1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Road Review

Hop To

by AVForums May 31, 2010 at 12:00 AM

  • Movies review

    123

    The Road Review

    I first had the pleasure of watching The Road in the cinema at the beginning of the year. I had not read the book, and was not intending to review the film. However, I found it such a profoundly moving experience I wanted to bring it to more people's attention - and I wrote a 2000 word review as soon as I got back. Unfortunately, despite near universal critical praise, the film failed to set the box office alight - which considering the subject matter may well have been expected. Far more puzzling to me is the fact that it was almost completely ignored at all the various award ceremonies. When you look at the complete and utter tripe that did win (Avatar, I am looking at you) this is even more shocking. Yes, I am still a little bitter. But at the end of the day, perhaps the magic of the cinematic medium that we all love is that there is room for all types - and The Shawshank Redemption once proved that films like this can be reappraised in the hope. I urge you to do so.



    What follows is a very slightly edited copy of my original review. To me, The Road is an emotional film, and maybe this review is a slightly emotional response. But I feel that this is what the makers intended - to affect the viewer in this way. So I make no apology for it.



    Riding in on a surprising wave of hype for a film of this type, John Hillcoat's follow up to The Proposition arrives in cinemas in this country. The Road is already struggling against its reputation. It is a dark, depressing novel, and for once the pre-release hype (apart from that awful first trailer) does not try to pretend it is something it isn't. This meant that I had a lot of trouble persuading people to come and see it with me. “I'm not going to see that! It's depressing!” I heard time and time again. I was always going to go, however. To me, the darker a film is, the more depressing it is, the better I like it. But my God! I wasn't prepared for this!



    I am going to avoid spoilers in this review. I may make a few general points that are already well known - but you can rest assured that nothing you read in this review will spoil the film for you should you intend to go and see it.



    The plot is really very simple. A catastrophe has struck the planet. Years have passed since this tragedy (which is never explained) and the world is not only dying, it is decaying. It may still be recognisable as the planet we know and depend on for life, but only to the extent that a rotten corpse is recognisable as a human being. This planet is no longer capable of sustaining life. There is literally nothing left. Wondering through this environment is a man and a boy, his son. They are painfully thin, haggard even. Their only belongings they carry with them, either on their back in rucksacks or in a shopping trolley that they struggle to push through the desolate landscape.



    Their ultimate destination is merely “South” to escape the harsh climate of their immediate environment, but at the same time they are aiming for the coast. They do not even know what they will find there. They just know it's their goal.



    When I first heard about this film (I only read the book after seeing it at the cinema), I was really quite excited. It sounded totally like my kind of movie. However, as they got deeper into production and then THAT first trailer arrived, my enthusiasm was rather tempered. It seemed like they had taken a wonderful idea, and turned it into an action movie. However, I needn't have worried. Having now seen it, I can say that this film is a quite simply stunning achievement in film-making and packs an emotional punch that you just may not be expecting. If this review appears a little disjointed at times you will have to forgive me. I am still a little affected by it.



    So, what is it that makes this film so special? Well, there are many things - but the major point is the focus of the film. From what I understand, the film jettisons some of the more horrifying and gory parts of the book, and I can see exactly why they have done this. The film still deals with horrifying events and moments, one scene in particular is quite distressing, but they are not distressing because the director focuses on the events themselves. They are so affecting because they deal with the effects those events have on the man and the boy. The film is not interested in cheap thrills, or shocking the audience. It is interested in reaching into your core and affecting you on a deep, profound level, and it succeeds in a way that I cannot remember any other film doing.



    Let me give you an example without spoiling things too much. Early on in the film, the man shows the boy how to kill themselves using their gun and the only two bullets they have. Many films might take the easy approach, showing the man pointing the gun at the child. But this one doesn't. The man puts the gun in the boy's hands, and as the boy is holding it, he puts it in his mouth, showing the boy exactly what angle to point the gun in order to ensure death. The film focuses on the boy's reaction and my goodness what a reaction it is. You may have a sense of horror at the scene, but your prime one is to truly feel the sense of despair and desolation through the performances of the two actors. I am not ashamed to say I cried at this scene. And that was during the first five minutes. I cried plenty more during the rest of it.



    The performances throughout the film are quite simply amazing. Viggo Mortenson is breathtaking as the man - displaying a really complex character, a man who is essentially gentle but is internally strong and is driven by a deep love for his boy to try and survive as long as possible. This sounds like a character of cliché but there is no way to adequately put on paper how rich and multi-layered his performance is in this film. Anyone who knows his work knows what a great actor he is, and the fact that he wasn't at least nominated for an OSCAR after this performance proves there is no justice. It is an astonishing performance.



    Up to now, probably the benchmark child performance is Haley Joel Osment in The Sixth Sense but Kodi Smit-McPhee's performance as the boy takes child acting to another level. The boy is required to do things here, to essay emotion that no boy of his age should ever have any awareness of. One article I read tells of how they had toyed with the idea of not actually telling the child what the film was really about (apparently, this is the tact that Kubrick took with The Shining). Smit-McPhee's family, however, were adamant that Kodi could cope with the part on all its levels. As an actor he can convey emotion with a flick of the eyes, his posture, or simple little child-like noises that tug at the heartstrings. The aforementioned scene is one perfect example (just look at his eyes, and listen to his voice), but there are many more that I will not mention here for fear of spoilering things.



    There are two more stand-out performances that I must mention, both barely more than cameos. Robert Duvall as The Old Man also wrings every ounce of emotion out of his role, his rheumy eyes weeping, and uttering some of the best and most quotable lines in the film. Michael K Williams (The Wire) also delivers a notable brief scene as The Thief - which marks a key point where the relationship between the boy and the man changes.



    The film itself, as directed by Hillcoat, needs these central performances as an emotional core because the way he presents this world is completely unrelenting. The realisation of a truly destroyed world is one of the best ever put on celluloid. We are used to images of a deserted landscape - it has been done to death (sorry) in films as diverse as I am Legend and 28 Days Later to name but two. But I have never seen a world so decayed presented so realistically on camera. The clichéd approach of a washed out colour palette is used, but it is the environments which seem so realistic. Whether it be skeletal trees, groaning as they give up their purchase in the parched earth and crash to the ground, or a desolate and dry ocean bed with beached liners - the environment is so convincingly presented that it is hard for the viewer not to be totally drawn in, to feel like they are truly part of the world. I could not tell you how much of this is achieved with CGI and how much is set work, but it is always convincing.



    The environment is the enemy in this film, but it is not the only problem that the heroes need to deal with. As food supplies have dwindled, so many of the survivors have turned to cannibalism. The portrayal of these people is, like the film, rooted in realism - and it is this which makes them so horrific. The cannibals are not overdone - they appear twice - but when they do they provide a realistic and terrifying foe for the man and boy. Whereas their first appearance maybe a little too influenced by Mad Max for my liking, their attitude and demeanour means that they are truly scary.



    So, are there no flaws with this film? Well, yes there are. I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the flashbacks to the man's life with the boy's mother do not appear in the book. However, in the film they do appear rather too anachronistic in tone when compared with the rest of the film. The world pre-disaster is portrayed as a rather too perfect world, with everything colourful and bright. You expect an advert for washing powder to appear any minute. Charlize Theron as his wife does put in a good performance but the resolution to her story seems rather too overwrought - far too over emphasised. Likewise, I am very disappointed to say that the ending is also far too neat a resolution and comes as rather a surprise considering the rest of the film shows no interest in definitive solutions. Stylistically it just does not fit in with the rest of the film. Again, I will say no more than that (if I spoilered the ending you would rightly be furious), but once you have seen the film you will know what I mean. Since writing this review, however, I have read the book - and it is a fact that the ending copies the source exactly. I am still not entirely comfortable with this ending, but the reason for it is explained in one of the extra features, and I am prepared to go with that.



    These are disappointments for sure, but in the grand scheme of things they are minor when considering the sheer majesty of the rest of the film. Some have said that pacing is a problem, with the film dragging slightly in the middle, but I did not find this at all. At no point was I anything other than completely engrossed in the film. I never felt that there was anything wrong with the structure or the editing. I felt the film was perfectly constructed.



    It is also true to say that the film will probably take the viewer to places they have rarely been to in a cinema. It IS completely unrelenting. There are very brief upbeat scenes, but these are few and far between and they do very little to break up the disturbing atmosphere. If you go to see this film then you should expect your emotions to be dragged through the ringer. I am not a parent, and it affected me deeply. I would imagine that if you are a parent you would probably find it even more affecting. You certainly should be prepared for this, as I cannot over-stress what an emotional film this is.



    But in an age of box-office returns being King, of vacuous soulless blockbusters ruling the multiplex, it reaffirms your faith in cinema as art that a film like this can make it onto screens. A film that is genuinely not interested in providing easy answers to obvious questions, a film that is prepared to make you think, to affect you deeply, and to take a well-worn scenario and present in a totally new way. I strongly recommend this film.