★★★½ Walk the Line
[Gino: 4.0, TwoShoes: 4.0, Twinkletoes: 2.5; Tiny 2.5]
Gino says: "But both of us leaning slightly to a 3.5, and if you have no interest in the subject (Johnny Cash) then more like a 3.0. You were warned. Now, with that out of the way: I will say that Joaquin Phoenix is one of my favorite actors. He was great again in this. He communicated more simply with the variations of his on-stage tag line 'Hello, I'm Johnny Cash' than most actors do in whole films. Reese Witherspoon is also very good, and I think she just might win the oscar for this, if for no other reason than she was so likable in it (as June Carter). Besides the acting, I was surprised by how beautiful the photography was. I was also surprised at how good the music was, given that the actors did the singing. We were going back and forth between forgetting we were watching actors and then remembering we were watching good actors."
Twinkletoes says: "It was OK. I just couldn't get over the sense that this film was full of artificial moments that were there more to create an entertaining film than to tell the true story of Johnny Cash and that bothered me. I may be wrong. Maybe Johnny Cash's life did contain an inordinate number of overly dramatic life changing moments, but then the fault lies with the director for creating what to me was a very pedestrian and artless film. Ultimately I was left with the feeling that Johnny Cash's life wasn't as interesting as I thought it was."
Tiny says: "My thoughts are more in line with Twinkletoes', though I did not think it was 'artless', particularly some great photography. I actually wasn't a huge fan of Phoenix's acting or singing in this. I enjoyed Witherspoon, though. I felt like the pacing just kept rushing me to the next big moment, and this sort of disturbed the feeling of reality. I hated some of the obviously fake moments."
Posts
2 comments:
I am a little confused: How can someone's life be filled with an "inordinate number of overly dramatic life changing moments" and yet not "as interesting as you thought it was?"
A few months have passed since I saw it so you may be right. But I never really thought of it as a bunch of dramatic events, indeed I think few biographical films would be interesting if that were the case, but rather a relationship between two people (+ drugs and music). Perhaps our view points explain our enjoyment or lack thereof.
Not as interesting in the sense that I didn't buy most of it and what I did buy wasn't as mythical as I was expecting. Did he really stun June by asking her to marry him on stage like that? Did that tractor thing happen right after that confrontation with his father? Was there really a saw at Folsum that reminded him of his brother? Did June really think up Ring of Fire in the car after some confrontation with Johnny? And on and on. It just seemed a bit contrived to me. And things like the constant "gee whiz" appearances of all of the famous people just made me feel like the only thing that was true in the movie was that Johnny was troubled and loved June. Seriously, the appearance by Waylon Jennings was nothing but an annoying distraction from the story. I eventually just started to lose interest. Maybe all of these things did actually happen, but that doesn't change the fact that I wasn't convinced of it by this film.
Post a Comment