’d seen them before I’d read the books. I suppose book fans can get carried away and nitpick forever.

Here's a brief list of scenes in the movie but not in the book, and vice versa, that I liked:

1. The Durmstrang boys’ entrance. Very cool.

2. The absence of Ludo Bagman. Didn't bother me at all.

3. The scene where Ron is dancing with Professor McGonagall. Classic.

4. Moaning Myrtle rubbing up against Harry in the bathtub scene. Hysterical.

5. Hermione's crusade to liberate house elves. Hated it in the book; glad it didn't make it into the movie.

Overall, the movie was…OK. Newell did what he had to do, I suppose.