Scary scenes in ‘Goblet’ earn PG-13 for Potter film

Just as Harry Potter is growing up in J.K. Rowling’s series of phenomenally popular books, the screen version of the young wizard isn’t entering quietly into his adolescence.

Judging by the first look at the finished film at a screening for journalists in London last week, “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” more than earns its PG-13, the first in the series to receive that rating.

In the United States, PG-13 carries with it a caution for parents and warns that some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. “Goblet” is cited for its sequences of fantasy violence and frightening images.

“Audiences that began with No. 1 and are now 14, 15, 16 years old will kind of want to know you are not infantilizing the situation,” says director Mike Newell. “These are not children’s books; these are adult stories.”

Among the more frightening scenes in the fourth “Potter” installment, due in theaters Nov. 18: a giant man-eating snake, an implied murder, and the graphic destruction of the Quidditch World Cup campsite at the hands of the dark-hooded, skull-faced Death Eaters.

And that’s just the first 15 minutes.

“Goblet” features the first appearance by the evil Lord Voldemort, played by Ralph Fiennes, and culminates in a graveyard battle between Harry and Voldemort that includes a torture scene.

Other scenes that may be of concern to parents include creepy spiders crawling on schoolchildren, fire-breathing dragons, monstrous mermaids, a character nearly suffocated by vines and a near-drowning. The film also contains mild profanity, sexual innuendo and the death of a main character.

Producer David Heyman says he was pleased with the rating. “It will be good for a slightly older audience, and it shows that we’ve been faithful to the material,” he says.

Whether the film is too scary for children under 12 depends on a child’s disposition, says star Daniel Radcliffe.

“If you are a very sensitive 10-year-old, you probably couldn’t see it, but then again, if you are a very resilient 5-year-old, you could,” Radcliffe says.