Essentially the film is about the fight between good and evil. There are specifics but I guess it was nice to start very broad with the concept. You have two camps, the good guys (Night Watch) and the vampiric bad guys (Day Watch). They live in a world where evil and good have a truce until the final battle begins. The good guys drink blood to hunt vampires that break the law and the bad guys play really old video games. I kid you not, the biggest bad guy of them all plays a very early version of Tekken, enhanced of course by his evilness into a high tech magic eight ball.

So the plot goes likes this…uh, well. Good guy chases bad guy and then there is a dramatic twist. A gate then opens to allow the final battle. And then another twist, the end. I really have a hard time giving out the plot because it does have twists and turns that culminate in a very unique ending. The unique ending was a let down, but justified since there are two more films to be made.

Aside from the plot, the use of subtitles was brilliant! Rarely do subtitles actually make an impact on the work itself. This is the main reason to watch the Russian version and not the English one. I never thought that subtitles could actually enhance the mood of scenes, yet by simply adding some color or fades the subtitles become dynamic. I think there is a certain stigma attached to watching a film with subtitles, however in this instance the subtitles become than just words to read. As the blood pumps, the letters bleed. some people may find this a bit tacky, but they are not overdone or overused. They add to the film from a position that rarely does anything to enhance.

What bugs me most about this film is that it has been compared to The Matrix and even The Lord of the Rings. Duh, it’s the epic battle between good and evil. How many other trilogies have this as a central theme. Perhaps even Star Wars? Obviously comparisons will be made, but this film has enough individual qualities to stand on its own. Night Watch is not a great film, but it was cool to see some interesting takes on vampires and the use of subtitles. The acting was nothing to write home about, but then again Keanu was good in The Matrix. Here, the story carries the film. I would suggest taking a look at this film, even if it’s just for the subtitles. I wonder if I should have just reviewed the subtitles, they seem to be the best thing about this film.

Let me begin by gushing over this film. I really enjoyed watching this, and not just because I am a Johnny Cash fan. I was stunned by the ability of Joaquin Phoenix (Johnny Cash) and Reese Witherspoon (June Carter) to sing. Not many actors have the ability to not only sing but also mimic fairly famous voices. (I am thinking of Keanu Reeves in these terms, Dogstar was not very good.) Even though Joaquin was not perfect, it was close enough for me to buy into the fantasy. Let me preface this next statement with a “I do not really enjoy Reese Witherspoon”, she was great! I did like her in Election, but I just get irritated when I watch a romantic comedy with her in it. Aside from those stellar performances, I was not really impressed with the rest of the cast. Both sets of parents (June’s and Johnny’s) were well played, but Elvis and Jerry Lee seem very cartoony.

Now that I’ve gushed a bit, some criticism as well. I have a real problem with films like this because I think they lack a creativity that comes out in original films. I mean, there is interpretation involved in taking someone’s life story and making a film; but it’s not like you have to write what happened to them. I do understand the novelty of a biopic, I too want to know about Johnny Cash and his life: but are we sacrificing something by promoting biopics over other original films. This really brings up an interesting conundrum. Who is to blame for this phenomena?

Let me set this up a bit. Most of the films that Hollywood is promoting (not making) fall into only a few categories:

• Biopics – of which we are already discussing (Walk the Line, Capote, Ray)
• Remakes – how many more horror films are going to be remade (Poseidon, King Kong)
• Sequels – sometimes warranted (X-men 3) and sometimes not (Charlie’s Angels 2)
• Comic Books – as much as I love them, there are only a few more I care to watch be mauled (V for Vendetta, Spider/Bat/Super/X 24 – The Tights Need Washed [okay I made that one up])
• Major Books – don’t get me started on how it is impossible to make a 2 hour film from a 500 page book, but alas it’s done (The Da Vinci Code)

These are the types of films that Hollywood sees fit to push aggressively into the market. Why do they keep making them? Is it because it’s what we (the audience) wants to see? Is it because of a lack of original ideas? Is it where the moneys at? The long and short of it is yes, on all accounts. Let me tackle them one at a time.

Lack of original films. Although it may seem that Hollywood isn’t making original films, they are; they are just not promoting them as heavily as the previously mentioned types. Original films have no built in money making potential, so it is always a risk to heavily fund one. Part of the blame has to be on the audience for not supporting original films; but at the same time, I do not want to spend $10 on a film that I may not like. It really does come down to money. The risk of the studios and the risk of forking out our own cash for a bad film. We should also question originality. According to someone like Carl Jung, there is no such thing as originality since we are always telling the same stories. I would also add that originality is a personal response, especially if you are viewing a film without prior experience of the source or the story.

We want these films. On one level I agree, I want a film based on V for Vendetta. I want films that can accompany the words and images I read, but I also want them done right. Rarely is this accomplished. I also think that we have become lazy as an audience. Original films take more effort at times. Which would you rather watch: Ju-on or The Grudge. Keep in mind one has subtitles and comes from a different culture which you may have no knowledge of and may incorporate elements that you simply will not understand without effort. Granted, I’m not even saying Ju-on is all that original. We are comfortable with what is familiar, even if that means we are comfortable with bad films. James Bond is not going away, and neither is Star Wars. But again it all comes down to money, and also time. Something which we seem to have very little of.

The downward spiral of Hollywood? Is all of this a sign of what’s to become of Hollywood? I think the answer is yes and no. Yes, the studios will keep pushing the sequels and remakes on us because they continue to make money. But, the industry is changing. Perhaps this is the rebirth of film as we move into an era where I do not have to spend $10 to see a film the day it opens, I can buy it and watch it at home. I think that audiences do want new and original, but are not yet prepared to put the money into chance. As we shift to the tech era of exhibition, they are more spaces created for chances to be taken. Hollywood may have ended as we know it, but it will never go away. It will change like it always has.

So back to Walk the Line. I liked this film even beyond the discussion of originality. I enjoyed seeing Johnny Cash’s life played out on the screen. It does go to show you that not all biopics, sequels, remakes, and so on, are not bad.