Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Bumpy Chip It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

zkonedog When I see a film like "I Saw The Light", it reminds me of how fine the line is between being "great" and being "just okay". This film has great acting, wonderful song numbers, and tells a dramatic story…all things that it's "spiritual" successor "Walk The Line" does. However, there is one key difference (that makes all the difference): That earlier Johnny Cash flick had a lot of heart. This Hank Williams biopic? Not so much.For a basic plot summary, "I Saw The Light" tells the story of Hank Williams (Tom Hiddleston), the mega-popular but also severely troubled country music superstar. The film begins with his rushed, low-key marriage to Audrey (Elizabeth Olsen), then chronicles his rise to stardom in line with the promiscuity and alcoholism that defined his personal life.The problem that holds back "I Saw The Light" is simple to identify, yet tough to disseminate: it lacks that "spark", or heart, that previous biopics on other topics have provided. I think the primary culprit in this case is that it doesn't include much of a personal narrative for any of the featured characters. It's about as "straight" of a biopic as one will ever see, not providing any "editorializing" (for lack of a better word) on Hank or his life. Simply put, there is no backstory given, so how can we ever really feel for the events on screen without that context?Fortunately, the acting in this film is terrific…every bit as good as "Walk The Line", to be completely honest. Hiddleston captures the awkward skinny-ness of Hank's physical presence, while Olsen often steals the show as Audrey. Usually, acting like this can propel a film to great heights, but (as previously mentioned) there just isn't enough meaty material to create the kind of dramatic tension needed to make that happen.The musical numbers are a treat, as Hiddleston does a remarkable job of mimicking Hank's unique sound. I like it when films like this let the actor cover the songs…so long as the performance isn't totally butchered. Hiddleston shines in that regard.Overall, though, the lack of drama/energy in "I Saw The Light" ultimately doom it to its 3-star rating. It's a bit sad, as all the other components are firmly in place, but it just lacks that dramatic narrative that needs to drive any biopic. A film like this can't just "portray real life" (as where is the spectacle in that?). It has to tell its own story, and that is where "I Saw The Light" fell short.

cross525 Tom Hiddelston portrays Hank Sr spot on. He had the difficult task of singing like the most iconic voice in country music history,in my opinion, Hank Williams and was spot on. The other movie based on Hank that I have seen Your Cheatin Heart(1964) was way more lame and inaccurate than this one. The singing in that one was done by Hank Williams Jr and badly lip synced by George Hamilton. I was raised on Hank Williams music by my father and I believe he would have enjoyed this portrayal. And he told me and I have heard Audrey Williams sing. Elizabeth Olsen singing was much better than Audrey's, just saying. Tom did an excellent job of playing this role. Many people think this movie was awful, but they need to see Your Cheatin Heart (1964) and they will really appreciate this movie. Mr. Hiddelston shouldn't be dismissed because he plays Loki in MCU. He has talent and I believe many should give this movie another chance.

Oeuvre_Klika I am very disappointed by this movie. I gave it 5 stars because of the performances and production values, which were both very good. Tom Hiddleston, of which I am a fan, delivers a great performance, as he usually does, and it was a pleasure to hear him sing. He seems to have put a lot of effort to put himself into the character, and I salute that. Elisabeth Olsen, as Audrey Williams, is also excellent.However, the movie itself is extremely bland. Even a film based on real life events needs to have a story arc in order to engage the viewers. There's factual, and then there's boring. There was no story in this movie, just (sometimes very) short sequences from Williams' life in chronological order. The first half of the movie was particularly jarring, as we moved from one event to another, without time to feel the impact of one scene before the next arrived. I'm not calling for melodrama, but this first half was as engaging as a Wikipedia page. It did get slightly better in the second half.For a musical biopic, there was a surprising lack of focus on music. Sure, we were shown musical performances, but we weren't shown a lot of context around them, making them seem more decorative than part of the story told. Maybe the film was made only for aficionados who already know everything about the country & western music business from the 40's? I doubt it. My biggest disappointment is that, apart from making me listen to beautiful songs, this movie completely failed to show me how important Hank Williams is in the history of music. If I had never heard about him (and before this year, I had never heard about him), I would be baffled as to why they felt it was important to make a movie about him.I could understand their choice to focus more on Williams' personal life, if they had made it interesting to me. But the movie is as unemotional as they could have made it. The direction is so detached that I sometimes felt like I was watching some sort of existential comedy, a la Coen brothers. Maybe I'm slightly exaggerating, but I did laugh at some scenes that I don't feel were supposed to be funny. I could not be invested emotionally at all, with the exception of a very few scenes. I really blame the direction here, because the actors did give emotional performances. It just seemed that the director didn't want us to feel any empathy for anyone.

bandw I came away from this with the same reaction I have to so many biopics: the best way to know an artist his through his or her work.Tom Hiddleston gives a credible performance, but it seemed just that-- a performance. It lacked any spark of charisma to make me care for Williams with any emotional depth. Curious that an English actor would take on this role, even to the extent of singing. The fact of having Hiddleston sing instead of using actual Williams recordings was a gamble that did not pay off for me. When Hiddleston sings "Cold, Cold Heart" very early on his cover was off just enough to be jarring to me. You can teach a dog to walk on its hind legs, but what you still have is a dog walking on its hind legs.The movie spends a lot of time on Willims' stormy relationship with his first wife Audrey--the first scene with them has them being married. So, we jump in when Williams was 21, at a time that precluded any discussion of Willaims' youth. Seeing what the foundation was for the talent that was to come would have been of interest. Williams led a hectic life and I wish this movie could have been edited better to allow for guiding us through the maelstrom with better clarity.There was a dichotomy between what we see of Williams' life and the lyrics of his songs. Where did deeply sensitive lyrics like,----------I tried so hard, my dear, to show that you're my every dreamYet you're afraid each thing I do is just some evil scheme A memory from your lonesome past keeps us so far apart Why can't I free your doubtful mind and melt your cold, cold heart?------------come from? On the up side, this movie reminded me of what a wonderful songwriter Williams was, how in such a short life he gave us so many memorable songs.Maybe what makes an artist tick must always remain a mystery, but I did not get too close to what made Williams' tick from this movie.