More epic and substantial than I expected - a great tribute to Cash that also isn't totally biased in his favor

Rating: 10/10 (25 June 2006)

Having seen the previews and read the reviews for "Walk the Line," and knowing its director was James Mangold, I expected a light drama with great performances. I'm glad I gave the film a chance, however, because it is actually a strong drama with amazing performances.
I wasn't too thrilled by Mangold's directorial decisions on "Cop Land" (I thought the acting there was superb also, but let down by amateurish handling). He has matured as a director since then. "Walk the Line" doesn't come across as being a formulaic or stale biopic - it opens with Johnny Cash's famous performance at Folsom Prison and flashbacks to his memories of childhood. It also doesn't portray Cash as a perfect hero - he's flawed, and his alcoholism, drug addiction and adultery is all exposed.
Being a huge fan of Cash (although not by any means a fan of most country music), I've always thought it was Cash's rock n' roll attitude and blending of musical styles that attracted me. I didn't know so much about his personal life, but knew he had given his blessings to this project. It was refreshing to see Joaquin Phoenix do him justice. 2005 was a year of two great performances (Hoffman in "Capote" was also wonderful) and Phoenix really nailed Cash down to the notes he sang.
Reese Witherspoon was impressive as June-Carter, Cash's wife. Their relationship was turbulent and the movie handles it tastefully. It never veers into unabashed sentimentality, yet it also doesn't become too bogged down with the negative. It provides a balanced perspective of their marriage.
I found some of the co-star roles questionable (Tyler Hilton as Elvis Presley was a huge mistake - looks and sounds nothing like him), but that is irrelevant in the long run since this is primarily about Cash and Carter and both actors deliver in their roles.
As a recently-converted Cash fan, I see this movie as a touching tribute to his life that doesn't seem artificial, tacky or biased. As a general movie buff, I see it as one of the rare biopics that achieves epic status and doesn't fall victim to excess.
Yes, the film has a few flaws - but overall I thought it was one of the best and most surprising films of 2005. Really not at all what I had expected after reading reviews. I would take any critic who tells you it's a movie made ONLY by its performances with a grain of salt. It's a well-rounded achievement.