Walk The Line

[Pedro]

I was ultimately unimpressed.  Every scene only existed to move the story forward. I mean, you can argue the same for lots of movies, but in this one, I could really feel it.  It was all so calculated and abridged.  The amount of intense emotional scenes and the frequency of them was over the top.  Something about that made the film less affecting to me...it was almost comical.  The performances were fantastic, but I just wish that they could have had some room to breathe.

[Thrindle]

I agree with you completely.  Reese Witherspoon and Joaquin Pheonix were great, but the movie was so typical of a bio-pic.  When it started L'il SPOILERS with one of those contrived and moving flashbacks I couldn't help but think, "Great, I might as well have rented Ray" (and I thought Ray sucked).  An example of a good bio-pic would be Sylvia with Gwyneth Paltrow, it had genuine feeling and the story flowed.  This movie was cashing in ^{pardon the pun} on gimmicky interests like hanging out with Elvis and Jerry Lee (although it was kinda neat, it had no real relevence to the story or life of Johnny Cash).

[ddmarfield]

This is the poster child of a "safe" biopic. It has no distinct style or narrative that hasn't been done numerous times before.

Ultimately an enjoyable film, but only for the performances of Phoenix and Witherspoon and the music.

Much like "Ray," you'd probably get the same experience by buying a good greatest hits collection.

C+

[Ravi]

I'm disappointed to hear these comments.  Why can't there be fewer biopics with a weak script made up for by a great lead performance?  This is why I avoided Ray.  Thankfully Capote was actually a good movie enhanced by a good performance instead of a good performance hampered by a mediocre script.

[matt35mm]

Well I haven't seen Copland or Heavy, but having seen Girl, Interrupted and ESPECIALLY Identity, I could have told you (and did tell you, on the previous page) that it would have been boringly directed, with awesome performances.  Similar rules apply for Taylor Hackford (director of Ray).

This might have well have been directed by Chris Columbus.

But I still might see if for the performances, as I did with Ray.

I agree that Capote is a good example of a biopic done right.

[Pozer]

Great Balls of Fire or La Bamba anyone?

[killafilm]

Haven't seen it.

But love posters they have as the background here: http://www.walkthelinethemovie.com/

[matt35mm]

Great Balls of Fire or La Bamba anyone?

Interestingly enough, La Bamba was produced by Taylor Hackford (but not directed by).

[Ghostboy]

Awesome musical performances aside, this was even worse than Ray.

[Gamblour.]

Maybe I got sucked into the music and performances too much, the things everyone says are great about this film, but I fucking loved it. I thought it was great. I mean, I know nothing about Cash or his music really, so maybe it was kind of learning about him that I was fascinated by. How much of a hardass and a heavy drug user he was. That these events were real kept me so interested. What about the directing is bad? I really don't see it. I mean, I fucking HATE Identity so much. This film felt like the directing never got in the way, it just let the performances and music take over. My only complaint is Cash's first wife. That actress was terrible, and I know her family has said that she comes off as a total bitch, even though Cash was the bigger asshole. I think that actress should be blamed, she was just horrible. Robert Patrick was awesome. Joaquin and Reese are just incredible. I really really liked this movie. Man, I'm surprised it got a good bashing here.

[Pubrick]

What about the directing is bad? ... This film felt like the directing never got in the way

the simple rebuttal to anyone criticizing the "directing" of any film is this: your criticism means absolutely nothing.

it's my quest in life to make people realise this. the only way i can think to approach the growing problem now is to mention it everytime it happens. so help me God, i will end all use of this meaningless comment, one hollow point at a time..

but the direction was lacking.  The action scenes weren't very well directed, ... In that, HER direction didn't match up with the direction of others, thus making for a lack of any actual direction.

ah, but the director directing the direction directed the direct directive directly to the directees, so the direct --- *head explodes from lack of meaning*

[Gamblour.]

hahaha your quest is a valid one.

ghostboy - I haven't seen Ray, but why and how is that bad?

matt35mm - how was this film directed boringly? the absolute fire of these performances required that no sort of authorial voice get in the way, and I thought it worked. provide examples of what was boring and how it could've been not boring. (actually, i didn't realize you haven't actually seen this film yet still applied a judgment to it, but I'll leave the previous questions in case you ever see it)

ddmarfield - having no distinct style or narrative...did it need a style? say cinema verite or new wave editing? would that have made it better? and as for narrative, what was not distinct? i'm not sure what that means? when you say it's been done before, do you mean that of the recovering addict musician? this should be clarified.

Pedro - I guess you and Thrindle have made the only real arguments here. I can almost see how it's like every other biopic, but i don't see how the scenes were over the top. I mean, if this was based Cash's autobiography, and these really happened, then it's all the more powerful, that's why I was so affected. To think that Cash really fell asleep in the woods, trashed a hotel room, passed out on stage. if anything, the film's structure and cause-and-effect (what you say "to move the story forward") was simplistic at best, but not detrimental.

I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm just trying to see if anyone will back up what they say. This film was awesome and I'm curious to know why people here didn't find it very special.

[pete]

What about the directing is bad? ... This film felt like the directing never got in the way

the simple rebuttal to anyone criticizing the "directing" of any film is this: your criticism means absolutely nothing.

it's my quest in life to make people realise this. the only way i can think to approach the growing problem now is to mention it everytime it happens. so help me God, i will end all use of this meaningless comment, one hollow point at a time..

can a film, then, be badly written/ shot/ lit/ choreographed/ scored/ edited?

[Pubrick]

can a film, then, be badly written/

yes. concerning dialogue and story structure.

shot/

yes. concerning the technical camera movements and composition of shots, which involves lighting.

lit/

yes. covered above. can be assessed separately if for some reason the director of photography could light a picture well but gave the camera to a retard.. hypothetically speaking.

choreographed/

yes. if you know enuff about choreography (dance or fight) to critique a film beyond "i liked it, i didn't like it".

scored/

yes. concerning the music used in the film, original or otherwise.

edited?

yes. concerning the sequential cutting of shots together, and by extension the pacing of a film.

everything i've mentioned depends on the director's input. none of those things can be judged individually unless you go into a film with a checklist, looking only to judge the craft of the film itself as if its intentions were negligible. the editing, score, choreography, composition, and dialogue all should serve the story, the themes of it, the character development which allows us to become involved in the story. it's as simple as that, you forgot acting too, a film can be badly acted. as you know, a director brings all those things together.

all these are specific technical flaws to be found in any film. when ppl here criticize the "directing" they never say what they mean, they mention it as if "directing" were a technical merit easily spotted. what part of a movie specifically shows bad directing? "directing" is more an idea than a single identifiable element. it's what makes a film more than the sum of its parts.

[ddmarfield]

ddmarfield - having no distinct style or narrative...did it need a style? say cinema verite or new wave editing? would that have made it better? and as for narrative, what was not distinct? i'm not sure what that means? when you say it's been done before, do you mean that of the recovering addict musician? this should be clarified.

I think my main gripe is that everything just felt so unoriginal. I wasn't looking for the film to reinvent the wheel in terms of storytelling or style, but everything seems so familiar. Perhaps I was hoping the film would take some chances rather than trying to reach the largest audience possible It just felt like a rehash of Ray.

I'm sorry I can't give more concrete examples of what I was looking for. I think mainly I was looking for something different than Ray had done just one year earlier. Perhaps the truest mark of the professional appreciators (see: all of Xixax, myself included) is that they have a much easier time identifying problems than how to fix them.