Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire/Walk the Line

It's been awhile since I've taken in two movies at the theater on one weekend. The ridiculous cost and inconvenience of New Jersey/New York movie-going put a stop to that in the 8 months I was there. But here we are.

I don't love the Harry Potter franchise. Some would call me one of those people who hates "popular things." Well, gee, that's why "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is my all-time favorite movie, "Final Fantasy VI" is my favorite game, I'm a huge "Cowboy Bebop" fan, and Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" is one of my Top 5 albums. It's not that. It's just what I truly love does more great little things than huge things, and when it does something brilliant, it doesn't wave it in your face and expect you to worship it. It's why Tarantino will never be one of my favorite directors.

The thing is, it's IMPOSSIBLE for a "Harry Potter" movie NOT to deliver in these broad strokes. I know, I should probably read the books since they're embellished with these little details that I love that fans bring up only at release parties (which I would rather avoid), but I'm so overloaded with information every day that I can only read one book a year for leasure and still have it feel like leasure. But a movie like this, it has to be HUGE, and it has only enough time to get the general feel for everything, the thrust of the plot, and maybe a few of the more entertaining details. Even at three hours, people compalin about what they leave out.

I can tell you I've quite enjoyed the three previous "Harry Potter" movies, and now, the fourth one. "The Chamber of Secrets" is my personal favorite, followed by "Prisoner of Azkaban" and "The Sorcerer's Stone" last. "Sorcerer's Stone" was a good movie, but it was too pedastrian. It kind of HAD to be, since it was explaining everything, and doing anything flashy would make vital information possibly lost by the diversion. Still, the "Establishing shot, medium shot, closeup, closeup 2, back to medium, repeat closeups," boring, standard-issue filmmaking was too basic. And now, "Goblet of Fire" slides inbetween "Chamber of Secrets" and "Prisoner of Azkaban," and I really should talk about it since it IS half of the main topic. Anyway, minor spoilers to follow and under the LJ cut we go!



"Goblet of Fire" is a bit of a mixing between the styles of the previous directors. Mike Newell keeps the more earthbound visualization of Columbus' movies over Alfonso Cuaron's fanciness (even the clock was a visual wonder in "Azkaban") but still kept the more realistic aspects of teenage life Cuaron inserted after Columbus' "Boarding School with MAGIC!" approach (Note the clothing of the first two and the second two). Newell's style adds in a visual flavor that took me half the movie to figure out how to describe. Then, by the diving challenge, it hit me: It's "Myst" with people in it! That's a compliment. MUCH better than being "Star Wars: Episode I" which felt like just plain "Myst:" Visually striking, but VERY empty.

That said, Newell stumbles out of the starting block. The first 15 minutes have no kind of flow to them or much feeling, and the scenes that do are cut much too short. There's more time given to the boring moment with the old groundskeeper walking around with his flashlight than there is to the match at the Quiddich World Cup. Isn't there something wrong with that? The way the whole Quiddich World Cup is handled feels like it was only put there because it was required by the plot, and fans would kill someone if it wasn't. But it seemed the moment they felt it was "enough," *thwip,* it's gone. Back to haphazardly establishing the dark cloud that would hang over the rest of the movie, both figuratively and literally.

Thankfully, it gets MUCH better when it's back to life at Hogwarts. Newell's most famous movie before this is probably "Four Weddings and a Funeral," so it's quite obvious he was brought in to provide more of a human touch than visual styling, and it shows in the scenes surrounding the ball. My personal favorite scene was the study hall. So many perfect touches. In this movie, the regular early teenage life is a lot more interesting than even the contest for the Tri-Wizard Cup, though those are well-handled. The passage of time is a bit too quick, though. At the end of the movie, I left thinking, "That was a YEAR?!" Oh, and "Who was that stupid extra who was waving in the shadows? Yeah, they're REALLY going to see you there!"

The acting is what it is. These actors ARE the characters at this point, and I think the child actors will have a more difficult time establishing themselves when all's said and done because of such attachment. But for now, it's fine, though I think Michael Gambon's having a rough time establishing a solid characterization for Dumpledore. Understandable, since Richard Harris left some DAMN big shoes to fill.

My only big issue with the movie aside from the opening is the dark elements. This is where the series begins it's thrust past being magic-tinged mystery stories into its one large arc involving the return of Voldemort, and while it gets the meaning across, it misses being creepy or unsettling. Say what you want about "Chamber of Secrets" or take your potshots at Columbus if you like, but he got the dark element pitch-perfect. The writing in blood, the menacing foreshadawing, and extra points for the spider sequence. Sure, Columbus got a little wrapped up in the whimsy in his movies, but dammit, everything WORKED in "Chamber of Secrets!" In the appearance of he-who-shall-not-be-named, Ralph Feinnes is decent, but we have the physical manifestation of a person so feared, nobody is even allowed to speak his name! To say it's underwhelming in this movie is an understatement, and if there's one reason I wouldn't want Newell back, it's because – from what I hear – the stories will have much more of such things.

Overall, it's a very good movie. It has more emotional moments and a less muddled storyline than "Azkaban," but its clumsy opening and the most unsatisfying payoff of all the "Harry Potter" movies keeps it from being the best. Now, like the rest of the "Harry Potter" movies, I've enjoyed and absorbed it and will probably not watch it again unless someone else is.


Next, "Walk the Line," the Johnny Cash biopic. There's a quote from "High Fidelity," one f my favorite movies, that's stuck in my mind since I heard about this movie:

"Hey, I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but I'm certainly not the dumbest. I mean, I've read books like 'The Unbearable Lightness of Being' and 'Love in the Time of Cholera,' and I think I've understood them. They're about girls, right? Just kidding. But I have to say my all-time favorite book is Johnny Cash's autobiography 'Cash' by Johnny Cash."

So, with that line, and the movie partially based on sed book, I had to see it. Odd motivation, I know.

Anyhoo, same minor spoiler warning and lj-cut applies.



I can't help but say I wanted this movie to be better. That said, it's pretty good. When the movie's good, it's on FIRE! A burning ring of fire, if you like. However, there's also a murky trudge through some material that doesn't quite connect.

Here's the rub: This movie is NOT a defining look at the life of Johnny Cash. It is a love story between Johnny Cash and June Carter where the elements of their lives are used as obstacles that rip them apart and eventually bring them together. You will NOT get how Johnny Cash became the broken, tired man he was in the heartbreaking "Hurt" video. Well, maybe a little bit, but that half of his life is virtually non-existant in this movie.

"Walk the Line" starts off fairly slow. It begins as a flashback to Johnny Cash's childhood. If you've seen ANY biopic about someone who's grown up in the South, you've seen this stuff, and probably seen it better executed. After one specific event, it's off to his brief stint in the Air Force that made him sad. We don't quite know what about it made him sad, but there it is. He then returns home to marry a woman and it isn't even established why he likes her, except that she's good looking. She's merely to set up an obstacle for later. But then the music comes into play, and then the movie gets REALLY good!

The performance pieces are the highlight of the movie, and what highlights they are. Every performance piece is planned, lit, and filmed for a specific purpose and they are all executed perfectly. There's his first big gig, which focuses on the audience initially and introduces June Carter as an amazing personality that strikes Cash immediately, the concert where he discovers "groupies," and most importantly, when Cash and Carter tour. In those scenes, the lighting all but eliminates the audience from the show and almost sees Cash in a fantasy world where he and June are in perfect harmony and the only thing they needed was each other. This would grind to a halt when the real world hit, and Johnny's married with children and June's a woman shamed by society for having the gaul to divorce her husband and trying to figure out what to do with her own kids.

Oh, and the performances are EXCELLENT. Joaquin Phoenix, who plays Johnny, and Reese Witherspoon, who plays June, do their own singing, and you won't know the difference between them and their real-life counterparts. It's easily Reese Witherspoon's best performance ever and probably the best she'll ever have. Phoenix's Cash might be a little too introspective for some audiences, but that's the way it is.

The real world stuff, though, is stuff you've seen before if you've ever watched a biopic. Sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll, and an occasional appearance by a famous historical person. Sopmetimes in that order, sometimes not. The hero must crash thanks to some of these elements, but rises above them to become someone worthy of the legacy he/she's been given. The actors' emotions are there, but it doesn't radiate off the screen and into the hearts of the audience. Too bad, because there's half a great movie here.


And that's it. Bye for now. I gotta' figure where the money for the next few movies is coming from.