1) The more I think about it, the more I think that this review just didn't get the point of the movie. I fail to see how the ending can be seen as "smarmy" at all. It's a warm moment, but at the theater I was at it seemed that everybody got the point of the final freeze frame: this isn't over yet, or rather it's over but it still won't end well.
2) Also upon further reflection, I think Riddley Walker shouldn't be translated into a visual medium. It work best as a radio play, or (if you have to do it visually) an opera.
This part: "the father's love for his boy is simply too exalted, too idealized, to be realistic or even interesting." That's exactly the problem that I had with the book, which I consider to be McCarthy's weakest effort to date. (Still worth a read though; even the lamest McCarthy book is better than the work of most modern authors.) No plans to see this one in theaters, but that might change if it gets good word of mouth.
Neon Genesis Evangelion. The damn writers/producers couldn't think of a way to end that train wreck except by killing off the whole damn cast. They should have just ended it with Kaworu Nagisa and success of the Human Instrumentality Project....if not sooner.
@Vulcan Has No Moon: I liked the ending for one simple fact: I hated every last character on the show. Oh I was enthralled by it and couldn't stop watching it until I'd seen every last scrap of the shows and movies but, they seemed to be great examples of humanities selfishness and propensity to destroy itself. On the one hand I hated Shinji's father but also couldn't stand Shinji's whining.
@Alvarez: Actually, I don't really care they killed everyone, just that it seemed like they had run into a brick wall with the story and took an easy out. Like they never planned the story arc out to the end. It's like the writers got together and said, "Show got cancelled, and we've got an hour to rap this up. Any ideas on how to tie up all the loose ends?" "Let's just kill everyone off." "Cool!" and then everyone knocked off early for lunch.
Couple of things: first, if the movie implies an asteroid is the cause of the disaster, it is not in keeping with the book, which keeps the explanation vague enough to allow for multiple possibilities but leans more toward nuclear catastrophe through subtle plot details than asteroid-caused catastrophe. By the way, the details of such aspects are deliberately vague - they help us see the story as allegory and focus on its core themes. Second, I find it depressing and sad that a leftist journalist who has lived in an Bay-area sociopolitical echo chamber for most - if not her entire - life appears to be dissing what may be McCarthy's life's masterwork primarily because she finds the conclusions he has come to about the essence of humanity after a long artistically-accomplished life to be "trite". This is not an intelligent, sensitive, or enlightened approach to art and does readers a disservice.
@nforandulaho: It doesn't imply an asteroid clearly; it keeps it fairly vague. I think I remember reading somewhere that McCarthy intended it to be an asteroid strike.
First: I've read the book, not yet seen the movie. I think the reviewer is probably relatively young, probably doesn't have kids (correct me if I'm wrong, by all means). The thing is, to understand this movie well you have to consider the author. This is the guy who wrote No Country For Old Men and other violent, grim explorations into the darkness of man's soul. By his own admission, he has struggled with depression much of his adult life. He's been working on the same themes most of his career. The author is an old man now - probably close to his own death, and he knows it. This was his attempt to write a book about his own struggle to understand his own life; as his comes to a close, the writing is becoming more focused and elementary - expressing only what must be expressed to maximize the communicative power of the thoughts expressed. If this had been a three page book and a 3 minute movie, I think the reviewer would have more of a point; but it obviously isn't. The author is trying to get a point across to a jaded, self-satisfied, and in his mind, naive audience. He is an old man trying to explain his point of view on life. The landscape and circumstances are there only to help break us away from our own selves enough to deliver the point this book/movie is trying to make, which (I think) is an exploration of what is left of humanity - human essential good - when all the distracting trappings of human life are utterly stripped away. What's left to us all, best case, are what's been left to him at this point in his own life. We all face the same apocalyptic end and McCarthy is trying to bring us along on his own personal road, for our own edification. I think he's done a hell of a job. This is the kind of book/movie one should be very careful to criticize, because it is great stuff yet easily glossed over - as this review demonstrates.
WARNING: Theoretical spoilers.
I haven't seen the movie - and may not - but I did read the book in the last year on the recommendation of a new coworker. I think that many of the problems you pose with the movie are also issues with the book and I think the underlying problem is that this IS THE MOST DEPRESSING. BOOK. EVER. Actually I might well be wrong about that and io9 might consider a poll about which books folks have read that are even more depressing and hopeless.
The story's telling in either medium is so unrelentingly dark that it's difficult to portray the nuances you're looking for. The slightest dim ray of - not hope, because that train's left the station - but any slightly positive plot turn or modest humanity shown by a character is totally overshadowed by the weight of the plot's underlying reality. The theme of living to retain moral values and the dedication of a father to his son must constantly struggle against the story's clear message that there isn't going to be a "secret formula" or a "sanctuary" found in the last ten minutes.
I thought that the weakness of the book was that McCarthy seemed insistent that hope was pretty much not an option yet it's not clear, from a science perspective, that the it shouldn't be so. The sun wasn't totally blocked. Yes, production would suffer greatly but not eliminated completely. He could have retained his primary themes without abandoning hope. He could actually have made things worse: Damn! They got killed just before they found the entrance to the secret underground, nuclear fusion-powered city where the elite have found refuge.
Now the cast of Zombieland; they're really screwed. Thanks for the usual thoughtful critique, AN.
@Fanboy185: I'd agree that "The Road" is a seriously depressing book, but I personally found "No Country for Old Men" to be more so.
POTENTIAL SPOILERS
.
.
.
.
.
.
From page one, McCarthy takes great pains to make it obvious that there's no hope at all to be found in "The Road," yet in the end there is hope for the boy. In "No Country," there's no real reason to think that Llewelyn and Carla won't make it through to proverbial daylight, and I found it devastating when McCarthy tore that hope right out from under my feet. Not only that, but the book is far more explicit about Carla's fate than the movie, which left it somewhat up to viewer interpretation. The message I got from "No Country" is that evil's winning, and there's nothing good people can do about it. "The Road" at least gives us a little bit of sunshine, no matter how gray and cold it might be.
I don't see a problem with the father idealizing his child. When things turn really bad, people do tend to get mystical about the world. Seeing his son as God is kind of the ultimate mystification, and it's a natural culmination of the modern tendency to idealize and overprotect children.
I also don't see much problem from a realism standpoint of the kid being overly reliant on his father; it seems to me that especially in a crisis of this magnitude most kids would do the same. Challenging your parent's moral decisions when your life is constantly in danger seems like something most kids would have sense enough not to do. It might not make for good storytelling, but that's how it would be.
But the notion of kid who is by turns whiny and cutesy is just an extension of Hollywood's overly simplistic understanding of kids, as I said earlier. Like I said, if they'd put this in the hands of a European director like, say, Lasse Hallstrom, who did an excellent job with The Cider-House Rules, it likely would've been a much better film.
I had not noticed until now, but this thing with the papa doing what it takes for his son, being in the road, etcetera is heavily borrowed in The Walking Dead, right?
EXCELLENT review, Annalee. The writing is pompous and sentimental and full of sensationalism. I would assume any film based on the books would mirror that. No Country for Old Men certainly did. I wouldn't bother to see this film.
A Canticle For Liebowitz would of made a great film.i am interested in this film.i will wait to see what others think of it before i go.and i may end up just waiting till it is on DVD since i work in a videostore and if i go see all the scifis when a new one comes out on disc i have nothing to watch that week.
I read the book once and will see the movie. I remember after finishing the book kind of thinking, "is that it?" But the more I thought about it the more I came to the conclusion that it was about humanity. That "hope" would be all that we had left to hang on to and what would keep us human. The father had a sense of duty to keep his son alive, the boy represented the faith in humanity.
SPOILER: if the boy didn't have faith in the goodness of the man he meets at the very end, then there was no future for the human race. His father dodged everyone but the boy has to reach out in order to survive.
By the way Annalee, I found the kid to be annoying in the book too.
Once again it seems like Hollywood really doesn't understand kids, or people in general, really. They should've let a European director make this movie. It's the perfect meandering storyline for a European film.
@moifauxmail: There were parts of it that reminded me of Seventh Seal, and I thought Ingmar Bergman would make a good version. The only problem I had was the narration, which (this is a guess) might have been a late addition.
@OW-Holmes:Bringer of Fear: Then watch it with your girlfriend and earn sensitive-guy points
(unless you earn bastard-who-took-me-to-watch-a-horrible-movie points)
@Dirk Anger: Yeah, me too. Don't take anyone to Twilight on a first date -- if she's a keeper she'll be pissed off and you'll lose her, and if she's a bimbo she'll think it's OMGAwesome and expect you to be like that.
"The Road" is not date material unless she really wants to see it and picks it herself.
@OW-Holmes:Bringer of Fear: Probably, And they won't be those exhilarating, ultimately positive tears like at the end of "Magnolia," the last episodes of Buffy Seasons 6 and 7 or similar. They're of the "we're all gonna die!" type.
it seems to me that this review criticizes more the book than the movie. the "he's god", the cheerios, the "holy and simple" relation are ALL in the book. moreover, the most disturbing thing of the book and cormack admits that himself is that the book is suppose to be a simple story about a father and a son trying to survive in a dead world. nothing more, nothing less.
the movie may suck but let it suck for a bad adaption or bad acting, not for bringing to life the very essence of the book.
did newtiz read the book? coz it doesnt sounds like she did.
hope someone else feels the same way about this review as i do.
12:11 PM
2) Also upon further reflection, I think Riddley Walker shouldn't be translated into a visual medium. It work best as a radio play, or (if you have to do it visually) an opera.
11/27/09
11/26/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/26/09
11/28/09
11/26/09
11/25/09
Happy shopping everybody!
11/25/09
I haven't seen the movie - and may not - but I did read the book in the last year on the recommendation of a new coworker. I think that many of the problems you pose with the movie are also issues with the book and I think the underlying problem is that this IS THE MOST DEPRESSING. BOOK. EVER. Actually I might well be wrong about that and io9 might consider a poll about which books folks have read that are even more depressing and hopeless.
The story's telling in either medium is so unrelentingly dark that it's difficult to portray the nuances you're looking for. The slightest dim ray of - not hope, because that train's left the station - but any slightly positive plot turn or modest humanity shown by a character is totally overshadowed by the weight of the plot's underlying reality. The theme of living to retain moral values and the dedication of a father to his son must constantly struggle against the story's clear message that there isn't going to be a "secret formula" or a "sanctuary" found in the last ten minutes.
I thought that the weakness of the book was that McCarthy seemed insistent that hope was pretty much not an option yet it's not clear, from a science perspective, that the it shouldn't be so. The sun wasn't totally blocked. Yes, production would suffer greatly but not eliminated completely. He could have retained his primary themes without abandoning hope. He could actually have made things worse: Damn! They got killed just before they found the entrance to the secret underground, nuclear fusion-powered city where the elite have found refuge.
Now the cast of Zombieland; they're really screwed. Thanks for the usual thoughtful critique, AN.
11/27/09
POTENTIAL SPOILERS
.
.
.
.
.
.
From page one, McCarthy takes great pains to make it obvious that there's no hope at all to be found in "The Road," yet in the end there is hope for the boy. In "No Country," there's no real reason to think that Llewelyn and Carla won't make it through to proverbial daylight, and I found it devastating when McCarthy tore that hope right out from under my feet. Not only that, but the book is far more explicit about Carla's fate than the movie, which left it somewhat up to viewer interpretation. The message I got from "No Country" is that evil's winning, and there's nothing good people can do about it. "The Road" at least gives us a little bit of sunshine, no matter how gray and cold it might be.
11/25/09
I also don't see much problem from a realism standpoint of the kid being overly reliant on his father; it seems to me that especially in a crisis of this magnitude most kids would do the same. Challenging your parent's moral decisions when your life is constantly in danger seems like something most kids would have sense enough not to do. It might not make for good storytelling, but that's how it would be.
But the notion of kid who is by turns whiny and cutesy is just an extension of Hollywood's overly simplistic understanding of kids, as I said earlier. Like I said, if they'd put this in the hands of a European director like, say, Lasse Hallstrom, who did an excellent job with The Cider-House Rules, it likely would've been a much better film.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/26/09
(I know the novel doesn't have much to do with the comic, but the father-son relationship, during all TWD is extremely similar)
#calendar
11/27/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
SPOILER: if the boy didn't have faith in the goodness of the man he meets at the very end, then there was no future for the human race. His father dodged everyone but the boy has to reach out in order to survive.
By the way Annalee, I found the kid to be annoying in the book too.
11/25/09
11/25/09
And the notion that a European director would somehow be superior by dint of his/her ancestry is undone by the firey garbage truck that is Uwe Boll.
11/27/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
(unless you earn bastard-who-took-me-to-watch-a-horrible-movie points)
11/25/09
11/25/09
#calendar
11/25/09
"The Road" is not date material unless she really wants to see it and picks it herself.
11/25/09
11/25/09
the movie may suck but let it suck for a bad adaption or bad acting, not for bringing to life the very essence of the book.
did newtiz read the book? coz it doesnt sounds like she did.
hope someone else feels the same way about this review as i do.
11/27/09