The Road *Megathread*

Flamed Diving

Great film.

Outkast_IRE

Seen it last night was very impressed , read the book and loved it .
Yes the film is bleak but its so bleak its almost beautiful .
Acting is excellent . It moves at a good pace the whole way through .
I thought it was excellent i couldnt fault it really it stays very true to the books tone:D

Flamed Diving

I saw a few people walk out of it, in parts. I didn't think the film was that gruesome, in that much of the violence and gore was left entirely to your imagination. They could have gone down the blood and guts route to appease the average movie moron, but I'm glad they chose not to. The tension they created with a minimalist soundtrack and bare landscape what something to behold, and the mood created throughout stuck with me for several hours afterwards.

My favourite scene was

when they caught the black guy who robbed their stuff on the beach, and he ordered him to strip naked and just left him there. The image of that guy holding himself, quivering and whimpering, as the camera pulled away created all sorts of emotions inside.

ilovelamp2000

They did as good a job as could reasonably be expected from the book. I enjoyed the movie, but I knew I wouldn't enjoy it as much as the book and I was okay with that. When I read the book I felt it was pretty much un-filmable.



Thanks to the scene in the spoiler right above my post I now want to go and watch The Wire .... again. I hadn't read the cast list before going to see the movie so that was a nice surprise.

billyhead

How come it got limited release. i was hoping to see it in the Pavillions Swords

Flamed Diving

Rosco1982 wrote: »

They did as good a job as could reasonably be expected from the book. I enjoyed the movie, but I knew I wouldn't enjoy it as much as the book and I was okay with that. When I read the book I felt it was pretty much un-filmable.



Thanks to the scene in the spoiler right above my post I now want to go and watch The Wire .... again. I hadn't read the cast list before going to see the movie so that was a nice surprise.

I never read the book, but I intend to now. Is it worth my while now?

James Howlett

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I saw a few people walk out of it, in parts. I didn't think the film was that gruesome, in that much of the violence and gore was left entirely to your imagination.

From the book I can only imagine one part that would make people walk out -

the bbq.

But to be fair that is genuinely disturbing and I wouldn't blame anyone for leaving.

Its a bit of a controversial point as while it is disturbing it does fit the tone and reality of the book. Dreading the reaction of the people I bring to see it now.

Outkast_IRE

billyhead wrote: »

How come it got limited release. i was hoping to see it in the Pavillions Swords

ya i found it odd in cork it was in omniplex mahon and it was it one of the smallest screens but it sold out most of its shows so i say they will put it in bigger screen as soon as they can

Flamed Diving

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

ya i found it odd in cork it was in omniplex mahon and it was it one of the smallest screens but it sold out most of its shows so i say they will put it in bigger screen as soon as they can

Same in the place I saw it. I don't see why they expected so few given the good reviews the film got, and the book was very popular, too.

Flamed Diving

James Howlett wrote: »

From the book I can only imagine one part that would make people walk out -

the bbq.

But to be fair that is genuinely disturbing and I wouldn't blame anyone for leaving.

Its a bit of a controversial point as while it is disturbing it does fit the tone and reality of the book. Dreading the reaction of the people I bring to see it now.

Yeah, but it wasn't as if they were

cooking someone on top of it

. As I said, it was left to peoples imagination and [Godwin Alert!] far worse things are implied in films about Nazi Germany.

Outkast_IRE

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Same in the place I saw it. I don't see why they expected so few given the good reviews the film got, and the book was very popular, too.

Ya i was at the 9 show last night , and it was full and there wasnt a word uttered throughout the film its a testament to the amount of people that were eager to see it and were caught up in the the world created in the film

ilovelamp2000

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I never read the book, but I intend to now. Is it worth my while now?

I would say it is.

I'm no literary geek, but it's easily one of the best works of fiction I've come across. For a time I read the books which some films I liked were based on and I can't remember being disappointed by the book.

It's invariably a more enjoyable experience.

Linguo

Can't wait to see this, I've managed to get nearly everyone in my family to read the book so really hope the movie is good. I know it won't be as good as the book but I'm going in with an open mind!

Shred

billyhead wrote: »

How come it got limited release. i was hoping to see it in the Pavillions Swords

I don't inderstand this either considering Movies @ Dundrum has it. Anyway, I shot down to Omniplex in Sanrty for the 6.55 show this evening and it was sold out, raging:( I'll have to catch it during the week.

Duggy747

Just after seeing it now and I've never read the book.

I must say, I was impressed with the apocalyptic setting, probably the best depiction of the end of the world. The film was very good, such a refreshing feel to see a relentlessly bleak film that doesn't cover it up with a sugary conclusion. No aliens, zombies, robots or religious pay-offs here.

Acting was superb, Viggo is as solid as ever and *shock* *horror* the kid didn't annoy one bit, you actually feel for the little guy as he has no idea of the world before what happened.

I hate how they are promoting this on TV to make it seem like a lesser form of drama than it actually is. Plus the shameless name-dropping like Guy Pearce, he's only in it for 3 minutes and doesn't really do anything any other actor could have done. I kept expecting to see the usual apocalyptic clichès; Rogue military, religious nuts, a community having pretty well off in a walled-off area. The people they ran into was wonderfully short and spontanious, especially the black guy they left naked. Think about it, what would you have done in that situation to him when he stole your cart of supplys?

The disturbing bits are made all the more powerful because of the overall bleakness and the increasing desperation of any hope.

It might not be to everyone's tastes but it is a very powerful drama about a father trying to pass his stength to his son in the shìtty world he was brought into. I highly recommend it.

Viggo to get Best Actor at the Oscars this year???

johnny_ultimate

Just read the book a few weeks ago, so went to see this on Friday. Thought it was a well made, worthy adaption of the book but didn't feel like it added anything to the story at all. I was amazed how close some of the scenes were to what I had in my head (a testament to McCarthy's writing skills!), plus

the cart robber strip was extremely powerful on screen

, but I just felt that everything good about the film was what was good about the book. It also lost a bit in translation: I personally never found the struggle for food and survival as compelling or tense as it was in the novel (

here, it just seems like they find the hatch much sooner, with little emphasis on the hunger and dwindling supplies that made the book that bit more desperate

!).

I probably sound negative, but I did enjoy the film - for anyone who hasn't read the book, I'm sure they'll find it much more interesting! But I'd definitely recommend the book first - while this is an effective visualisation of the novel, it isn't quite up to the highs the book achieves, despite sharing some moments of great beauty and sadness.

Boston

To those that think a film should try and surpass the book, you're asking too much.

If I could have walked out of this movie I would have. I found it deeply disturbing and traumatic to watch. It was incredibly power and realistic depiction of the fall of man kind. I'm still kinda shaken from having seen it earlier tonight.

Voodu Child

I had a watch of it this evening, I enjoyed it a lot. If I had seen it a few weeks ago i'd be putting it on my list of 2009s best movies. Not at the top mind, but still somewhere on a list of 10 or 20.

Didn't read the book, and couldn't give two flutes how close or far the movie was from it. Just found it a very atmospheric and enjoyable movie.

Although I think Guy Pearce was a bad choice. You're just taking in and enjoying the final few moments of the film, and then its suddenly 'look - theres Guy Pearce!' and it sort of takes you out of the moment. For all of the two minutes he was on screen they could have used anybody....

Zapp Brannigan

Viggo should definitely be given a nod for that performance. Really powerful, especially

the final scene with him and the boy

Sure the film missed bits in the book (the beauty of nature, the constant struggle for food, the fatherly gestures between the man and boy) but that was always going to be the case. Still a brilliant film though.

Stargal

I can't remember the last time I saw a film like The Road that managed to simultaneously be life-affirming and so terrifying that I wanted to cry. Pan's Labyrinth maybe?

I saw this tonight and can't stop thinking about it. It's an amazing film. Very tough going at times. For me it was a bit like Children of Men (a not-too-distant scary future which could plausibly happen) mixed with elements of A Serious Man (is there any point in being a good person?).

I know some of the worst parts of the book were left out but honestly, the stuff that was left in summed up the horror and despair pretty well.

The people in the cellar and the scenes with the guy stealing their stuff

(Omar, yo!) especially. Plus the atmosphere of the whole thing - scenes that would just last a few seconds

(when they see the blood-splattered snow, quickly followed by the gang of cannibals who execute the woman and kid)

but which stayed with you throughout.

For anyone that's interested, here's the only interview with Cormac McCarthy that I could find. It's a 1992 piece with the New York Times (dude doesn't talk to the media much).

Sleazus

Stargal wrote: »

For anyone that's interested, here's the only interview with Cormac McCarthy that I could find. It's a 1992 piece with the New York Times (dude doesn't talk to the media much).

Yep, I remember what a big deal it was when he decided to talk to Oprah.

Handsome Bob

UCI Coolock strikes again, they aren't showing this.

fitz0

Boston wrote: »

It was incredibly power and realistic depiction of the fall of man kind. I'm still kinda shaken from having seen it earlier tonight.

This is why I loved the film. Too many films are just disposable. I know this film was done right because I can't stop thinking about it. The scene

with all the people in the cellar

really spelled out how much mankind had fallen in the film.

I'm glad that they didn't shoot it Saw-style showing every gruesome little detail. Leaving it to our imagination makes the violence all the more terrifying because each of us sees a different thing happening.

I must go buy a copy of the book.

norrie rugger

One question and I have a though about it in my head myself

What is with the missing thumbs?

Icyseanfitz

anyone knows if this is coming out in tralee omniplex? love the book but have a feeling i wont be seeing this till dvd

Flamed Diving

norrie rugger wrote: »

One question and I have a though about it in my head myself

What is with the missing thumbs?

Great movie. Feelgood movie of the year so far.

robby^5

norrie rugger wrote: »

One question and I have a though about it in my head myself

What is with the missing thumbs?

I noticed that too, was it Guy Pearces character and Omar (the dude they leave nekkid, I know him from The Wire :P) who both had that?

I was wondering what the connection there was,

maybe they ate them? Like if things got so bad they started eating the parts of their body they could live without.

Paleface

norrie rugger wrote: »

One question and I have a though about it in my head myself

What is with the missing thumbs?

I've been reading about this since I saw the film and there are two reasons that people have been coming up with.

1. They ate them out of starvation. I don't really agree with this myself as there was a dog at the end with Guy Pierce. Why didn't he just eat the dog??

2. There is a scene that didn't make the final cut which explained why the thumbs were missing. I don't think this is correct either as they should have cut it all out and not just left the missing thumbs bit in without explaining it.

It could just be the director purposely leaving something unexplained so as to leave it up to your own interpretation. Loads of directors do this. It generates discussion about the movie and makes people want to watch it again so as to see something they might have missed

MooseJam

Boston wrote: »

If I could have walked out of this movie I would have. I found it deeply disturbing and traumatic to watch. It was incredibly power and realistic depiction of the fall of man kind. I'm still kinda shaken from having seen it earlier tonight.

Don't understand that at all, didn't find it in the least bit disturbing, a few grey skies and intimations of cannibalism hardly shocking.
If food runs out thats what would happen.

Anyone know if the happy ending is in the book or just the film ?

Boston

Paleface wrote: »

I've been reading about this since I saw the film and there are two reasons that people have been coming up with.

1. They ate them out of starvation. I don't really agree with this myself as there was a dog at the end with Guy Pierce. Why didn't he just eat the dog??

2. There is a scene that didn't make the final cut which explained why the thumbs were missing. I don't think this is correct either as they should have cut it all out and not just left the missing thumbs bit in without explaining it.

It could just be the director purposely leaving something unexplained so as to leave it up to your own interpretation. Loads of directors do this. It generates discussion about the movie and makes people want to watch it again so as to see something they might have missed

My opinion is that they eat them themselves. Rational being that when the Kid saw guy pearse missing his, it held significant for him to be trusted. The boy used it to determine who the good people where since they'd cut off their own thumbs before eating another human to survive.

MooseJam wrote: »

Don't understand that at all, didn't find it in the least bit disturbing, a few grey skies and intimations of cannibalism hardly shocking.
If food runs out thats what would happen.

Anyone know if the happy ending is in the book or just the film ?

People Like you will never understand why other people find a cinematic experience moving. I don't really feel like explaining it to you since you're clearly removed completely from it.

MooseJam

Boston wrote: »

My opinion is that they eat them themselves. Rational being that when the Kid saw guy pearse missing his, it held significant for him to be trusted. The boy used it to determine who the good people where since they'd cut off their own thumbs before eating another human to survive.

So you are starving and you remove both the least nutritional and most useful part of your body and eat that, brilliant, if you remove one thumb you can't remove the other as thumbs are pretty important for doing things such as cutting off thumbs.

People Like you will never understand why other people find a cinematic experience moving. I don't really feel like explaining it to you since you're clearly removed completely from it.

We can't all be as effeminate as yourself.

ScumLord

I watched this having never read the book, it was a decent film but how old was the kid supposed to be?

I thought he was very out of place in the film, he was too much of a pansy to be a child born into an apocalyptic world. I found him completely unbelievable, (the character not the actor) it would have been one thing if the apocalypse had just happened and he was a fish out of water but he was born into it, it was the only world he knew.

Draupnir

ScumLord wrote: »

I watched this having never read the book, it was a decent film but how old was the kid supposed to be?

I thought he was very out of place in the film, he was too much of a pansy to be a child born into an apocalyptic world. I found him completely unbelievable, (the character not the actor) it would have been one thing if the apocalypse had just happened and he was a fish out of water but he was born into it, it was the only world he knew.

His parents basically protected him from it all because that is what his father wanted while his mother wanted out for the very reason that the boy and herself couldn't survive that world.

Essentially the boy is so pansy like because of his father's behaviour but is also only alive because of his father so it's kind of a double edged sword.

At the same, it is indicated throughout the movie that the boys attitude is in fact the one that could save both himself and his father. He wants to trust, he wants to help people and believe they are good guys. His father does not.

This is basically spelled out for those who can't work it out at the end when the camera cuts to the only dog we see in the movie. Think back to the seen in the hatch when the boys says he hears a dog walking above them. The father says the dog must have someone with him by doesn't want to find out who is with the dog whereas the boy does. In the end, the boy is saved by the man with the dog, while the father has died. Had the father been more hopeful/trusting he may have survived.

After all, the wife of the man with the dog does say that they have been following Man & Boy, so we can safely assume it was them above the hatch.

The boy wants to help Eli, he wants to help Omar, he wants to find the boy in the town. He is hoping for redemption for everyone whereas the father is losing his grasp on humanity and is being consumed by his experiences and distrust.

God I love movies like this.

RE: the missing thumbs, in historical stories/writings a missing thumb has always been some form of punishment as your thumb is basically the most important physical part of your body for any manual task. I'd assume the two men missing thumbs have been punished by some unmentioned community of survivors.

Flamed Diving

Just finished the book there. I must say that both complement each other, which is refreshing.

ScumLord

@ Draupnir

I get all that,

I just didn't think the pansy boy was a believable by product of an apocalypse. A child growing up in those type of conditions would be hard as nails, he'd basically be like a 3rd world child that roam the street of cities today.

It's a minor gripe really it didn't ruin the film and for the most part when I come across characters I don't like in films like this I just accept it as I would in real life, it's part of the storey.

Flamed Diving

ScumLord wrote: »

@ Draupnir

I get all that,

I just didn't think the pansy boy was a believable by product of an apocalypse. A child growing up in those type of conditions would be hard as nails, he'd basically be like a 3rd world child that roam the street of cities today.

It's a minor gripe really it didn't ruin the film and for the most part when I come across characters I don't like in films like this I just accept it as I would in real life, it's part of the storey.

I think maybe reading the book would enlighten you further as to why the boy behaves in this fashion. In it, his fathers tends to

mollycoddle

him far more than on screen. But I guess they could only make the film so long, plus there are tonnes of self-reflection moments that the film couldn't possibly replicate. That is why I think both complement each other well. The film obviously provides a more vivid visual image, while the book provides what the film cannot.

adox

Saw it last night and thought it was a bit boring.

Boston

MooseJam wrote: »

We can't all be as effeminate as yourself.

Glad I didn't waste time explaining things to you. Yes, I am effeminate, infact I wear dresses to cinemas just to heighten my emotion side. Inability to empathies with other humans is a sign of mental psychosis. Then again, as we all know, real men old watch movies for T&A.

adox wrote: »

Saw it last night and thought it was a bit boring.

You'll like "The Book Of Eliah", it has loud noises, things that flash, swords and big breasted women.

MooseJam

Boston wrote: »

. Inability to empathies with other humans is a sign of mental psychosis.

I'm pretty sure that applies to real people and not fictional characters, you'll be glad to hear all were both well paid and well fed, they did in fact look surprisingly healthy for starving people living on the occasional cockroach.

Saying the film was boring was a fair comment nothing much happens, all I can remember is Coca-Cola is super delicious and worth waiting for ahh.

baaaa

What a film,one of the few that had I immediately watched again and thought about after.
People that say it's boring or effiminate should really be watching the films we made for them, like 2012,and not be wasting their time on silly films like this.

Flamed Diving

baaaa wrote: »

What a film,one of the few that had I immediately watched again and thought about after.
People that say it's boring or effiminate should really be watching the films we made for them, like 2012,and not be wasting their time on silly films like this.

Indeed, there are more than enough brainless movies out there for people to watch and enjoy, why do they go to movies they find boring and then complain about it? Talk about masochism!

Draupnir

MooseJam wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that applies to real people and not fictional characters, you'll be glad to hear all were both well paid and well fed, they did in fact look surprisingly healthy for starving people living on the occasional cockroach.

I would't agree that they looked at all healthy, boy looks a lot healthier than man, which fits with the storyline. At the same time, both are heavily malnourished and on the verge of starvation throughout. I feel you are being unfairly critical.

MooseJam wrote:

Saying the film was boring was a fair comment nothing much happens, all I can remember is Coca-Cola is super delicious and worth waiting for ahh.

The film is not boring, the film possibly struggles to hold the attention of the movie goer who requires an explosion or car chase to make a good movie. There is a difference. The suspense in a number of scenes here, the unknown aspect of each scenario, the harrowing bleakness of the landscape and the performances of the actors all make a great movie.

The Coca-Cola comment you are making is really unfair, it is a direct scene from the novel which explicitly mentions Coca-Cola I believe. The idea behind it being twofold, firstly that the boy has never experienced or even heard of the brand and secondly it shows the sacrifices the man will make for the boy.

Coca-Cola is something the audience can identify with easily, making the scene and universe all the more realistic. It sets the timeline up as the here and now rather than some future event. The scene would not work at all as well if it was Unbranded Coke Product A in my opinion.

Draupnir

ScumLord wrote: »

@ Draupnir

I get all that,

I just didn't think the pansy boy was a believable by product of an apocalypse. A child growing up in those type of conditions would be hard as nails, he'd basically be like a 3rd world child that roam the street of cities today.

It's a minor gripe really it didn't ruin the film and for the most part when I come across characters I don't like in films like this I just accept it as I would in real life, it's part of the storey.

But now you have neither paid attention to the movie or read my post! The boy is a pansy for an obvious reason, he is not hard as nails for an obvious reason. The reason is pretty central to the entire plot and outcome of the movie!

Hrududu

I haven't seen the film yet, so maybe I'm wrong

but when I read the book. I thought the boy was a lot younger than the boy in the film. Maybe it was that he was actually the age of filmboy and had just been mollycoddled so much that he seemed younger. Or maybe they should have cast a younger actor.

Standard Toaster

Watched The Road last nite....surpurb acting from Viggo Mortensen & fantasic score from Nick Cave. Kinda depressing tho...(I'd love to punch the son in the face) 7.5/10

Question:-

What's with the missing thumbs on some people??

Flamed Diving

The_Edge wrote: »

Watched The Road last nite....surpurb acting from Viggo Mortensen & fantasic score from Nick Cave. Kinda depressing tho...(I'd love to punch the son in the face) 7.5/10

Question:-

What's with the missing thumbs on some people??

The "thingy" appears to be a punishment for breaking some laws in a non-eating-people commune, at least that's what I gathered from the book.

MooseJam

Draupnir wrote: »

The Coca-Cola comment you are making is really unfair, it is a direct scene from the novel which explicitly mentions Coca-Cola I believe. The idea behind it being twofold, firstly that the boy has never experienced or even heard of the brand and secondly it shows the sacrifices the man will make for the boy.

Coca-Cola is something the audience can identify with easily, making the scene and universe all the more realistic. It sets the timeline up as the here and now rather than some future event. The scene would not work at all as well if it was Unbranded Coke Product A in my opinion.

I can guarantee you coca cola paid for that spot making it an advertisement and nullifying all above points

Sid_Justice

I don't think so mate. It's an identical scene in the book. I think it could have been given a generic name/made up type of cola but I don't think that was necessary.

sorry I seem to be just repeating what Drauphir said

Draupnir

MooseJam wrote: »

I can guarantee you coca cola paid for that spot making it an advertisement and nullifying all above points

I am afraid you are completely incorrect. How about you go and research what you are talking about?

The Coca Cola scene is not product placement.

EDIT: Here is a nice little link that puts the issue to bed: http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2009/11/12/cormac-mccarthy-on-how-coca-cola-ended-up-on-the-road-and-other-musings/

I didn't know that before the movie and I have never read the book but I could easily tell during the movie that it wasn't product placement and was part of the story. Product placement is Superman getting thrown into the Coke sign!