Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: oh my god

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: oh my god Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: oh my god - 13/1/2010 10:53:51 PM   
relativelyrelative


Posts: 226
Joined: 10/5/2009
From: Plymouth
quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

ORIGINAL: krudler

I enjoyed it but as other people have pointed out, the kid is a whiny little shit considering he was born into a life of hardship, he wants to help people at the expense of their own safety and survival, where has he learnt these morals from? The father character has no problems screwing people over if they look at him funny and is all about their survival so its not from there, and his mother had zero faith in surviving as well so where did the kid get the sudden urge to help everyone else?


Haven't seen the film (so this point is poor but the book is a favorite of mine) but could it be that that before leaving for the voyage South the Kid was mostly taken care and spoiled by the father in a home (away from the cruelty of the wilderness)? Then the situation became so unbearable that they had to leave their dwelling. And while the father kept doing horrible things, he tried to keep a kid as innocent as possible. The values could have been taught by the father in order not to the son fall into savagery like the others (to have something to give him hope).

Of course this is just an assumption on a film I am dying to see, so I could be very off the mark.


Shit I am already defensive about it.



Get what you're saying, see where you're coming from, but that's exactly the point. in one flashback you have charlize theron pregnant, the next she has a ten year old, and the next she's stripping off and running off into the woods - meanwhile this snotnosed little shit basically uses every minute of screentime available to him to ignore his father warning him that, and this is the crucial point that I think the film is about: there are not good people in the world. They want to fuck you, and eat you, and then rape your skull and THEN make coffee to drink out of it, and yet still, when viggo is doing his best to keep him alive he says'daddy no! don't kill him!" and asks if they're good people every five minutes!

The only place it fits, is when they're on the road after finding a cache of food, and come across Robert Duvall, who, by the way owns the entire film in ways the rest of the cast could only dream of in the three minutes he's there - the rest of the time it just doesn't make sense! There's even a scene, where after being SHOT IN THE LEG WITH AN ARROW, that snotnosed little shit once again begs daddy not to kill the person who tried to kill him! I dare say the book is probably worth every accolade it's been awarded, because I can see a good story, but I live praying to god that what they're running right now is nothing more than a rough edit, because it feels so iredeemably incomplete. That, my friend, will be its downfall.

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 31
RE: oh my god - 13/1/2010 11:01:19 PM   
relativelyrelative


Posts: 226
Joined: 10/5/2009
From: Plymouth
quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

quote:

ORIGINAL: relativelyrelative

....Are we all watching the same film? Because that's not what I saw; granted, I haven't read the book, but the film seems so ineffectively translated from page to script that it was nothing more than a jumbled mess. And that little shit was annoying as all hell.



I'd like to think that the film's stately, considered pace is for the avoidance of all doubt that it is anything but a mess. 

In actual fact, it's so above-board and bereft of trickery that the viewer has plenty of time to see it commit to potential mistakes.  I personally didn't see any.  It's true that episodes and emerging characters seem to flitter away into nothingness once their behind the central pairing, making it slightly difficult to engage with a solid through-line in the narrative.  But that's the picaresque tradition of the road movie and there's nothing wrong with that.  That's how Barry Lyndon or Apocalypse Now (to name but two) function and there's nowt wrong with them.

I also have to take issue with the notion that Smit-McPhee was annoying.  NaÔve kids in movies always have the capacity to be irritating and considering that his character is doubly naÔve it's an incredible achievement that he is consistently empathethic and most importantly worth all this aggro, since he's central to the entire survivalist motive.  If his performance fails then the whole film falls apart.   He really should be at the forefront of any Oscar talk that goes on in connection with this film.



You're really putting this in the same field as apocalypse now? really? Nowhere near as good, precisely because it was so dispondent. As for Smit-McPhee, correct me if I'm wrong, but in a world where everything has gone to shit the last thing you should be is naive and empathetic - you had viggo mortensen basically pointing his gun everywhere and falling just short of saying 'holy shit, they're gonna kill us', and this little kid comes on stage wishing he was picking daisies - I've seen more capable acting come from Haley Joel Osment.

Now I agree that road movies tend to have a tradition - but they also tend to have a tradition of a resolution of some sort, some closure, some way in for the audience to empathise with the protagnists of the story - I felt none of that here, apart from ultimatly pissed the hell off, where at the end the kid disregards everything his dad taught him and runs off with a family of people with people between their teeth - and why? because they said he can trust them and that they're good people?

(in reply to demoncleaner)
Post #: 32
RE: oh my god - 14/1/2010 12:02:04 AM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

ORIGINAL: relativelyrelative

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

ORIGINAL: krudler

I enjoyed it but as other people have pointed out, the kid is a whiny little shit considering he was born into a life of hardship, he wants to help people at the expense of their own safety and survival, where has he learnt these morals from? The father character has no problems screwing people over if they look at him funny and is all about their survival so its not from there, and his mother had zero faith in surviving as well so where did the kid get the sudden urge to help everyone else?


Haven't seen the film (so this point is poor but the book is a favorite of mine) but could it be that that before leaving for the voyage South the Kid was mostly taken care and spoiled by the father in a home (away from the cruelty of the wilderness)? Then the situation became so unbearable that they had to leave their dwelling. And while the father kept doing horrible things, he tried to keep a kid as innocent as possible. The values could have been taught by the father in order not to the son fall into savagery like the others (to have something to give him hope).

Of course this is just an assumption on a film I am dying to see, so I could be very off the mark.


Shit I am already defensive about it.



Get what you're saying, see where you're coming from, but that's exactly the point. in one flashback you have charlize theron pregnant, the next she has a ten year old, and the next she's stripping off and running off into the woods - meanwhile this snotnosed little shit basically uses every minute of screentime available to him to ignore his father warning him that, and this is the crucial point that I think the film is about: there are not good people in the world. They want to fuck you, and eat you, and then rape your skull and THEN make coffee to drink out of it, and yet still, when viggo is doing his best to keep him alive he says'daddy no! don't kill him!" and asks if they're good people every five minutes!

The only place it fits, is when they're on the road after finding a cache of food, and come across Robert Duvall, who, by the way owns the entire film in ways the rest of the cast could only dream of in the three minutes he's there - the rest of the time it just doesn't make sense! There's even a scene, where after being SHOT IN THE LEG WITH AN ARROW, that snotnosed little shit once again begs daddy not to kill the person who tried to kill him! I dare say the book is probably worth every accolade it's been awarded, because I can see a good story, but I live praying to god that what they're running right now is nothing more than a rough edit, because it feels so iredeemably incomplete. That, my friend, will be its downfall.



I am not sure that destroys my point. It just shows the boy in unready to face the "Reality" of the world around him. He still could have been spoiled and naive, and heck, he is 10 years old, maybe he is doing his best to remain hopeful even after all the horrors he is witnessing on the journey. Is there any reference to those ten years aside from the mother leaving them?

Anyway, you have a far better position than me since you have actually seen the film() so my points are very moot, but I will keep this in mind. I'll tell you what I thought of it after watching it.


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to relativelyrelative)
Post #: 33
RE: oh my god - 14/1/2010 12:10:03 AM   
Rinc


Posts: 12841
Joined: 2/10/2005
From: A park bench, with a newspaper quilt
My biggest problem with the film, and it's a very good adaptation, is that it leaves out all the monotony of the book. In the book the Father is rightly obsessed with finding food, keeping the trolley going and looking after the tarpaulin and wheels of the trolley. There doesn't seem to be the same level of desperation and monotony in the film and also the Father is far less careful in it. In the book he is constantly worried about being sighted, maing noise and approaching any house.

_____________________________

No spoilers please:

Invisiotext:
[ color=#F1F1F1 ]text[ /color ]

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 34
RE: oh my god - 14/1/2010 12:10:09 AM   
relativelyrelative


Posts: 226
Joined: 10/5/2009
From: Plymouth
quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

ORIGINAL: relativelyrelative

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

ORIGINAL: krudler

I enjoyed it but as other people have pointed out, the kid is a whiny little shit considering he was born into a life of hardship, he wants to help people at the expense of their own safety and survival, where has he learnt these morals from? The father character has no problems screwing people over if they look at him funny and is all about their survival so its not from there, and his mother had zero faith in surviving as well so where did the kid get the sudden urge to help everyone else?


Haven't seen the film (so this point is poor but the book is a favorite of mine) but could it be that that before leaving for the voyage South the Kid was mostly taken care and spoiled by the father in a home (away from the cruelty of the wilderness)? Then the situation became so unbearable that they had to leave their dwelling. And while the father kept doing horrible things, he tried to keep a kid as innocent as possible. The values could have been taught by the father in order not to the son fall into savagery like the others (to have something to give him hope).

Of course this is just an assumption on a film I am dying to see, so I could be very off the mark.


Shit I am already defensive about it.



Get what you're saying, see where you're coming from, but that's exactly the point. in one flashback you have charlize theron pregnant, the next she has a ten year old, and the next she's stripping off and running off into the woods - meanwhile this snotnosed little shit basically uses every minute of screentime available to him to ignore his father warning him that, and this is the crucial point that I think the film is about: there are not good people in the world. They want to fuck you, and eat you, and then rape your skull and THEN make coffee to drink out of it, and yet still, when viggo is doing his best to keep him alive he says'daddy no! don't kill him!" and asks if they're good people every five minutes!

The only place it fits, is when they're on the road after finding a cache of food, and come across Robert Duvall, who, by the way owns the entire film in ways the rest of the cast could only dream of in the three minutes he's there - the rest of the time it just doesn't make sense! There's even a scene, where after being SHOT IN THE LEG WITH AN ARROW, that snotnosed little shit once again begs daddy not to kill the person who tried to kill him! I dare say the book is probably worth every accolade it's been awarded, because I can see a good story, but I live praying to god that what they're running right now is nothing more than a rough edit, because it feels so iredeemably incomplete. That, my friend, will be its downfall.



I am not sure that destroys my point. It just shows the boy in unready to face the "Reality" of the world around him. He still could have been spoiled and naive, and heck, he is 10 years old, maybe he is doing his best to remain hopeful even after all the horrors he is witnessing on the journey. Is there any reference to those ten years aside from the mother leaving them?

Anyway, you have a far better position than me since you have actually seen the film() so my points are very moot, but I will keep this in mind. I'll tell you what I thought of it after watching it.



Oh, please do. Don't get me wrong, I really went into it wanting to love the film, but it just felt so lacking; of course, it's compelled me to add the book to my ever burgeoning list. lol Maybe once we're on even ground, we can exchange viewpoints, but as it stands right now - I get the impression that the book has much more of an impact than committing it to film did.

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 35
RE: oh my god - 14/1/2010 12:11:34 AM   
krudler


Posts: 7018
Joined: 30/9/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

ORIGINAL: krudler

I enjoyed it but as other people have pointed out, the kid is a whiny little shit considering he was born into a life of hardship, he wants to help people at the expense of their own safety and survival, where has he learnt these morals from? The father character has no problems screwing people over if they look at him funny and is all about their survival so its not from there, and his mother had zero faith in surviving as well so where did the kid get the sudden urge to help everyone else?


Haven't seen the film (so this point is poor but the book is a favorite of mine) but could it be that that before leaving for the voyage South the Kid was mostly taken care and spoiled by the father in a home (away from the cruelty of the wilderness)? Then the situation became so unbearable that they had to leave their dwelling. And while the father kept doing horrible things, he tried to keep a kid as innocent as possible. The values could have been taught by the father in order not to the son fall into savagery like the others (to have something to give him hope).

Of course this is just an assumption on a film I am dying to see, so I could be very off the mark.


Shit I am already defensive about it.



I must read the book myself, interested to see how good an adaptation it is, I liked the movie, I really did, just the kids actions or lack thereof annoyed me at times, maybe that was the point i dunno.

It was also a smidge,a tad, a bit unrealistic that in America, land of guns guns guns, theres not a piece of ammo to be found in any of the houses they come across, being that your average redneck house in the States probably contains enough ammo to invade a small country with its a bit silly that even after 10 years theres no guns or spare ammo lying ANYWHERE in the towns they walk through


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Squidward Hark Bugle

3D moving images are not films, they're holograms, and should be treated as a separate medium of storytelling, or artform.


(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 36
RE: oh my god - 14/1/2010 12:11:40 AM   
relativelyrelative


Posts: 226
Joined: 10/5/2009
From: Plymouth
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rinc

My biggest problem with the film, and it's a very good adaptation, is that it leaves out all the monotony of the book. In the book the Father is rightly obsessed with finding food, keeping the trolley going and looking after the tarpaulin and wheels of the trolley. There doesn't seem to be the same level of desperation and monotony in the film and also the Father is far less careful in it. In the book he is constantly worried about being sighted, maing noise and approaching any house.


Would it make sense if I said that I feel if more of that urgency and paranoia had been in the film, I might have enjoyed it more? Instead, we basically had viggo handing the kid his gun every few minutes, telling him to kill himself.

(in reply to Rinc)
Post #: 37
RE: oh my god - 14/1/2010 12:13:06 AM   
relativelyrelative


Posts: 226
Joined: 10/5/2009
From: Plymouth
quote:

ORIGINAL: krudler

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

ORIGINAL: krudler

I enjoyed it but as other people have pointed out, the kid is a whiny little shit considering he was born into a life of hardship, he wants to help people at the expense of their own safety and survival, where has he learnt these morals from? The father character has no problems screwing people over if they look at him funny and is all about their survival so its not from there, and his mother had zero faith in surviving as well so where did the kid get the sudden urge to help everyone else?


Haven't seen the film (so this point is poor but the book is a favorite of mine) but could it be that that before leaving for the voyage South the Kid was mostly taken care and spoiled by the father in a home (away from the cruelty of the wilderness)? Then the situation became so unbearable that they had to leave their dwelling. And while the father kept doing horrible things, he tried to keep a kid as innocent as possible. The values could have been taught by the father in order not to the son fall into savagery like the others (to have something to give him hope).

Of course this is just an assumption on a film I am dying to see, so I could be very off the mark.


Shit I am already defensive about it.



I must read the book myself, interested to see how good an adaptation it is, I liked the movie, I really did, just the kids actions or lack thereof annoyed me at times, maybe that was the point i dunno.

It was also a smidge,a tad, a bit unrealistic that in America, land of guns guns guns, theres not a piece of ammo to be found in any of the houses they come across, being that your average redneck house in the States probably contains enough ammo to invade a small country with its a bit silly that even after 10 years theres no guns or spare ammo lying ANYWHERE in the towns they walk through



there was also a noticeable lack of womenfolk in the ratio too. Is that part of the book?

(in reply to krudler)
Post #: 38
RE: oh my god - 14/1/2010 12:15:26 AM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:



I get the impression that the book has much more of an impact than committing it to film did.



This is probably true, reading the book I was really perplexed on how they were going to adapt it. I still have faith though, having one of my favorite directors at the helm and acted by some of my favorite actors. Plus Nick Cave is made of awesome.


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to relativelyrelative)
Post #: 39
RE: oh my god - 14/1/2010 12:19:08 AM   
relativelyrelative


Posts: 226
Joined: 10/5/2009
From: Plymouth
quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:



I get the impression that the book has much more of an impact than committing it to film did.



This is probably true, reading the book I was really perplexed on how they were going to adapt it. I still have faith though, having one of my favorite directors at the helm and acted by some of my favorite actors. Plus Nick Cave is made of awesome.



I felt Viggo kind of sleepwalked through the role tbh. Robert Duvall for the five minutes he had onscreen? awesome. Just awesome as El.

The thing about film adaptations, is that you have to be very careful about what parts of the integrity of a book you're going to sacrifice, because I find that the visualisation of what's going on in a writer's mind is never really compatible with what you're going to see on screen - in fact I think the only time I've seen the true scope of imagination pulled off on film, was David Lynch's dune, and even that was flawed. Maybe some of Chuck Pahlaniuk's works as well, but you get the point.

The big problem for me, was that I don't think I perceived any angle of empathy - I didn't particularly care for the characters in any way, shape or form - I constantly felt alienated, and I think perhaps the contrary would be true of the text. At least I would hope it's true of the book.


< Message edited by relativelyrelative -- 14/1/2010 12:22:56 AM >

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 40
RE: oh my god - 14/1/2010 9:53:00 AM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2426
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast
quote:

ORIGINAL: relativelyrelative

quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

quote:

ORIGINAL: relativelyrelative

....Are we all watching the same film? Because that's not what I saw; granted, I haven't read the book, but the film seems so ineffectively translated from page to script that it was nothing more than a jumbled mess. And that little shit was annoying as all hell.



I'd like to think that the film's stately, considered pace is for the avoidance of all doubt that it is anything but a mess. 

In actual fact, it's so above-board and bereft of trickery that the viewer has plenty of time to see it commit to potential mistakes.  I personally didn't see any.  It's true that episodes and emerging characters seem to flitter away into nothingness once their behind the central pairing, making it slightly difficult to engage with a solid through-line in the narrative.  But that's the picaresque tradition of the road movie and there's nothing wrong with that.  That's how Barry Lyndon or Apocalypse Now (to name but two) function and there's nowt wrong with them.

I also have to take issue with the notion that Smit-McPhee was annoying.  NaÔve kids in movies always have the capacity to be irritating and considering that his character is doubly naÔve it's an incredible achievement that he is consistently empathethic and most importantly worth all this aggro, since he's central to the entire survivalist motive.  If his performance fails then the whole film falls apart.   He really should be at the forefront of any Oscar talk that goes on in connection with this film.



You're really putting this in the same field as apocalypse now? really? Nowhere near as good, precisely because it was so dispondent. As for Smit-McPhee, correct me if I'm wrong, but in a world where everything has gone to shit the last thing you should be is naive and empathetic - you had viggo mortensen basically pointing his gun everywhere and falling just short of saying 'holy shit, they're gonna kill us', and this little kid comes on stage wishing he was picking daisies - I've seen more capable acting come from Haley Joel Osment.


Viggosí job is two-fold.  To dodge the dangers of the new world as ash tray, but more importantly to preserve some semblance of a benign world the son never knew.  Preserving his innocence is the point.   If thatís considered too airy fairy then too bad.  Because if it hadnít got that premise then it would be a different story.  It would beÖ.  Mad Max and Son.   It would be made by Kurt Wimmer and have an adolescent audience barking and clapping like seals.  But unfortunately for this film weíre lumbered with complexity and depth.  Its not a survival manual - its has a whole other soulful agenda about having something worth surviving for.  Again, if that's unnecessarily poetic perhaps people should read around the subject and go see something else.

quote:


Now I agree that road movies tend to have a tradition - but they also tend to have a tradition of a resolution of some sort, some closure, some way in for the audience to empathise with the protagnists of the story - I felt none of that here, apart from ultimatly pissed the hell off, where at the end the kid disregards everything his dad taught him and runs off with a family of people with people between their teeth - and why? because they said he can trust them and that they're good people?



You dozed off and dreamt this didn't you?  I understand the sport in being acerbic, but I lose patience when its at the expense of facts.

(in reply to relativelyrelative)
Post #: 41
RE: oh my god - 14/1/2010 10:30:53 AM   
hatebox

 

Posts: 942
Joined: 14/2/2008
The kid being too naive issue - I felt it was made very clear that up until they'd been forced to leave the house, he'd pretty much been confined to the relative comfort of that house and his parents' love all his life. He may have grown up in the apocalypse but his father had made sure he'd seen as little of it as possible.

It's the same in the book - the kid reacts to all the horrors around him with.. well, the expected level of horror a human would have.

(in reply to demoncleaner)
Post #: 42
RE: oh my god - 14/1/2010 2:17:10 PM   
relativelyrelative


Posts: 226
Joined: 10/5/2009
From: Plymouth
So basically we're establishing that the father spent the best years of the child's life protecting him from a world he needed to develop survival skills for, and then when it was too late and found they had to go on the road to head south the child was ill equipped and full of whimsy - don't you find that just a little bit monstrous that a father could conciously do that to a child in those circumstances? You're defending a film here that says that it's ok to still be innocent in a world that's fallen to shit - when let's face it, if the world's fallen to shit that badly, that child would be like blood in the water. He really would.

(in reply to hatebox)
Post #: 43
RE: oh my god - 14/1/2010 3:22:03 PM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2426
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast
He also schooled him on the value of suicide which suggests, rightly or wrongly, that thereís no expectation that the travails of the post-apocalypse could be conquered outright.  Where also does the assumption come from that Mortensenís character is a crack commando himself?  Beyond the fundamentals of ďstay dry, eat when you can and stay away from the people who eat peopleĒ Mortensenís survival skills didnít really get more sophisticated than that.    The story is benefitted by the sonís default position of seeing the best in people versus the value in instant distrust of humanity.  That difference is the human centre.  If I wanted to watch a cynical father and son tramp through debris Iíd watch Steptoe and Son.

(in reply to relativelyrelative)
Post #: 44
RE: oh my god - 14/1/2010 3:31:00 PM   
hatebox

 

Posts: 942
Joined: 14/2/2008
quote:

ORIGINAL: relativelyrelative

So basically we're establishing that the father spent the best years of the child's life protecting him from a world he needed to develop survival skills for, and then when it was too late and found they had to go on the road to head south the child was ill equipped and full of whimsy - don't you find that just a little bit monstrous that a father could conciously do that to a child in those circumstances? You're defending a film here that says that it's ok to still be innocent in a world that's fallen to shit - when let's face it, if the world's fallen to shit that badly, that child would be like blood in the water. He really would.


You've confused the stance of a character in a story with the overall intentions of the story. Why do you think there was the argument between the Father and Mother? Just for some filler? The author and/or director never suggested the Father's actions and outlook were 100% right.

< Message edited by hatebox -- 14/1/2010 3:36:42 PM >

(in reply to relativelyrelative)
Post #: 45
RE: oh my god - 14/1/2010 10:28:01 PM   
relativelyrelative


Posts: 226
Joined: 10/5/2009
From: Plymouth
But the argument between mother and father onscreen amounted to 45 seconds! How is that anywhere NEAR enough time to effectively communicate what the guy's viewpoint is?

(in reply to hatebox)
Post #: 46
RE: oh my god - 14/1/2010 10:35:27 PM   
hatebox

 

Posts: 942
Joined: 14/2/2008
The argument wasn't to show the father's viewpoint so much as the mother's - we're meant to wonder if maybe it really would be better to just die and that 'surviving isn't enough'.

Neither the film nor the book ever pick a side. That's up to us. While the father's protection of his son is often portrayed as noble, it rarely shows their survival in such a desolate world as something to aspire to. I don't think we're encouraged to see the mother's suicide as selfish or unforgiveable.

(in reply to relativelyrelative)
Post #: 47
RE: BLEEECHHHH!!!! - 18/1/2010 7:31:15 PM   
hampstead bandit

 

Posts: 387
Joined: 18/9/2009
I did not know anything about this film apart from having seen the trailer, have not read the book either

just got back from seeing it

a good film for sure 4/5

very subtle and atmospheric

great acting

very frightening concept of what could happen to the World

found the ending where the "boy" meets new traveling companions quite emotional
Post #: 48
RE: BLEEECHHHH!!!! - 18/1/2010 7:36:34 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

ORIGINAL: ROTGUT

Two hours of unmitigated misery!!! Sure.... it'll probably win tons of awards and it's well directed and acted - but is it entertainment??? I don't think so.
Might I suggest that anyone thinking about seeing this blige - save your seven quid, stay at home - and watch the 6 o'clock news instead!!! It's just as depressing.
quote:

instead


Opinions like yours cause me unmitigated misery, they really do.

< Message edited by Deviation -- 19/1/2010 12:39:46 AM >


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates
Post #: 49
RE: The Road - 25/1/2010 12:43:46 PM   
The Janitor

 

Posts: 612
Joined: 5/10/2005
I saw this yesterday and loved it. Brilliant in almost every aspect. A few minor quibbles though:

Firstly the scene towards the end showing a mother and a child being pursued by the cannibals. They both looked immaculate! They did such a good job of making everyone else in the film look so haggered this really stood out and took me out of the scene.

Secondly the end

SPOILERS !!

It has been a while since I read the book so this maybe my memory but I don't remember the child leaving with the traditional, all round, American family, Mom and Pop, 2 kids and a dog. This jarred a little with the bleak feel of the of the rest of the film. The book was more ambiguous about the who the boy was leaving with but again this could be my memory.


< Message edited by The Janitor -- 25/1/2010 12:45:27 PM >
Post #: 50
RE: The Road - 3/2/2010 10:50:17 PM   
Drone


Posts: 966
Joined: 30/9/2005
I read the book some time ago, and just watched the film this evening - I have the same isue with the film as I do with the novel, but as it's a spoiler I will save it till last.

I felt the world was slightly less 'emaciated' than it was portrayed in the book.  I was bleak, but not quite the barren ashland I had envisioned.  The pain and hunger of the man and boy didnt quite come across as well on screen, and the  man was a far stronger, amiable character than on the page. 

But what pissed me off about the film, pissed me off about the book.  Cormac Mccarthy monumentally copped out at the end, I feel.

************ SPOILER *************

Sure, it's left to be a little more ambiguous at the end of the novel (is he or isn't he a cannibal) but after this epic, harrowing, heartfelt journey through little other than inevitable suffering and death, out comes a scarred hero of the wasteland, armed to the teeth, ready to protect the boy at all costs; him and his hapy little family.  What the hell???

That was a highly disappointing ending to the novel, and more so on screen, as the is - he - or - isn't - he possibities are thrown out of the window when he's saved by The Waltons, dog et al.  I don't recall if the guys' wife is in the book, or her kids, but I seemed to recall it being a great deal more open ended than the film.

****/*****

Still a fantastic achievement.  Viggo Mortensen... wow.  But his wife... jeez what a fucker.  There is zero empathy to be had with her in the film.

< Message edited by Drone -- 3/2/2010 10:51:25 PM >
Post #: 51
RE: brilliant! - 4/2/2010 3:23:06 PM   
theburbs81


Posts: 26
Joined: 19/1/2010
From: Suburbia
As dark, dreary and downbeat a movie as I've ever seen. But brilliant for it. Really a thinker. Found myself appreciating the hell outta life after viewing it.


Go see it guys.

_____________________________

WE'RE THE LUNATICS. US. IT'S NOT THEM. IT'S US.....
Post #: 52
RE: brilliant! - 4/2/2010 8:48:41 PM   
King Dave


Posts: 8
Joined: 4/2/2010
It has to be said Viggo Mortensen was the absolute perfect choice to play the lead in this.

Great casting.

(in reply to theburbs81)
Post #: 53
RE: The Road - 5/2/2010 5:57:33 PM   
genejoke


Posts: 1783
Joined: 5/10/2005
From: bournemouth
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drone

I read the book some time ago, and just watched the film this evening - I have the same isue with the film as I do with the novel, but as it's a spoiler I will save it till last.

I felt the world was slightly less 'emaciated' than it was portrayed in the book.  I was bleak, but not quite the barren ashland I had envisioned.  The pain and hunger of the man and boy didnt quite come across as well on screen, and the  man was a far stronger, amiable character than on the page. 

But what pissed me off about the film, pissed me off about the book.  Cormac Mccarthy monumentally copped out at the end, I feel.

************ SPOILER *************

Sure, it's left to be a little more ambiguous at the end of the novel (is he or isn't he a cannibal) but after this epic, harrowing, heartfelt journey through little other than inevitable suffering and death, out comes a scarred hero of the wasteland, armed to the teeth, ready to protect the boy at all costs; him and his hapy little family.  What the hell???

That was a highly disappointing ending to the novel, and more so on screen, as the is - he - or - isn't - he possibities are thrown out of the window when he's saved by The Waltons, dog et al.  I don't recall if the guys' wife is in the book, or her kids, but I seemed to recall it being a great deal more open ended than the film.

****/*****

Still a fantastic achievement.  Viggo Mortensen... wow.  But his wife... jeez what a fucker.  There is zero empathy to be had with her in the film.


SPOILERS
It was a great film despite being unrelentingly bleak and I was glad for the happy ending, the film had been so bleak that I welcomed it.  Also so many films have bleak endings now it is a nice change to see a happy ending, even if it did have a sting in it.  If they stayed at the bunker then the father may have lived longer and if he could have trusted he may have died knowing his son was safe.


(in reply to Drone)
Post #: 54
The Road Worrier - 20/2/2010 11:17:46 AM   
SpiderBat

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 2/5/2009
Not quite as powerful as the book, but how could it be. The movie needed to be at least an hour longer to really recreate the horrendous conditions in the book and in doing so put us fully into that world. I thought the best parts of the movie were the little cameos by the other characters, each one brilliantly acted and realised. Biggest compliment to the movie is that the end pays off as much as it does in the book.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 55
The Road Worrier - 20/2/2010 11:17:50 AM   
SpiderBat

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 2/5/2009
Not quite as powerful as the book, but how could it be. The movie needed to be at least an hour longer to really recreate the horrendous conditions in the book and in doing so put us fully into that world. I thought the best parts of the movie were the little cameos by the other characters, each one brilliantly acted and realised. Biggest compliment to the movie is that the end pays off as much as it does in the book.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 56
RE: oh my god - 21/2/2010 8:14:06 PM   
empire No. 1

 

Posts: 123
Joined: 14/2/2010
its the 1st excellent film of the decade. to mention 2012 (although i quite liked it . . . stop laughing!) in the same breath is to do THE ROAD a diservice. powerful, emotional and belivable, this is a true front row, cinema lovers delight. cannot wait til Hillcotts masterpiece GHOSTS OF THE CIVIL DEAD is finally given a DVD debut, cos some c@%! borrowed my VHS copy and never returned it!

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 57
RE: oh my god - 28/2/2010 12:21:28 PM   
Perinthespider

 

Posts: 43
Joined: 12/11/2006
I finally got round to watching this yesterday and I thought it was magnificent, as pared down as a film could possibily be but still hugely affecting. I loved that it was all about the small moments; the joy of tasting coke for the first time or the sadness the man felt when he saw the piano, these emotions rang true and I though the performances from both the man and boy were excellent.

Also I thought that the cellar scene, which only lasted a matter of seconds, was far scarier and more disturbing than most horror films I have seen of late.



_____________________________

"My grandfather informs me that is not possible"

(in reply to empire No. 1)
Post #: 58
- 7/3/2010 8:20:09 PM   
anakin73

 

Posts: 27
Joined: 19/2/2008
so well acted, viggo is really at the top of his game, how could the academy ignore this movie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 59
- 15/3/2010 4:40:33 PM   
strangeone

 

Posts: 44
Joined: 10/3/2010
Extremely powerful and i cant believe Viggo wasn't nominated for an oscar for this. Every shred of pain and stress were there in his haunted eyes as he tried to keep it together for his son's sake. This movie was scary in places and a real tearjerker too at times. I think my poor girlfriend was expecting some kind of Mad Max-ish action movie and had been brought to tears at least twice by the end. And it' wasn't surprising, several times the movie punches you right in the guts, but like the main characters you cant help but soldier through, on the faint hope of a happy ending.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: oh my god Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Movie News††|††Empire Blog††|††Movie Reviews††|††Future Films††|††Features††|††Video Interviews††|††Image Gallery††|††Competitions††|††Forum††|††Magazine††|††Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.344