The Road

Thanks for posting. I was starting to think I was the only person who saw it!

The more I dwell on this film, the more I think years from now it is going to be remembered as being an significant film than people are aware of, or giving it credit for being today.
 
I didn't want to start a new thread.

I must have passed this one, it is very strange that I cant find much information about it. Called my local store they have no idea when the DVD's gonna be released. Checked amazon not a DVD release date either. Ebert doesnt analyze it deep, just barely touches without much comment.
That tells me it might be a really good one ;)
So a question for those of you who saw it: is it one of those masterpieces that was beyond Hollywood's grasp? Wasnt there anything Oscar worthy?
 
I thought this film was a failure. A failure because I held off on reading the book so as not compare it and just from what I saw onscreen the film never really takes off or gets that terrifying. It doesn't take advantage of the suspense in the situation. It never really gets too dangerous for the father and son. Right when you think some tension is going to be created it's released. I thought there was only one really great moment in this film, and that was the scene with Robert Duvall talking about his lost son. I found out later that that moment was an improvisation from Duvall, so ironically it wasn't part of the script which is why I guess liked it. That little improvisation felt like a genuine moment in that world. I thought the dialogue was stilted. I guess it was too close to the book's dialogue and for that I think it hurt the film. This film would have been better if it had not stayed so true to the book. At the same time this film would have been better if it had kept one scene that was really terrifying from the book in it.

I think the execution of the world and the production design was fantastic, but I just didn't buy the father and son relationship. There was something missing, and I was thinking about it for days. I think it might be partly in the writing, but I also think it's in the direction. The direction is very observational and while that can work in some situations I think a more subjective camera would have served this story well. I think Polanski does subjective paranoid camera extremely well and this film would have been something else if it had gone in that direction.

Was this Oscar worthy? Not even close.

I just looked it up on Metacritic. I think A.O. Scott really nails what didn't work with the film. He basically says it's not bleak enough and I really agree with that. It didn't go far enough. What bothers me is that it's almost there, you can see a great film there but it stops and that's the most disappointing part about it. It stops because you can tell they're afraid of alienating the audience.

http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/movies/25road.html?ref=movies
 
I thought the film was visually fantastic, but not engaging in the least. All the ancillary characters the father and son run into are more interesting than the father and son themselves (Duvall's character for instance). I agree about Duvall's scene being one of the few effective ones, but the one that really stood out to me was the scene with the man who takes their cart of supplies, whom Viggo Mortensen's character forces to strip down. It was a pretty disturbing scene, and the only one that really stood out to me. If the whole film had the tone of that scene it probably would have been much more memorable, but otherwise it turned out to be pretty disposable.
 
Spoiler

Yeah that scene with the cart man was definitely there to justify killing Viggo. I felt like it was totally telegraphed. Does bad thing, gets killed suddenly.

/End Spoiler
 
I didn't see the same film Issac did. As strange as it may seem, I saw the opposite of what he did in many ways, and tend to agree with most of the critics who praised it on Rotten Tomatoes. I was connected to the characters and the situation at hand, and felt it's delivery was poetic and very thought provoking.

As far as Oscars go, I certainly thought more highly of it than District 9 or Avatar, and though I haven't seen The Blind Side, I'm guessing I'll prefer The Road over it as well.
 
Thanks guys, I am looking forward to its release, and will post my opinion after seeing it...
 
Isaac_Brody said:
...This film would have been better if it had not stayed so true to the book...
Click to expand...

Precisely.

I recently watched this film, not because of a desire as much as a sense of obligation to...the book...which it follows too closely. This was a well-crafted film. It's credible and it told its story. However, there is nothing in the film that readers of the book will gain.

I think the book's episodic nature aided its main objective, which, as I mentioned in an earlier post (prior to seeing the flick), was to portray a man's love for his son. Each chapter, each situation, taught us what he would do (and finally, what he would learn he was incapable of doing) to protect his son. This works fine with a book because readers can finish a chapter, place the book down, and dwell on what was just read.

Films, on the other hand, are not meant to be seen in 15-20 minute installments. In the film "The Road," we are being rushed through the exposition of paternal love in order to...what? Be faithful to the book? Display as many gruesome scenes as possible? Make it to its final scene?

How would I make a film adaptation of McCarthy's book? I would begin with and lengthen the bunker scene while providing flashes to the past. The remainder of the film could remain as is except for the final scene, which needs some shortening.
 
Finally saw this on blu-ray. In retrospect it probably wasn't a good idea to do a movie of this book. So much of the power of the book comes from the poetry of the language, which is not something you can reproduce on screen. The actual events that happen aren't really the point, but when you dramatize them in a screenplay they become the point, and there just isn't enough in the book to make an interesting story. They did about the best faithful version you could do I suppose, but it just doesn't have the same harrowing punch the book did. That novel haunted me for days.
 
Well, people don´t seem to like this movie. I think it´s amazing. The best if not the best I saw last year. I just ordered on bluray, and I buy very few movies.
 
I don't think it's a bad movie, just wasn't that effective for me. It's beautifully shot, well acted.
 
Finally saw it on DVD.

Kind of the movie that will stand the test of time. Uneasy, eerie atmosphere & withdrawn colors somehow reminded me Tarkovsky's Stalker, and a little bit of Andrei Zvyagintsev's Return. (minus mysticism & sparse dialogue)

I think the missing element between father & son was compassion, which is understandable because if you are living under constant fear & terror such emotions naturally would not surface. Love becomes responsibility(father expressed several times), and maybe more of a liability. So most likely it was a conscious choice by the actors & director.

I am not interested in movie & book comparison because each art to its own. Having said that I might read the book now that the author intrigued me.

Although the movie was more about the relation between father & son, I found another layer more interesting: To what extent humans would go for survival? Pretty much movie covered all possible scenarios regarding our species' savagery. At this point I understand some people are criticizing the director for not going to further extreme, or not creating enough suspense/ action etc... imho what was on the screen was 'good enough' (!) for imagination to figure it out.

Music was excellent, cant go wrong with Nick Cave...

The end was the weakest for me, after all the despair in the movie either the director or the book's author probably wanted to inject some hope for humanity's future. Could have been made a bit less obvious, perhaps more on the air? The way they ended it became a typical hollywood; nothing left for interpretation as great works of art do. Still a wonderful work and a gem among Hollywood mediocracy. Lack of Oscar nominations doesn't surprise me as it would be nominating a fine dining to a fast food restaurant competition.
Hillcoat's potential as a filmmaker is obvious and am curious to see what direction he's gonna take after this...
 
Batutta said:
They did about the best faithful version you could do I suppose, but it just doesn't have the same harrowing punch the book did. That novel haunted me for days.
Click to expand...


Really couldn't say it better. I finally saw this film after much anticipation.

This was a faithful interpretation to a fault. There's elements that really couldn't be conveyed on the screen. The sense of hunger, the constant need to get food. The sickness. That was a big part of what the book was about, I don't think it came across in the film as effectively.

SPOILERS

The good:
-Some scenes with great tension
-When he shot the dude with the flair gun. Loved it. Who the **** shoots at people out the window with a bow???? What a dick.
-Any of the "beauty shot" flashback scenes with Charlize Theron. Really created a nice contrast between pre-apocalypse and their existing world.

The bad:
-Anyone else not happy with the overall look of the DVD? (I didn't see the bluray) I know what they were going for, but everything looks dark, dark, dark. Underexposed, very difficult to see.
-Some scenes looked like they were shot day for night. I don't know, just looked muddy. Some shots looked great, so I don't think it was my TV set. Inconsistent. I'm curious what you all think.

Also, I'll go forward and thoroughly disagree with VGurcu. The ending is fantastic, IMO. After such a dismal film, I want some kind of happy ending/hope for humanity.
 
Deepfocus88 said:
R
-Anyone else not happy with the overall look of the DVD? (I didn't see the bluray) I know what they were going for, but everything looks dark, dark, dark. Underexposed, very difficult to see.
-Some scenes looked like they were shot day for night. I don't know, just looked muddy. Some shots looked great, so I don't think it was my TV set. Inconsistent. I'm curious what you all think.
Click to expand...

It looked pretty good on blu-ray, but I could see a lower fidelity version of the film looking muddy. You really need the wider color gamut and detail of blu-ray for the nuances to shine. I was, however able to pretty easily see which shots had been futzed with in post to make it seem darker, especially shots with windows you could see edge artifacts.
 
Anyone else not happy with the overall look of the DVD? (I didn't see the bluray) I know what they were going for, but everything looks dark, dark, dark. Underexposed, very difficult to see.
-Some scenes looked like they were shot day for night. I don't know, just looked muddy. Some shots looked great, so I don't think it was my TV set. Inconsistent. I'm curious what you all think.

Also, I'll go forward and thoroughly disagree with VGurcu. The ending is fantastic, IMO.
Click to expand...

Yes DVD version didnt look consistent and was muddy overall, I'll probably get the Blu-Ray version to see the difference.

Glad ending worked for you. Only thing I liked at the end was the colorful blanket father was wrapped; it was a message of hope, no?

Btw, here is an alternative way of carrying the fire for humanity:
http://www.deutsches-filminstitut.de/goeast_2004/pic/download/nostalghia.jpg
 
Watching the bluray now.
About the ending, i remember the 1st time i watched the movie not being a happy ending for me. There was something dark an misterious about that family that felt odd. Are they going to eat him when he goes to sleep? Who knows...

Btw, anyone knows whats really going on with the missing fingers?
 
There was something dark an misterious about that family that felt odd. Are they going to eat him when he goes to sleep? Who knows...

Btw, anyone knows whats really going on with the missing fingers?
Click to expand...

Nope, they would have eaten the dog first. Also, to my knowledge you dont hire first rate actors (Guy Pearce & Molly Parkers) to portray as potential cannibalists. ;)
They were 'deus ex machina' resolution...

Missing fingers were probably the self served treats after never-ending bug/root eating sessions?
 
Unless I misinterpreted something, the book has it as they are not cannibals and are there to take care of him. And having read the book, I have trouble interpreting the film in any other light. This scene or any others.

Perhaps the guy lost his fingers fighting off someone for food or supplies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top