# The Road (film adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's post-apocalyptic tale )



## London_Calling (Jan 8, 2010)

I see it's on at the Ritzy today. The UK reviews are in:

The Telegraph's is meaningless drivel,  Peter Bradshaw  in The Guardian likes the adaption and shows he grasps the basics, The Independent  thinks it unsuitable for adaption and I'm also far from sure it's possible to translate the work into cinematic form without losing the essence. As Mr Indie says:


> The Road offers an allegory of misery and dread that is crushing, not because it denies humanistic feeling but because it defies cinemagoing pleasure. You would have to be mad – or just morbidly depressed – to recommend it to anyone.


Happy days are here again!

Eeeenyway, I have enormous trouble with Hollywood at the best of time; let me know what you think?


----------



## Flavour (Jan 8, 2010)

i've seen it. It's actually not bad. quite similar to children of men... a man and a child, the last hope of humanity, must battle numerous malign forces on a journey to the seaside. but way darker and sparser.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 8, 2010)

I read an article in The Guardian the other day by the screenwriter about them shitting it when they showed the movie to McCarthy. 
"It's really good." was his verdict apparently. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/jan/04/the-road-cormac-mccarthy-viggo-mortensen


----------



## Reno (Jan 8, 2010)

Flavour said:


> i've seen it. It's actually not bad. quite similar to children of men... a man and a child, the last hope of humanity, must battle numerous malign forces on a journey to the seaside. but way darker and sparser.



Loved Children of Men, which I'd count among the best films of the decade, but I found The Road rather dull, predictable and uninvolving.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 8, 2010)

Good weather conditions to go and see it in. Cold, grey and miserable. Think I'll give it a miss till the summer.


----------



## Santino (Jan 8, 2010)

Based purely on the trailer and my prejudices, it looks like a 'serious' film assembled by a marketing team. Portentous and vague title - check. Bleak ending - check. Allegory for some unspecified aspect of the human condition - check.


----------



## boing! (Jan 8, 2010)

The trailer looks shit, but a friend went to a preview screening and said it actually stays very close to the book. I think I'll go and see it sometime next week.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jan 8, 2010)

Loathed the book and no doubt will loathe the film as well.


----------



## Voley (Jan 8, 2010)

Haven't they bunged a love interest in? I thought it looked really bad from the trailer.


----------



## Sir Belchalot (Jan 8, 2010)

There's a screener out with bits missing, should be fixed & available by tomorrow.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 8, 2010)

NVP said:


> Haven't they bunged a love interest in? I thought it looked really bad from the trailer.


I presume it's his wife in flashback. Either I was very tired when I went through those passages or McCarthy chose to understate the relevance of her as pretty much the entire counterpoint to 'the man's' philosophy/approach to the . . . ahm . . . general situation.

But that's what Hollywood does, it has to broaden the appeal for the multiplex's.

/avoiding spoilers


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 8, 2010)

Him indoors wants us to go and see it this weekend. I'm not sure I can be bothered.


----------



## Dr. Furface (Jan 8, 2010)

Santino said:


> Based purely on the trailer and my prejudices, it looks like a 'serious' film assembled by a marketing team. Portentous and vague title - check. Bleak ending - check. Allegory for some unspecified aspect of the human condition - check.


Just like the book then. I liked the book - I finished it anyway, which is a recommendation in itself for me these days.

I'm going to see it tonight.

BTW the soundtrack is by Nick Cave.


----------



## May Kasahara (Jan 8, 2010)

While I won't be seeing this (or reading the book for several years, as am soft as shite), I did note the presence of stirring orchestral music on the trailer with a raised eyebrow.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 8, 2010)

I think there was a big issue with voiceover as well - I believe McCarthy supported voiceover.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 8, 2010)

I've seen the Trailer that makes out its the critics choice of the year or something. I guess they made the trailer before any critics actually saw the film.


----------



## CJohn (Jan 8, 2010)

Well, it was by equal measures grim and gruelling. I'm sure there was some sort of masochistic pleasure in it. We walked out, turned to each other and said "that was really good"..., in the most depressed tone of voice possible. I thought the first 30-40minutes worked best, very tense and nervey. It looked wonderful, by which I mean miserable, but in a good way like; there really were some fantastic shots. Seemed like a faithful adaptation of the book, though its some time since I read it, and the flashbacks / voice over worked very well. So yeah, go see it!


----------



## idioteque (Jan 8, 2010)

I cannot wait to see this. I loved the book.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 9, 2010)

May Kasahara said:


> While I won't be seeing this (or reading the book for several years, as am soft as shite), I did note the presence of *stirring orchestral music* on the trailer with a raised eyebrow.



Indeed.


----------



## Reno (Jan 9, 2010)

May Kasahara said:


> While I won't be seeing this (or reading the book for several years, as am soft as shite), I did note the presence of stirring orchestral music on the trailer with a raised eyebrow.



Films which are difficult to market are always sold as being more populist than they are and often a soundtrack from a another film gets used, because when the trailer gets released, the soundtrack for the film usually hasn't been finished yet.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 9, 2010)

May Kasahara said:


> While I won't be seeing this (or reading the book for several years, as am soft as shite), I did note the presence of stirring orchestral music on the trailer with a raised eyebrow.



There is an continuous orchestral presence in the film but it is not stirring by any means and is in fact quite niggling in a discomforting but not irritating kind of way - just like the rest of the film really.

This is certainly not a film to go on a date to and will probably leave you with a lingering sense of dread long after it has finished.

Anybody for a little boy burger?

Right, just ordered the book from Amazon - I've been holding out reading it until after I've watched the movie.


----------



## argenteum (Jan 9, 2010)

Divisive Cotton said:


> This is certainly not a film to go on a date to and will probably leave you with a lingering sense of dread long after it has finished.



I've seen many films that are meant to be disturbing which have left me completely unaffected, but the total despair of this has really got to me. The weather's not helping.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 9, 2010)

The book was moving and sparse, liked it but not sure about the movie...


----------



## Jenerys (Jan 9, 2010)

Just seen it and thought it was pretty true to the book, tho a couple of things could have been put in and a couple left out   It was definitely bleak and you could believe how much the man cared for the boy and vice-versa. However, it wasn't as tense in the film as the tense scary bits of the book were.

And if I knew how to put spoilers in I would give comment on the ending, but I dont know how to, so I wont


----------



## laptop (Jan 9, 2010)

LilJen said:


> if I knew how to put spoilers in I would give comment on the ending



Type as follows (but without colours):


```
[COLOR="Red"][[/COLOR]SPOILER=The End[COLOR="Red"]][/COLOR]
They've given it a happy ending :mad:
[COLOR="Red"][[/COLOR]/SPOILER[COLOR="Red"]][/COLOR]
```



Spoiler: The End



They've given it a happy ending


----------



## Jenerys (Jan 9, 2010)

laptop said:


> Type as follows (but without colours):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL 

and thanks



Spoiler: The End



They would have eaten the dog by now wouldn't they


----------



## boing! (Jan 11, 2010)

Went to see it last night. I enjoyed it, in as much as you can enjoy something like that. I like a good slice of bleakness and it doesn't disappoint on that front, although the ending did seem a bit.. different- its been a while since I read the book but I remember feeling it was a bit more open-ended, iykwim.


----------



## snotcock (Jan 17, 2010)

Bag of wank - Boring as fuck, the voiceover got on me nerves, the kid's a whiny arsed little poof & as for that absolutely _fucking risible_ can of coke scene, well jesus. Even in a nightmarish post apocalyptic wilderness, Coke is still it? Fucking hell. Does that scene occur in the book?

I've read a few of Cormac McCarthy's (the borde trilogy & Sutree) coz loads of people seem to wank over them but I found them a bit emperor's new clothes - They were alright but he doesn't half go on with himself & his overblown writing style.


----------



## Superdupastupor (Jan 17, 2010)

The writing in the road is hardly overblown- quite the opposite.

The can of coke is in the book . Did look a bit product placementy in the film. The boys never had it is the point it's something from an other place. I think a can of coke would give a malnourished child an allmighty sugar rush


----------



## maldwyn (Jan 17, 2010)

snotcock said:


> Coke... Does that scene occur in the book?


yes.



> the kid's a whiny arsed little poof


 

I thought it was an ok film, a tad bleak. The absence of CGI was a refreshing change.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 17, 2010)

You read the book and you think the film is bleak? 

That must have come as a hell of a shock.


----------



## LDR (Jan 18, 2010)

I watched it with my Good Lady Wife on Saturday and it made her cry.


----------



## treefrog (Jan 18, 2010)

No idea when it'll come out here, but when it does I'll definitely go see it...


----------



## extra dry (Jan 18, 2010)

just very depressing, tad boring, no real excitement just a few chase scenes, and the family bet they ate the kid and the dog


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 18, 2010)

laptop said:


> Type as follows (but without colours):
> 
> 
> ```
> ...



I've just watched the film and read the book over the past week and the ending is exactly the same in both


----------



## Sadken (Jan 18, 2010)

extra dry said:


> just very depressing, tad boring, no real excitement just a few chase scenes, and the family bet they ate the kid and the dog



This.  I liked it though, it reminded me of my own life.


----------



## mrs quoad (Jan 18, 2010)

Watched the film last night.

Not impressed, but tbh I suspect I was kinda in the wrong mood to engage with anything.

I didn't really feel the characters were developed enough for me to give much of a toss about what happened to them. The plot seems to be - basically - "ooo cannibals!!!" With a couple of incidental generic human beings (one big, one small) thrown in their path.



Spoiler: ending grumbles



And there was collective agreement amongst our group of seven (and the four people in front of us) that the ending was _way_ too schmaltzy / optimistic. After the dad died, we'd thought that it'd end on a bleak note - with (maybe) the bloke who says he's a 'goody with a family' standing by a nice open, roasting fire with several cackling maniacs, eating bits of roast boy. 

Or even - heck - with some ambiguity. With the boy walking off with the stranger who's an unknown quantity.

But, nope. Woo, everything's alright. Yay, everything's alright. Everyone will be a.w.e.s.o.m.e. Yay.

Also - the two points where I found myself caring were:

i) his wife's pregnancy.
ii) the bloke who the dad stripped naked, and left there.

Neither of these turned into a great deal more.



Nonetheless, may read the book.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 18, 2010)

I don't want to see it.  I liked the book, and would rather carry that in my head than Holywood's depiction.


----------



## mrs quoad (Jan 18, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> I don't want to see it.  I liked the book, and would rather carry that in my head than Holywood's depiction.



I think that might be a good idea.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 18, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> I don't want to see it.  I liked the book, and would rather carry that in my head than Holywood's depiction.



It's very similar really. It was clear the director wanted to created a faithful on-screen adaptation of the book. I actually think the film is more depressing / horrific as it can't relay the drifting prose of the book.


----------



## Sadken (Jan 18, 2010)

Quoad's on the money with his spoilers.  Omar was under used, I thought.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 18, 2010)

Divisive Cotton said:


> It's very similar really.


I almost always avoid films of books I've enjoyed, whether or not the film is judged good or faithful.


----------



## Helen Back (Jan 18, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> The Independent  thinks it unsuitable for adaption



I know what an adaptation is but what's an adaption?


----------



## Upchuck (Jan 18, 2010)

It's shit.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 18, 2010)

Helen Back said:


> I know what an adaptation is but what's an adaption?


It's like adaptation but shorter.


----------



## Apathy (Jan 19, 2010)

i didnt mind it too much, reminded me a bit of an old bbc film called 'Threads'


----------



## Jenerys (Jan 23, 2010)

Divisive Cotton said:


> I've just watched the film and read the book over the past week and the ending is exactly the same in both



Oh is it....i hadn't remembered...i take it all back then


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 23, 2010)

Apathy said:


> i didnt mind it too much, reminded me a bit of an old bbc film called 'Threads'


I remember Threads!  Why is that never repeated?


----------



## Belushi (Jan 23, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> I remember Threads!  Why is that never repeated?



They showed it on BBC4 a couple of years ago. 

It terrified me when I was 11 and its still bloody disturbing now.

Ditto the Wargame.


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Feb 9, 2010)

I saw this last night. One thing I was thinking about was the lack of thumbs amongst those they came across in the film. The thumbs had been cut off. Was there some significance there?


----------



## Sadken (Feb 9, 2010)

It's really the least funny film I have ever seen.


----------



## Sadken (Feb 9, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> I remember Threads!  Why is that never repeated?



It's in its entirety on google video.


----------



## Pugwall7 (Feb 9, 2010)

You didnt really get to see Omars cock which was a bit of a shame.


----------



## mrs quoad (Feb 9, 2010)

Boris Sprinkler said:


> I saw this last night. One thing I was thinking about was the lack of thumbs amongst those they came across in the film. The thumbs had been cut off. Was there some significance there?



There was that whole thing about sellotaping your thumbs to the palms of your hands, so you could walk around pretending to be a dinosaur.

Maybe the authorities were trying to stop a worrying spate of dinosaur impressions, before the apocalypse?


----------



## nuffsaid (Feb 9, 2010)

In contrast to what others have mentioned about the ending:



Spoiler: The End



I thought it was even more depressing as surely it meant that the people that found the boy were the same that were making noises when the boy and the father were in the safe bunker (because they had a dog that the father heard) and in fact they could have opened the hatch and been happy together or ignored them and stay in the bunker and be happy, but because of the father's pessimism and paranoia he ended up getting killed.


----------



## ilovebush&blair (Feb 9, 2010)

I read the book haven't seen the film, it was never shown at my local cinema.


----------



## idioteque (Feb 9, 2010)

Boris Sprinkler said:


> I saw this last night. One thing I was thinking about was the lack of thumbs amongst those they came across in the film. The thumbs had been cut off. Was there some significance there?



I thought this too, I don't think it was mentioned in the book...?

I loved both the book and the film. I think the director was as faithful as they could have been, and that it was really well done. There were some really beautifully shot scenes.


----------



## mrs quoad (Feb 9, 2010)

nuffsaid said:


> In contrast to what others have mentioned about the ending:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler: but



the dad was fatally ill anyway. It wasn't leaving the bunker that killed him. He was fucked - and seemingly terminally ill with a chesty cough - from reet early on, and aware that he was fucked and deaded. A bit more scran wouldn't've done fuck all to keep him going. It wasn't his pessimism or paranoia that killed him, it was filthy diseased lung shit.

The boy was going to be alone and vulnerable to cannibals from the off. The dad was going to die from the off. The only thing the ending of the film did was say 'ahhh, bless, he'll be alright really. There's lovely people to look after him, AND THEY'VE GOT A DOG!!! Look how safe they are!!! Bless.

The ending took away the bleakness potential. It was - IMO - playing it safe, and missing a cracking chance for a bleak / desolate ending.

Given the rest of the film didn't seem to have a spectacular level of plot (OOO CANNIBALS), IMO that makes that one missed chance even more regrettable. IMO, how much better would it've been for them to say "ah, don't worry! It was us and our dog ", only to close on a long shot of them eating roasted boy over a fire.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 10, 2010)

I don't recall anything about thumbs in the book?


----------



## nuffsaid (Feb 10, 2010)

mrs quoad said:


> Spoiler: but
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But:



Spoiler: The End



I thought the father died because of infection to the wound he got from being shot by the arrow. A wound he wouldn't have got if they'd stayed put in the bunker. I don't recall him being terminally ill during the film prior to being shot with the arrow. With the bleakness of the film I thought that was what the plot intention was supposed to make you think 'Oh FFS if they'd only stayed in the bunker they'd have been ok', because that would be in line with the bleakness throughout, so I didn't see a feeble happy ending, but a continuation of the bleakness, bad luck and wrong decisions.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 10, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> I don't recall anything about thumbs in the book?



No there isn't.

This seemed to be because people were expelled from communes there were permanently scarred to warn others


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 10, 2010)

idioteque said:


> There were some really beautifully shot scenes.



I'm not sure if beautiful is the right adjective in such a bleak film!


----------



## idioteque (Feb 10, 2010)

Divisive Cotton said:


> I'm not sure if beautiful is the right adjective in such a bleak film!



Haha point taken, I was thinking of scenes like the tree trunks in the body of water at the beginning, the scene with the man on the flyover, little things like the man turning over the cushion in his house to show the bright unfaded fabric- in spite of the overall bleakness of the film, I thought it was artfully done with some shots which really were beautiful in an unconventional way.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 10, 2010)

Divisive Cotton said:


> No there isn't.
> 
> This seemed to be because people were expelled from communes there were permanently scarred to warn others


That's an interesting idea given the opposable thumb theory of evolution. Also, from a practical and survival pov, that's a most major hassle.


----------



## mrs quoad (Feb 11, 2010)

nuffsaid said:


> But:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nope.



Spoiler: wrongness



He's terminally ill.

He's coughing throughout. 

He talks about being aware that he's going to die, and have to leave the boy. There are hints that he's a medical doctor, or was.

To quote from wiki,




			
				wiki said:
			
		

> The father suffers from persistent coughing during the film eventually even coughing up blood. After they reach the coast his condition deteriorates and he realizes he is likely to die soon. On his death bed he again emphasizes to his son the values of self-preservation and humanity.



Basically, the man is fucked from the off. It's made quite clear, IMO  He talks about preparing his son for when he's not around, and his strength diminishes as the film goes on. Then he dies. The arrow is incidental.


----------



## pennimania (Feb 14, 2010)

Just saw the film last night. Now reading book.

Clear from start that the dad had something wrong with his chest - arrow side issue. (Talking about the book).

My kids - 17 & 15yr olds  loved it- altho 15 yr daughter was all blubbered with tears when we came out.  I  could hardly sleep last night because I was so repulsed by the 'larder' etc scenes.

Still 'loving' - NOT the right word the book. It will take me awhile to get it out of my system.

Shocked and fascinated are probably the words I'm looking for.


----------



## girasol (Jun 28, 2010)

Spoiler: ending question



Did the new dad right at the end have leprosy or something?  his skin was a right mess and his fingers had dropped off...  And was him Guy Pearce, I really couldn't tell which part he played...



Film made me cry lots, I hate when they do that


----------



## Zabo (Jun 29, 2010)

snotcock said:


> Bag of wank - Boring as fuck, the voiceover got on me nerves, the kid's a whiny arsed little poof & as for that absolutely _fucking risible_ can of coke scene, well jesus. Even in a nightmarish post apocalyptic wilderness, Coke is still it? Fucking hell. Does that scene occur in the book?



100% with you. When did anybody who was starving have nice chubby cheeks? They should have got a kid who looked emaciated - arse kick casting. Correct about the whining. "Papa, Papa, Papa". Had that been one of mine they'd have been given a good kicking. And why didn't Riggor Mortison tell the brat to walk instead of carrying him?

But the most important part. It is utterly false to compare a book with a film. The are totally different mediums and neither one can replicate the other - ever.

As for the film itself: I could have edited it down to 15 minutes and sold off the rights to Mills And Boon. Leaving aside all the post this and post that, which the Yanks love, it was essentially a story about a child bonding with it's father - Yawn...never been done before eh?

I'm glad I haven't read the book, I only have enough blades to slit one wrist.


----------



## editor (May 28, 2012)

Lordy that was hard going. Great film though.


----------



## editor (May 28, 2012)

Was I really the only one getting depressed through this film tonight?!


----------



## Reno (May 28, 2012)

girasol said:


> Spoiler: ending question
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
It's the opposite for me, those are the films I like the best. The Road did not make me cry though.


----------



## editor (May 28, 2012)

Interesting piece about the video effects used:
http://www.3dworldmag.com/2010/11/11/the-making-of-the-roads-vfx/


----------



## girasol (May 28, 2012)

Watched it again last night, didn't cry this time   still very grim and depressing, but well, humanity is on its last legs, so that was to be expected!!!  Still not sure I like the ending.  Why does the woman say 'he's lucky', how long were the following them for and why?


----------



## editor (May 28, 2012)

girasol said:


> Watched it again last night, didn't cry this time  still very grim and depressing, but well, humanity is on its last legs, so that was to be expected!!! Still not sure I like the ending. Why does the woman say 'he's lucky', how long were the following them for and why?


I guess to see if they were a threat to them?


----------



## Reno (May 28, 2012)

I just didn't get this film and didn't know what to take away from it. It is so emotionally one note that I thought it ended up dull and monotonous. When a film pushes too hard to elict a particular emotion and The Road seems to go for unvarying depressing miseralism, I end up disengaging emotionally.


----------



## rubbershoes (May 28, 2012)

Reno said:


> The Road seems to go for unvarying depressing miseralism,


 
Isn't that the point. Despite the misery and brutality, the father is trying to retain some humanity


----------



## sim667 (May 28, 2012)

Im going to grab a copy and watch it, i wanted to see it, then forgot.


----------



## Reno (May 28, 2012)

rubbershoes said:


> Isn't that the point. Despite the misery and brutality, the father is trying to retain some humanity


 
I know that's supposed to the point. Unfortunatelly I didn't think that approach made for a very engaging film. I didn't learn or experience anything along the way that made it worth sitting through what was a rather monotonous slog.


----------



## mrs quoad (May 28, 2012)

Re-reading my posts on this thread, I'm kinda surprised by how ambivalent I was.

I remember thinking it was pure, raw, unadulterated shit.


----------



## rubbershoes (May 28, 2012)

sim667 said:


> Im going to grab a copy and watch it, i wanted to see it, then forgot.


 

it's on iplayer

I haven't seen it. Just read the book. A lot.  

 I really must get round to the film


----------



## sim667 (May 29, 2012)

rubbershoes said:


> it's on iplayer
> 
> I haven't seen it. Just read the book. A lot.
> 
> I really must get round to the film


 
Oh well, i downloaded it last night anyway 

ta though


----------

