George Lucas Addresses Changes to STAR WARS; Maintains Greedo Shot First
17 New Images from GAME OF THRONES Season Two [Updated with Hi-Res]
Collider Visits the Set of JOHN CARTER
Set Photos from M. Night Shyamalan’s AFTER EARTH Starring Will Smith
First Trailer and Poster for THE BOURNE LEGACY Starring Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, and Edward NortonTHE ROAD Review
by Matt Goldberg Posted:November 25th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
|
|
 |
|
We’re going to need a word which is harsher than “bleak”. The word “bleak” does not do justice to The Road, John Hillcoat’s faithful adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s novel. Set in an apocalyptic wasteland of nothing but ugly grey, “Man” (Viggo Mortensen) and his son “Boy” (Kodi Smit-McPhee) struggle with survival where the only point is to survive, and that’s not much of a reason. When suicide is the best thing in the world and the best use of a bullet is to kill your son to make sure he isn’t eaten alive by cannibals, you come to understand that “bleak” just doesn’t get the job done as far as adjectives go. Neither does “hopeless”, “grim” or “dismal”. But perhaps the greatest flaw of The Road isn’t its inability to conjure up dark adjectives, but that Hillcoat completely embraces the journey of his characters: pointless.
.jpg "The Road movie image (9).jpg")
When I say “pointless”, it’s not that Hillcoat has nothing to say or that the film doesn’t have clear themes and ideas. It’s just you reach the end of the movie and you’re left feeling destroyed and left with nothing bu a world stripped of life provides almost no incentive to live, or in a word, pointless. That Man clings to his son as their only reason for survival with their quest to reach the coast their only reason to keep moving, there’s not much you can find uplifting. Just as a film which is nothing but sunshine and daisies offers no emotional journey, neither does a film which is unrelentingly word-harsher-than-”bleak”. It’s to Hillcoat’s great credit that he’s still able to derive tension when necessary by finding a situation which would be even worse for Man and Boy than the one they currently inhabit. It’s to even greater credit that Mortensen can find an array of emotions for his character despite the word-more-depressing-than-”hopeless” circumstances.
But ultimately, there’s not much you can take away from The Road. There is the muted-yet-impressive cinematography of Javier Aguirresarobe (who also shot New Moon; go figure) as well as the sorrowful tones of Nick Cave and Warren Ellis, reminiscent of their brilliant score for The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. On a technical level, The Road is a success. Yet when it comes to its story and characters, there’s not a lot you can say once the credits role other than “I’m glad the world outside this theater isn’t a place where death is a blessing,” and “I need a harsher word than ‘bleak’ to describe this film.”
Rating —– C
Please Like Collider on Facebook
|
|
|
|
The book is so soul crushingly bleak that if not for McCarthy’s style it would leave you feeling the same way. The story offers no hope, though the Boy is a comment on humanity’s best qualities, but McCarthy writes in a lyrical prose that feels more like poetry. Its beauty counteracts the bleak images. I can imagine this is a problem with translating the novel for the screen. Looking at grayness is far more depressing than having a brilliant writer describe it to you.
The book is so soul crushingly bleak that if not for McCarthy’s style it would leave you feeling the same way. The story offers no hope, though the Boy is a comment on humanity’s best qualities, but McCarthy writes in a lyrical prose that feels more like poetry. Its beauty counteracts the bleak images. I can imagine this is a problem with translating the novel for the screen. Looking at grayness is far more depressing than having a brilliant writer describe it to you.
I think the problem with the film is the distributors or more precisely the Weinsteins. When the Dimension logo I knew this was no longer the film which was mentioned in Esquire earlier in the year as a powerful must see film. Not having read the book I was struck mostly by the beautiful poetic lines clumsely narrated by Mortensen. Perhaps some films aren’t made to be films, and if the book contains such wonderful phrases as those mentioned in the film than The Road is best left to the readers imagination.
I think the problem with the film is the distributors or more precisely the Weinsteins. When the Dimension logo I knew this was no longer the film which was mentioned in Esquire earlier in the year as a powerful must see film. Not having read the book I was struck mostly by the beautiful poetic lines clumsely narrated by Mortensen. Perhaps some films aren’t made to be films, and if the book contains such wonderful phrases as those mentioned in the film than The Road is best left to the readers imagination.
I think the problem with the film is the distributors or more precisely the Weinsteins. When the Dimension logo I knew this was no longer the film which was mentioned in Esquire earlier in the year as a powerful must see film. Not having read the book I was struck mostly by the beautiful poetic lines clumsely narrated by Mortensen. Perhaps some films aren’t made to be films, and if the book contains such wonderful phrases as those mentioned in the film than The Road is best left to the readers imagination.
I really wasn’t impressed with the look of the film once I saw the trailer. As bleak and hopeless as it looks and sounds in the movie, it was worse in the book. The book paints people as thin enough to have their bones showing. The world was covered in ash and it just doesn’t seem to be as ugly a place in the movie. I could be wrong, I haven’t seen the film. But the one thing I’m positive about it that the boy is too old. His dialogue in the book really implies it’s a child under 10, but he looks 12 or so in the movie. Not a huge age difference, no, but it makes more sense to have an 8, 9, or even 10 year old talk the way he does in the book. To have a 12 or so year old talk like that sounds awkward.
Oh well, I’ll still be seeing it.
I really wasn’t impressed with the look of the film once I saw the trailer. As bleak and hopeless as it looks and sounds in the movie, it was worse in the book. The book paints people as thin enough to have their bones showing. The world was covered in ash and it just doesn’t seem to be as ugly a place in the movie. I could be wrong, I haven’t seen the film. But the one thing I’m positive about it that the boy is too old. His dialogue in the book really implies it’s a child under 10, but he looks 12 or so in the movie. Not a huge age difference, no, but it makes more sense to have an 8, 9, or even 10 year old talk the way he does in the book. To have a 12 or so year old talk like that sounds awkward.
Oh well, I’ll still be seeing it.
I really wasn’t impressed with the look of the film once I saw the trailer. As bleak and hopeless as it looks and sounds in the movie, it was worse in the book. The book paints people as thin enough to have their bones showing. The world was covered in ash and it just doesn’t seem to be as ugly a place in the movie. I could be wrong, I haven’t seen the film. But the one thing I’m positive about it that the boy is too old. His dialogue in the book really implies it’s a child under 10, but he looks 12 or so in the movie. Not a huge age difference, no, but it makes more sense to have an 8, 9, or even 10 year old talk the way he does in the book. To have a 12 or so year old talk like that sounds awkward.
Oh well, I’ll still be seeing it.