Shine on you Crazy Diamond

I recently went to see the film ‘Walk The Line’ which had received a number of very good reviews. I knew very little of the Johnny Cash story beforehand, and I could only vaguely remember one dark number where he sang about cutting himself to see if he could still feel any pain - the sort of image you don’t forget in a hurry.

I absolutely adored this film from start to finish. I could identify with “JR’s” relationship with his unforgiving and overbearing father. In one scene, which I doubt very much is based on reality, the now adult JR challenges his father to answer the same question he asked Johnny as a child, “Where were you?”, the day his older brother died in a saw-mill accident. To me the idea that this question haunted Johnny for most of his life is very profound. In fact, in the film Cash’s character during one dark moment wishes it was he that died instead of his brother because his brother would have brought so much goodness into the world whereas Johnny felt rotten to the core; it took June Carter’s love to turn him around.

As a fan of the blues myself I like to think this dark part of Cash’s psyche goes to explain some of his lyrics, their inherent power and imagery.

On a lighter note, Witherspoon impressed me with her performance of the 50’s country singer June Carter. (She also reminded me very much of an old girlfriend I used to have too). I was in a quandary as to whether Witherspoon was actually singing or not - her voice sounded so authentic. Well, when I say authentic she sounded very much like I imagined a 50’s country singer should sound (I later learned when I bought Cash’s back-catalogue the modern music production in the film was far superior to the original version). Moreover, Reese’s portrayal of Carter was far removed from the comedy roles I’m used to seeing her in. There was no hint of ‘I’m blond but I’m not stupid, stupid!”. I’d say she was the star of he film except for the fact that Pheonix’s performance was quite literally ‘awesome’.

What I particularly liked about the story was Cash messing things up, time and time again, but sticking to his guns and eventually getting the love of his life. I is one soppy SOB. *sniff*

Well, that’s what the neat little badges said during the film, ‘Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire’. But by the end of the movie he was golden boy again. Yipee!

As a more mature fan of Harry Potter, I’d say that overall the film was very good. Towards the end when Harry goes toe-to-toe with man-without-a-nose (or more commonly known as Lord Voldemort) and the spirits of parents turned up to help him, I felt quite moved. I’m a sentimental sucker for stuff like that.

The film is darker than previous ones: the way that Cedric is murdered is absolutely brutal and shocking to watch. Even though, as an adult I’m used to seeing characters being shot to pieces with blood and guts flying all over the place, I was still stunned to see in a ‘children’s film’ someone being slain (with no blood and guts) in such an abrupt manner. “Kill him”. Bang. He’s dead. Writing at it’s best if you ask me.

There were some things about the film I found disappointing, however, these all fall into the category ‘I Want to See MORE!’. The actors playing Krum and Cho Chang were excellent in the film, but like a greedy teenager I felt cheated that their characters weren’t developed more. I know Cho is a recurring character and I look forward to seeing more of her, but I have to admit I can’t recall from subsequent books if Krum turns up again. If someone does remember please put me straight.

Finally, I’d like to take my proverbial hat off to young Daniel, who spent weeks working underwater for the sequence set in the lake with the merfolk. I thought they claimed it lasted 8 minutes on-screen, but it felt more like two. I can only say that the 2 hours 40 minutes just didn’t feel like long enough. Give me MORE!

While I’m still waiting for the Harry Potter film to come out, I went to see Lord of War at the movies. I vaguely remembered that it received a lukewarm rating from RottonTomatoes. (rechecking this morning I see it only received 41%). Much to my surprise, I actually enjoyed the film.

My guess as to why the film didn’t enjoy higher approval ratings is that it contains a strong - albeit humorous - political message. It’s essentially about a nobody, named Yuri, (played by Nicholas Cage) whose family settled in the States after leaving the Ukraine. When the main character gets bored with his tedious life he hits on the crazy idea: the path to a better life is through war. Quickly realising that the big bucks are made not selling arms (there are too many people doing that), but selling them illegally.

As the film develops, Yuri manages to remain detached from the death and destruction caused by his increasing success. As he puts it - he just sells the guns, it’s not his fault that his customers want to hurt one another. As Yuri’s wealth amasses, he fulfils his childhood dream by careful crafting a fake second life, with model wife and blue-eyed son! Yup, that bubble is now ripe for the bursting.

(Inevitably,) the two worlds collide when his brother takes a stand against the impending slaughter of innocent women and children at hands of Yuri’s clients. Bang, bang, bang, bang … bang! This must be Yuri’s lowest ebb. But no - it gets worse. Yuri’s holier-than-thou parents denounce him and his ‘I don’t feel pretty anymore’ wife walks out, leaving poor old Yuri out to dry with the ‘got you at last you rascal’ police.

As the credits roll, the words “Based on Actual Events” appear, just in case you were asleep during the film.

Despite the high moral fibre, I still liked it: it was funny.

I went to see Viggo Mortensen’s (he played Aragorn in Lord of the Rings) new film yesterday, A History of Violence. According to my movie review subscription Rotten Tomatoes, it received a 89% rating - very good! Interested by the high grade, I started to read the review details, however I managed to quickly pull away after the first line - I much prefer to go in knowing nothing. I absolutely hate hype.

As I left the theatre I wasn’t sure the flick merited the very high rating it was given: I wasn’t enthralled the way I was when I saw ‘Crash’, last month. In fact, the plot plodded along very slowly at times, punctuated by some smoking sex (Karen will like this part) and the odd bit of blood and brains (the blown out kind). What I enjoyed the most was Viggo’s first rate performance, better than his last, I’d say.