[Our thanks to regular ScreenAnarchy reader Indiemaker for passing on his thoughts on The Road.]
Ok, neither this review nor any other is going to play a deciding factor in whether you're going to see The Road. If you've read the book, no matter what I or anyone else is going to say, you're going to see the film. If you haven't read the book but you've seen The Proposition, another film by director John Hillcoat, there's nothing else I or anyone can say that's going to deter you from seeing The Road. Let's face it; The Road is one of the most anticipated films of the year.
There are really only two questions you probably have. The first is, "just how faithful is it to the book?"
For the most part, every single scene and major beat of the film is lifted directly from the pages of the book in punishing detail. There are minor changes and additions that fanboy purists may quip about (and if you do, get a fucking life), but without a doubt, it is The Road.
The next question is, "Just how much did that asshole, Harvey Scissorhands fuck with the film?" It's hard to say, I can only make assumptions, but my feeling is that Weinstein's presence is absolutely present.
Directorially, the film is impeccable. There are scenes that will shake you to your core. Make no mistake, this is a grim film. But there are a few minor problems that are going to bug the shit out of any of you fellow film nerds.
The Road is as bleak and nihilistic as a major theatrical release can be, but it isn't quite up to par with Haneke's Time of the Wolf and I don't think that it's any fault of Hillcoat. Nonetheless, ScreenAnarchy readers are going to find problems with the film for sure, but given the reaction of the audience that I saw it with, it's most certainly going to fuck your mall going friends' minds up.
You've probably read plenty of other reviews by now, so rest assured, the film does not explain the apocalyptic disaster that's laid waste to the land as the trailers suggest.
Some have complained about Charlize's Theron's presence. There are more memories of the wife than I remembered from the book, but they did not detract from the core of the story, and they do not add any forced sense of romance. In fact, there's one major addition that has a very powerful pay off later.
The film does open up on a brief memory of the world before disaster struck, complete with flowers blowing in the wind in slow motion. And I could hear the hipsters in the crowd sigh and immediately begin to complain, but I believe it gave a good sense of context and was emotionally effective before cutting to the cold and grey present of the story.
However, the voiceover placed within the film is absolutely awful. I have my own sources that worked post on the film and supposedly, the initial rough cuts had no voice over. So there's a little Blade Runner type reworking going on here. Why do producers think voice overs are going to save a film or give it more mainstream appeal?
Cormac McCarthy's novels absolutely lend themselves to film. He is also a screenwriter. The stylized writing of The Road is literary but also cinematic. As I read the novel, I could easily picture it as film, it's all about tone. The Road often uses repetition of sentences to create a sense of futility which could easily be replicated by repeating images. But we do not hear any repetition in the voiceover, nor do we see any repetition in images. What is said in the V.O. are the words of the author, taken directly from the book, but the way they are used comes off redundant and often softens the blow of the imagery on screen as it plays. It felt forced and tacked on. Viggo Mortenson's performance of his voice over is at odds with his performance in the film, it sounded like a completely different character. Again, I believe that it was something thrown in after the fact as a minor compromise to make the film more tolerable for regular moviegoers.
The same can also be said with the soundtrack. I am a Nick Cave fanatic and was looking forward to hearing the film's score. Nick's previous collaboration with Warren Ellis on The Proposition was phenomenal. Yet, the music here is overwrought and patronizing. Think Dreamworks, like American Beauty... Really. Not what I was expecting of Cave either. Again, I heard supposed samples of the score over a year ago, and what I heard then was far darker, sparser, and more appropriate. In the current cut of the film, there are generic sweeping piano melodies that play as the father dies. Part of me didn't want any music or anything that might detract from the intensity of the story.
For me, there were very obvious and calculating decisions probably made in post in regards to editing and music made to make the audience feel safe. I wished scenes would have played out longer, the film does such an excellent job of creating a tone visually and developing tension before it cuts to another shot or the next scene pre-maturely. I wished the film would have really allowed me to experience what the characters were experiencing without false cinematic artifices. Everything we see on screen is so unrelentingly bleak and real; I just can't imagine that Harvey didn't push his way into the editing room. The pacing of the film is at odds with the look and direction of the film, if that makes sense.
Yet, strangely enough, Harvey's name was nowhere to be found in the closing credits which I didn't really understand, from what I read and could tell, he was on board as a producer from the very beginning and was solely responsible for holding the release back over a year.
And I also believe it may not have been the wisest choice to cast a black man in the role of The Thief. I did not necessarily find it racist, but it made me uncomfortable, beyond the fact that it's an already intense scene. The fact that the only African American actor cast in the film plays a character who's stripped naked and left to die on the side of the road has unavoidable and undeniable connotations. I think it may even add more to the film in some ways but I can easily see this offending some and causing controversy which is something the film does not need.
Overall, The Road was a success for me, but it didn't knock me on my ass as I had hoped. The book brought me to tears when I finished it which is a very rare thing for a novel to do for me. Yet, I was left completely dry at the end of the film, and it wasn't for a lack of trying. I wanted to get more involved but minor issues kept holding me back. Being such a fan of the novel and having read it twice (even more rare for me), it may be a personal bias as I was over analyzing and over thinking everything much like my initial viewing of Watchmen.
So yeah, The Road is worth seeing in the theaters but you didn't need me to tell you that. More importantly, I get the feeling that there's one hell of a director's cut out there waiting for DVD.
Review by Indiemaker
Ok, neither this review nor any other is going to play a deciding factor in whether you're going to see The Road. If you've read the book, no matter what I or anyone else is going to say, you're going to see the film. If you haven't read the book but you've seen The Proposition, another film by director John Hillcoat, there's nothing else I or anyone can say that's going to deter you from seeing The Road. Let's face it; The Road is one of the most anticipated films of the year.
There are really only two questions you probably have. The first is, "just how faithful is it to the book?"
For the most part, every single scene and major beat of the film is lifted directly from the pages of the book in punishing detail. There are minor changes and additions that fanboy purists may quip about (and if you do, get a fucking life), but without a doubt, it is The Road.
The next question is, "Just how much did that asshole, Harvey Scissorhands fuck with the film?" It's hard to say, I can only make assumptions, but my feeling is that Weinstein's presence is absolutely present.
Directorially, the film is impeccable. There are scenes that will shake you to your core. Make no mistake, this is a grim film. But there are a few minor problems that are going to bug the shit out of any of you fellow film nerds.
The Road is as bleak and nihilistic as a major theatrical release can be, but it isn't quite up to par with Haneke's Time of the Wolf and I don't think that it's any fault of Hillcoat. Nonetheless, ScreenAnarchy readers are going to find problems with the film for sure, but given the reaction of the audience that I saw it with, it's most certainly going to fuck your mall going friends' minds up.
You've probably read plenty of other reviews by now, so rest assured, the film does not explain the apocalyptic disaster that's laid waste to the land as the trailers suggest.
Some have complained about Charlize's Theron's presence. There are more memories of the wife than I remembered from the book, but they did not detract from the core of the story, and they do not add any forced sense of romance. In fact, there's one major addition that has a very powerful pay off later.
The film does open up on a brief memory of the world before disaster struck, complete with flowers blowing in the wind in slow motion. And I could hear the hipsters in the crowd sigh and immediately begin to complain, but I believe it gave a good sense of context and was emotionally effective before cutting to the cold and grey present of the story.
However, the voiceover placed within the film is absolutely awful. I have my own sources that worked post on the film and supposedly, the initial rough cuts had no voice over. So there's a little Blade Runner type reworking going on here. Why do producers think voice overs are going to save a film or give it more mainstream appeal?
Cormac McCarthy's novels absolutely lend themselves to film. He is also a screenwriter. The stylized writing of The Road is literary but also cinematic. As I read the novel, I could easily picture it as film, it's all about tone. The Road often uses repetition of sentences to create a sense of futility which could easily be replicated by repeating images. But we do not hear any repetition in the voiceover, nor do we see any repetition in images. What is said in the V.O. are the words of the author, taken directly from the book, but the way they are used comes off redundant and often softens the blow of the imagery on screen as it plays. It felt forced and tacked on. Viggo Mortenson's performance of his voice over is at odds with his performance in the film, it sounded like a completely different character. Again, I believe that it was something thrown in after the fact as a minor compromise to make the film more tolerable for regular moviegoers.
The same can also be said with the soundtrack. I am a Nick Cave fanatic and was looking forward to hearing the film's score. Nick's previous collaboration with Warren Ellis on The Proposition was phenomenal. Yet, the music here is overwrought and patronizing. Think Dreamworks, like American Beauty... Really. Not what I was expecting of Cave either. Again, I heard supposed samples of the score over a year ago, and what I heard then was far darker, sparser, and more appropriate. In the current cut of the film, there are generic sweeping piano melodies that play as the father dies. Part of me didn't want any music or anything that might detract from the intensity of the story.
For me, there were very obvious and calculating decisions probably made in post in regards to editing and music made to make the audience feel safe. I wished scenes would have played out longer, the film does such an excellent job of creating a tone visually and developing tension before it cuts to another shot or the next scene pre-maturely. I wished the film would have really allowed me to experience what the characters were experiencing without false cinematic artifices. Everything we see on screen is so unrelentingly bleak and real; I just can't imagine that Harvey didn't push his way into the editing room. The pacing of the film is at odds with the look and direction of the film, if that makes sense.
Yet, strangely enough, Harvey's name was nowhere to be found in the closing credits which I didn't really understand, from what I read and could tell, he was on board as a producer from the very beginning and was solely responsible for holding the release back over a year.
And I also believe it may not have been the wisest choice to cast a black man in the role of The Thief. I did not necessarily find it racist, but it made me uncomfortable, beyond the fact that it's an already intense scene. The fact that the only African American actor cast in the film plays a character who's stripped naked and left to die on the side of the road has unavoidable and undeniable connotations. I think it may even add more to the film in some ways but I can easily see this offending some and causing controversy which is something the film does not need.
Overall, The Road was a success for me, but it didn't knock me on my ass as I had hoped. The book brought me to tears when I finished it which is a very rare thing for a novel to do for me. Yet, I was left completely dry at the end of the film, and it wasn't for a lack of trying. I wanted to get more involved but minor issues kept holding me back. Being such a fan of the novel and having read it twice (even more rare for me), it may be a personal bias as I was over analyzing and over thinking everything much like my initial viewing of Watchmen.
So yeah, The Road is worth seeing in the theaters but you didn't need me to tell you that. More importantly, I get the feeling that there's one hell of a director's cut out there waiting for DVD.
Review by Indiemaker