Film Review: The Road
Last night I finally got to watch the movie adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's book The Road. Don't read any Wiki articles about it unless you want to be thoroughly spoiled. Any spoilers I will have will be below the cut, so no worries. Everything above the cut is pretty much a comparison between the book and the film.
What its about: The story takes place after a global apocalypse, likely nuclear, that has destroyed pretty much everything and now the world is caught in a grey-on-grey nuclear winter where only scraps of humanity are left behind. We follow the struggle of an un-named father and son who are following roads heading south. Watching their journey we get glimpses into how other people have survived, and mostly how they haven't. I think it is ultimately a story about the strongest of love in the face of the very worst that the world can throw at you and never losing hope.
That said, it is very bleak and a bit slow-paced. For this I was prepared but gentle viewers may not be.
Compared to the book, I still think the book was much more bleak. In general, though, this is probably the closest book-to-film adaptation I've seen; they pretty much got most of it and they did it well. It has been a few years since I read the book; I remember major scenes and they got all but one of those, but the film did such a good job that I couldn't tell if any scenes were added just for the movie. :) The book only travels as fast as the characters can walk, so the story is often presented in a kind of series of brief moments, which is easy to do in film so I think that translated well, though impatient audiences weaned on action flicks de jour may become a bit bored.
Visually: I thought it wasn't grey enough, lol! The film was much more accurate than my imagination, I think. What surprised me most was how a lot of scenes were perfectly captured from the book. As soon as the shot began I knew exactly where we were in the story. I've read a lot of books and seen them turned into films and though I'll still recognize where we are supposed to be and what we are supposed to be looking at, in this film it was like they used the way I was picturing the book for their making of it. Great job!
Nearly everything was shot on-location so they didn't have to use CGI - that was the most amazing part. The bleak landscapes and city scapes and houses and things, the buckled and broken roads - all places in America. As a fan of post-apocalyptia this was a treat to see (if a nightmarishly horrific one).
Acting was awesome. We only really spend time with the Father (Viggo Mortensen) and his son (Kodi Smit-McPhee), both of whom did emotional and believeable jobs. I thought the characters were much more interesting and intense in the film than in the book, probably because a picture is worth a thousand words here and with the right actors, SO much can be conveyed in a simple glance or shift in stance.
The book spends more time crystalizing thoughts and emotions from the father so I think we miss some of the depth to his motivations though there are homages to that in a few scenes that readers of the book should be able to pick out in the film. Still, by the end of the film I think you get a pretty good summary of the hopes and motivations of the characters.
Conclusion: All in all, I liked the film a lot. It is a bit slow but so is the book. In a few places the visuals are what pull the audience along since really there isn't a ton of story. As far as post-apocalyptic, devastated worlds go, this is probably the most bleak and, unfortunately, realistic (theoretical) representation I've seen of a nuclear winter - so if that's your thing (it is mine) then you should be pleased. I felt the overall result was actually more emotionally powerful than the book (though it could be because I'm PMSing) and though it ends identically, is more satisfying in the end.
This film isn't for everyone but if it at all sounds interesting to you I recommend you give it a go.
SPOILERS BELOW!!!
You have been warned!
Ok, so, this pretty much has to do with specific scenes.
• The orchard where they dig up the dried up little apples wasn't in. I was kinda bummed about that - for some reason that scene sticks with me. They found the farm where that would of happened but didn't have that scene. I think I liked it because it showed their ingenuity in looking for (and eating) food. Who would of thought those apples would still be there after all that time? But not to be in the film...
• The cellar full of people-for-food bit was not NEAR as scary as in the book. I remember feeling quite wretched about that scene when I read it. I didn't fully expect it at ALL when I read it but in the film they gave us a bit too much fore-shadowing. I asked Kaisa, who hasn't read the book, and she'd guessed it was gonna have people in it. So, when I read the book, it felt like the house was just another exploration, with just a *little* something off - then BAM! Punch-to-the-gut when you see the people in the cellar, and then the action stays of HIGH when the cannibal farmers return home. But maybe they wanted to tone it down slightly so the scene didn't feel like it had slipped out of a random horror-flick and into a decent film. :P
• Not a scene, but I felt the Boy was much less... Whiney? In the film. I think his idealism that his dad obviously fostered made more sense in the film whereas in the book I felt like the kid was being a stereotypical "treat others the way you want to be treated" kid, though the only place he'd have to learn anything from is his dad, regardless.
• They left out the exploration part of the boat scene, when they reach the shore and the dad explores the boat and how he's looking for medicine. At the time I read it, it did feel like the book was being streeeeeeettttchhhhhed ouuuuuuttt but in the film I was eager to see how they'd show the inside of the boat and all. I guess it made sense to leave out what the Dad is doing in order to get to the POINT of that scene, which is while the father is away, the Boy falls asleep and their stuff is stolen.
• Biggest thing left out by FAR, however, was the roasted baby scene. I can see why they left it out. I expected to see all the other major scenes in the book but this one I wasn't sure whether it would be left in or not. In the book I think it really helps to highlight the desperation some people are going through, and since it happens later in the book, serves a good follow-up kick in the teeth to the cellar-people bit. But I think that "people" would of been pretty enraged had it been filmed and that it would of been un-necessarily gruesome and would of over-shadowed the point of the film.
• Lastly, the ending. When I read the book I felt the end didn't have much impact. Dad's dead and oh, look! Some people are here to take you in! How lucky! In the movie they made it make more sense and gave it more meat, I felt, so the fact that the Boy has people to survive with made for a much more satisfying ending.
QUESTION! For those who have read the book, do you remember if the family the Boy ends up with was following the Father and the Boy the whole time? And if so, did the author provide clues throughout? I honestly don't remember. I may have to look it up.
What its about: The story takes place after a global apocalypse, likely nuclear, that has destroyed pretty much everything and now the world is caught in a grey-on-grey nuclear winter where only scraps of humanity are left behind. We follow the struggle of an un-named father and son who are following roads heading south. Watching their journey we get glimpses into how other people have survived, and mostly how they haven't. I think it is ultimately a story about the strongest of love in the face of the very worst that the world can throw at you and never losing hope.
That said, it is very bleak and a bit slow-paced. For this I was prepared but gentle viewers may not be.
Compared to the book, I still think the book was much more bleak. In general, though, this is probably the closest book-to-film adaptation I've seen; they pretty much got most of it and they did it well. It has been a few years since I read the book; I remember major scenes and they got all but one of those, but the film did such a good job that I couldn't tell if any scenes were added just for the movie. :) The book only travels as fast as the characters can walk, so the story is often presented in a kind of series of brief moments, which is easy to do in film so I think that translated well, though impatient audiences weaned on action flicks de jour may become a bit bored.
Visually: I thought it wasn't grey enough, lol! The film was much more accurate than my imagination, I think. What surprised me most was how a lot of scenes were perfectly captured from the book. As soon as the shot began I knew exactly where we were in the story. I've read a lot of books and seen them turned into films and though I'll still recognize where we are supposed to be and what we are supposed to be looking at, in this film it was like they used the way I was picturing the book for their making of it. Great job!
Nearly everything was shot on-location so they didn't have to use CGI - that was the most amazing part. The bleak landscapes and city scapes and houses and things, the buckled and broken roads - all places in America. As a fan of post-apocalyptia this was a treat to see (if a nightmarishly horrific one).
Acting was awesome. We only really spend time with the Father (Viggo Mortensen) and his son (Kodi Smit-McPhee), both of whom did emotional and believeable jobs. I thought the characters were much more interesting and intense in the film than in the book, probably because a picture is worth a thousand words here and with the right actors, SO much can be conveyed in a simple glance or shift in stance.
The book spends more time crystalizing thoughts and emotions from the father so I think we miss some of the depth to his motivations though there are homages to that in a few scenes that readers of the book should be able to pick out in the film. Still, by the end of the film I think you get a pretty good summary of the hopes and motivations of the characters.
Conclusion: All in all, I liked the film a lot. It is a bit slow but so is the book. In a few places the visuals are what pull the audience along since really there isn't a ton of story. As far as post-apocalyptic, devastated worlds go, this is probably the most bleak and, unfortunately, realistic (theoretical) representation I've seen of a nuclear winter - so if that's your thing (it is mine) then you should be pleased. I felt the overall result was actually more emotionally powerful than the book (though it could be because I'm PMSing) and though it ends identically, is more satisfying in the end.
This film isn't for everyone but if it at all sounds interesting to you I recommend you give it a go.
SPOILERS BELOW!!!
You have been warned!
Ok, so, this pretty much has to do with specific scenes.
• The orchard where they dig up the dried up little apples wasn't in. I was kinda bummed about that - for some reason that scene sticks with me. They found the farm where that would of happened but didn't have that scene. I think I liked it because it showed their ingenuity in looking for (and eating) food. Who would of thought those apples would still be there after all that time? But not to be in the film...
• The cellar full of people-for-food bit was not NEAR as scary as in the book. I remember feeling quite wretched about that scene when I read it. I didn't fully expect it at ALL when I read it but in the film they gave us a bit too much fore-shadowing. I asked Kaisa, who hasn't read the book, and she'd guessed it was gonna have people in it. So, when I read the book, it felt like the house was just another exploration, with just a *little* something off - then BAM! Punch-to-the-gut when you see the people in the cellar, and then the action stays of HIGH when the cannibal farmers return home. But maybe they wanted to tone it down slightly so the scene didn't feel like it had slipped out of a random horror-flick and into a decent film. :P
• Not a scene, but I felt the Boy was much less... Whiney? In the film. I think his idealism that his dad obviously fostered made more sense in the film whereas in the book I felt like the kid was being a stereotypical "treat others the way you want to be treated" kid, though the only place he'd have to learn anything from is his dad, regardless.
• They left out the exploration part of the boat scene, when they reach the shore and the dad explores the boat and how he's looking for medicine. At the time I read it, it did feel like the book was being streeeeeeettttchhhhhed ouuuuuuttt but in the film I was eager to see how they'd show the inside of the boat and all. I guess it made sense to leave out what the Dad is doing in order to get to the POINT of that scene, which is while the father is away, the Boy falls asleep and their stuff is stolen.
• Biggest thing left out by FAR, however, was the roasted baby scene. I can see why they left it out. I expected to see all the other major scenes in the book but this one I wasn't sure whether it would be left in or not. In the book I think it really helps to highlight the desperation some people are going through, and since it happens later in the book, serves a good follow-up kick in the teeth to the cellar-people bit. But I think that "people" would of been pretty enraged had it been filmed and that it would of been un-necessarily gruesome and would of over-shadowed the point of the film.
• Lastly, the ending. When I read the book I felt the end didn't have much impact. Dad's dead and oh, look! Some people are here to take you in! How lucky! In the movie they made it make more sense and gave it more meat, I felt, so the fact that the Boy has people to survive with made for a much more satisfying ending.
QUESTION! For those who have read the book, do you remember if the family the Boy ends up with was following the Father and the Boy the whole time? And if so, did the author provide clues throughout? I honestly don't remember. I may have to look it up.