"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" was exceptional and to criticize it is just nitpicking. The fourth book in the "Harry Potter" series hit the big screen Friday with an enchanting kaboom.

Simply put, it was awesome.

What's great

The kids' acting talents have progressively gotten better with each film. Daniel Radcliffe, who plays Harry, is more believable as the legendary young wizard and really shows off his maturing acting abilities in his scenes with the evil Lord Voldemort. Rupert Grint, who plays Harry's best friend Ron Weasley, is funnier and produces a much rounder character. Emma Watson, playing Harry's good friend Hermione Granger, is sassier and intensifies sincerity in her emotions.

There are two scenes that really stick out: an underwater episode where Harry grows gills in order to stay submerged for an hour, and when a fire-breathing dragon chases Harry on his broomstick.

Both scenes are breathtakingly beautiful because director Mike Newell uses special effects to heighten the action rather than just showing off with computer- animated images.

Just nitpicking

The movie had to strip the novel down to its bare bones, so a lot is missing from J.K. Rowling's written word. But if the novel was exactly recreated on film, it would've lasted about 6 hours instead of 157 minutes.

Overall, Newell made wise decisions concerning what to omit. The movie is highly entertaining while still comprehensible for viewers who haven't read the books.