The Road

i'd say it was a good film, if desperately bleak.

but it didn't quite have anything that elevated it to greatness - no scene or scenes that really grabbed you.

haven't read the book, so wasn't too clear on what exactly happened to the world, or exactly why they were heading to the coast.

Iain
 
Maybe it was just me, but I had trouble hearing half the dialogue, which was mostly whispers or incoherent low pitched rambling.

I enjoyed the scenes with the caniballs, but a lot of the rest of the film wasn't that great. One of those film's where the trailor is far better than the actual film.
 
Just got back from seeing it. It was ultra bleak, but utterly compelling - I couldn't tear my eyes from the screen.

The best film I've seen so far this year...although it is only my third.
 
It was an enjoyable film, however, as someone who put over a hundred hours into Fallout 3 wandering the wasteland I'd hoped for a lot more.

Maybe Book of Eli will give me that post-apocalyptic fix I'm looking for.
 
I seen it at the cinema and not from a download :p

Judging by the reaction from the audience at the end (they seemed pretty bored), I think most people in the cinema had the same experience as me.

There was nothing to the film. It just didn't do anything for me at all.
 
I saw this last week.

Normally I love these sorts of films but something just didn't sit right with me, I wanted it to end an hour in. I think it was the fact that I already understood what the characters were feeling 20 minutes into the film. Everytime they went back to them again, I just wanted them to skip to something else.

The only bits that were good were when they were interacting with someone else. The two of them on their own, walking. Just didn't satisfy me at all and was unusually bored.

I didn't think it was a bad film but I found that they'd already got the point of the film, and the characters sorted so early on in the movie, everything after the incident with the bad guys just came across as over-indulgence.
 
I watched it last night.

I thought the film was distinctly average - apart from a decent performance by Viggo Mortensen, the film lacked any substance. I started looking at my watch after an hour.

5/10
 
I think you could be right- I thought it was absolutely fantastic, however-



...was pretty much exactly what my girlfriend thought of it!

Personally, I thought it was awesome. Cave and Ellis's soundtrack was wicked, too.
 
I downloaded the screener and couldn't understand a word of the dialogue. The sound was awful. I gave up about 30 mins in. I just don't understand why someone would make such a bleak film where nothing happens.

Art house film, vanity exercise, or both?
 
I didn't find it boring, but I absolutely HATED the book with a passion. I thought it was really really AWFUL, definitely the worst book I read last year, and possibly the most annoying book I have ever read, with the possible exception of Catcher in the Rye. I am intrigued by the film, because I do like Viggo Mortensen and I do like a nuclear holocaust, but I'm dubious...
 
I thought the film was a very good adaptation of the book. However, I felt that the trailer misrepresented the film somewhat, half of the audience in the cinema for the film yesterday seemed to be there thinking it was going to be an American rehash of 28 Days Later. Either that or it was the only choice after Avatar was sold out :P.

From a critical perspective, very stunning, good cinematography, some beautiful shots (the trailer at "the end of the road" being a good one) and a good use of (lack of) colour. It was like watching the cinematic version of a Post-Apocalyptic piece of art.

Viggo's performance in this is delightfully understated and I felt that the young actor who played the boy was pretty good as well. They were good representations of the characters in the book.

The movie felt more like a good mood piece, instead of showing you scenes of cannibals tearing people apart limb by limb, it concentrated on simple imagery, of what is left behind. I was struck by horror at the human condition with the shots in the house of the pile of shoes, or the stark slash of blood on the snow in another shot. If you had half a brain and thought about the visuals, if you thought about what you were watching, it got it's message across without the sensationalism that the average public neeRAB hammered into their skulls.

It's a clever movie, very understated and bleak.

It's not a Cannibal gore-fest and it's not typical Hollywood Spoonfed fayre, so I don't think it would go down with the average Joe who has just made up their mind to see it on the basis of the trailer. However, if you've read the book, go and see the movie, you wont be disappointed. If you happen to like good cinematography or like atmospheric mood-pieces, also go and see it.

If your cinema viewing of choice is the average Hollywood Blockbuster or Zombie movies, don't bother. It won't be your thing.
 
Possibly the bleakest film I've ever seen. Apart from the flashbacks, certainly the greyest - there seemed about 50 shades of grey. I don't think there was one point during the whole film where there was the slightest let-up in grimness. I haven't read the book yet, but I understand it was very faithful, apart from a few horrific scenes which would have denied it a 15 certificate.

The plot is very insubstantial - a man and his son head south in the hope of a warmer climate and less hostile environment to survive. There is a stark beauty to the horror of the world they're in, made more real by part of the backdrop being the still delapidated New Orleans, and almost no FX work. It did look very much how our world might be if there was some incredible environmental catastrophe that led to nearly all life being eradicated.

This quote from Cosmo Landesman in the Sunday Times summed it up for me:

It
 
According to one review, the cannibalism scenes were cut back to reduce alienation of the mainstream cinema audience.

On the spoiler:

From the book, I'd say his mother and family life the community in which they survived against the marauding gangs. In the previous world, I guess the Man and his wife were more generous. Maybe they maintained their old social standarRAB within the community as far as possible. We know the mother could not cope with the new reality.

The Man knew others could deceive with apparent goodwill to get him to lower his guard. The fatal consequences of misjudgement and, being unable to afford any more dependants, he applied hostility and extreme caution. This expediency was something the Boy had yet to comprehend.
 
I watched it earlier today and I loved it. Thought the two leaRAB were fantastic.

The scene where they were in the house and he was getting ready to shoot his son, and his son was crying "Will I see you again?" was heartbreaking.
 
Just finished the book last night which I enjoyed and sounRAB like the film is very faithful so looking forward to it. I'd suggest they'd both be love or hate pieces of art.
 
fantastic soundtrack, agreed

some great lanRABcapes, personally i think it could have done with being longer and more monotonous [although i can't imagine most cinema-goers agreeing with me on that one]

i can't remember from reading the book that there was an almost direct reference or hint to global warming [with the old man saying "....they said it was a con"] although i could be wrong, i felt it works as book because nothing is explained

i would have preferred it if they had been waiting for godot, but it was fairly enjoyable
 
Back
Top