Did anyone else NOT enjoy "Walk the Line"?

(I saw the thread about Brokeback Mountain but didn’t want to hijack that one.)

Saw the “Walk the Line” film a while back and had to wonder,
How many formulatic musician biographies do we need?

They all seem to be about how the star started from humble beginnings and then fame got the best of them and they got mixed up with drugs (Elvis, Jim Morrison, Cash, Ray Charles) or domestic problems (Tina Turner, Cash) blah, blah, blah.

Is it really that interesting when everyone is living the same rock-star life?

And on top of that we always get the actor/actress who everyone thinks deserves an oscar because they did a great impersonation of the star. Is acting really about how good an impersonation you can do.
I prefer actors who can create their own characters thank you.

So, are you sick of the musician biographies? Are there any good ones that deviate from the formula?

I watched it last week and was totally underwhelmed.

Count me in with those who found it ho-hum.

Also, am I the only one who finds it beyond distracting when the actor in the bio-pic looks nothing like the guy he’s supposed to be portraying?

That’s an unintended hijack and could easily be a thread in and of itself but Will Smith looked nothing like Ali in picture of the same name nor Anthony Hopkins from Nixon. Any time an actor is playing Howard Cossell (Johns Voight and Turturro) the results are laughingly off the mark.

Sorry about that.

I didn’t care for it. It had some good spots (I loved the Sam Phillips audition scene), but I never got any context from the film about how famous/successful they were at the various periods in their lives. A trivial concern, except that’s the whole reason they were chosen as the subjects of this movie. Compare it to Coal Miner’s Daughter, where we’re given very specific information about how successful the Lynns were at every stage of their career, what else was going on in the music industry at every stage.

This was more like The Doors, focusing more on the dissipation of a charismatic fuckup than on the reason for his fame. Also, June Carter was depicted as a complete doormat. It just didn’t seem to be a well-rounded depiction.

I thought it was just OK. The music scenes were entertaining, but I definitely agree that this standard form biopic has run its course. We get it, famous people have character flaws. Isn’t that readily apparent from all the time the media devotes to Tom Cruise’s exploits?

I also thought it was just okay. I thought the acting was fine, but the writing was, to say the least, not great. Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon worked really hard to convince me they were in love, but the story itself didn’t give me any reason to believe it. All we saw was Johnny either longing for her or trying to bully her into being with him. We got some longing looks from her as well, of course, but damned if I could figure out why, given what we were shown of his behavior. That’s bad enough when I’m watching fiction, but we’re dealing with real people here, who by all accounts were deeply in love and committed to each other.

Speaking of which, I also suspect that the really interesting part of Johnny and June Cash’s lives was *after * they got married. Why on earth would they treat their story the same way you’d treat a lame-ass done-to-death romantic comedy, where it’s all about getting them together, and it ends with a kiss?

I quite enjoyed the film, but really, it was full of cliches and stuck to the easy subjects (poor kid becomes big star; rocker is saved by good woman), rather than some of the trickier ones, such as the overwhelming place of religion in the lives of John and June, and the relapses and struggles during their marriage.

The strangest thing about it, for me, is that people are actually buying the soundtrack, when the original recordings are easily available for about the same price. Why would you want to listen to a record of xerox cover versions that are almost as good as the original?

I didn’t love it. I always think biopics try t otell too much of a story, and so tell nothing. In this specific cases, I kept thinking that June Carter’s story was really much more interesting–I mean, here you are, a good Christian woman, and Johnny Cash is in love with you, I mean, Johnny Freaking Cash, one of the most facinating, most charismatic people possible, and he could have anyone, and he wants you and you want him but your married and he’s got problems. God, talk about having to walk a careful line–talk about a ring of fire. Her tension and passion and the choices she faced were much, much more interesting than his, and if they’d made her the central charecter, I think it would have been much more powerful.

I haven’t seen the movie yet and don’t know whether it was a realistic depiction or not.

Hampshire, do you think it played loose with the facts of the story?

Meh.

When the whole point of the story is the affair between June and Johnny, they could have at least kept the chronology right (and the fact that Walk the Line was written for Johnny’s FIRST wife, not June!).

They may have had a long and happy marriage, she may have helped him through his addictions, but their affair was instrumental in at least 2 divorces, and pretending that it wasn’t by conveniently having them apart for several years during the movie (when, in reality, that’s when the affair began) is a little too fast and loose with the truth for my liking.

Yeah, that was my take, too. I was really sick of hearing “Baby, baby, baby, baby” all the goddam time when this thing was released, and when AI finally got to see it in contrast, all I could say was “this is the moment they choose to advertise?!?!” Definately a disappointment, and a copout formulaic disappointment to boot.

The week the movie was being released, without seeing it, I started the thread I YAWN the line about the generic-ness of the biopic.

Nothing I’ve heard since it’s release has changed my stance one bit.

I generally have problems with bio-pics, particularly if I happen to have some independent knowledge of the subject. The changes that are made to minor facts just irritate me. In this one, I thought they made Ray Cash into a near-monster for no good reason, and reading I’ve done indicates that he was just a very hard-working, not very warm man. I thought this movie was a boiler-plate musical bio-pic, not great, not horrible, very ordinary.

I liked it quite a bit, but I freely admit it could have been because of

– the music (T-Bone Burnett owns me)
– Reese Witherspoon

I can’t really argue with most of the criticisms in this thread, although I didn’t find it boring. I was also unfamiliar enough with Johnny and June’s lives to not be bothered by the inaccuracies.

I felt the same way. A roadside bar, a big theater, Vegas, it all seemed the same to me.

Thank you for this thread!!! I thought there was something wrong with me for not liking this movie. I watched it with my daughter/son-in-law who had already seen it and gushed about how great it was. They even went out and bought the soundtrack. Which confused me because why wouldn’t you want to hear the REAL Johnny Cash?

As for the movie, I could have used waaaay less of Reese and Joaquin singing (OK, we get it, the actors are actually singing, not lip sync-ing!!!) And these actors could not hold a candle to the real thing. I was surprised to hear that Johnny Cash “hand picked” Phoenix to play him. I could not buy his portrayal. And Reese winning the Oscar? Gimme a break.

For me, it really didn’t even scratch the surface of “Who was Johnny Cash?” It was very superficial. I can’t compare it to Ray, as I haven’t seen that one yet, but I knew a whole lot more about Ike and Tina Turner after What’s Love Got To Do With It? than I know about Johnny and June. I remember a profile that 60 minutes did several years ago on Cash and Carter that was more enlightening than this movie was.

I think they could have done a whole movie about Johnny’s concert at Folsom prison and other prisons. Really this was a seminal event in his career. But the movie sort of glossed over it.

Another thing that bugged me is they set up Johnny’s first wife to look like a villain. She was such a bitch that she wouldn’t let Johnny hang up pictures of June!!! And told June to stay away from her children!! What a horrible woman! :rolleyes:

I liked it, not as much as Ray, but still found it enjoyable. I don’t understand how people can complain about cliches in a biographical film. If a cliche (such as a famous musician doing drugs) actually happened, then it’s not a cliche its a legitimate part of the story. The movie is less fresh because Ray is so recent, but I found the performances and music excellent. I thought though the romantic relationship was drawn out too much, and I thought Cash’s relationship with his father could have been developed more.

My wife and I watched it a few weeks ago and enjoyed it. The next morning, though, I asked her the differences between it and Ray, which we had watched a few weeks before that. She said I ruined “Walk the Line” for her at that point. The story arc was similar and there just aren’t that many surprises. <yawn>

Although I still really like Reese Witherspoon.

And, according to maninblack.net, the story of how June wrote “Ring of Fire” is pretty far off from reality:

I find that whenever a movie shows the songwriting process it’s inevitably awful.

I didn’t like it that much, and I’m a big Johnny Cash fan. Walk the Line mostly consisted of his pursuit of June Carter and his drug habit, which while they are important, I didn’t want to see a whole movie about it.

I was hoping to see more about his younger days and more about the music, and what happened to him after he left the spotlight, like the 70’s and 80’s, and also I wanted to see how his new success in the 90’s affected his life.

Maybe they’ll do Walk the Line 2 with the rest of the story…