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.

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.  Naïve kids in movies always have the capacity to be irritating and considering that his character is doubly naïve 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

quote:



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

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

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.

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.  Naïve kids in movies always have the capacity to be irritating and considering that his character is doubly naïve 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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.