Year: 2010
Director: Martin Campbell
Screenplay: William Monahan, Andrew Bovell
Starring: Mel Gibson, Ray Winstone, Danny Huston
It seems that Hollywood in all its plundering, are not only stealing books, far Eastern cinema, European Cinema et all...It's also coming to Blightly and nabbing BBC mini-series! State of Play (based on a 2003 Drama) made the rounds last year and now Edge of Darkness has come to town. This little deity is a film adaptation of a 1985 BBC mini-series which to this day is considered a highly influential piece of work. This Hollywood version features; a Mel Gibson whose been off screen since Signs, An Ex-Bond Director (Bronson and Craig-Era) and a trailer so bad it betrays the actual good work that this thriller brings to the table.
I mention the trailer because not only is it bad, it cheapens what the film is about. The trailer gives the impression of a dull revenge film retread, when in reality what we get is a solid thriller which deals with aspects of grief and dodgy politics with just as much assurance as its moments of action. In fact I was quite surprised one the denseness of the films plot which has made sure that it's not only solid entertainment, but also given the slight air of relevance.
Untrustworthy politicians? Very commonplace, but considering how much of the western world feels about where their countries are going at the moment (myself included) there's something about the placement of the everyman cop and his plight to reveal the secret behind his daughters death that stuck a cord with me, be it American redo or not.
I feel the reason behind this is that because William Monahan (The Departed) with his taut script, Gibson's traumatized portrayal of a grieving father and Campbell's well known experience in directing genre pieces, manage to squeeze out enough intrigue and sympathy out of the character and his situation for me to care. Let's not lie now, it's nothing new and it has it's silly moments including two scenes with Fox news that feel fake and one of said scenes feeling like the climax of Watchmen (take that as you will), but as a February release I was exceedingly surprised by how tightly crafted the film is. In a lesser feature the plot strands could have easily fallen apart but this is handled with equally as much care as anything else out there.
The aforementioned Gibson has come back to a role that is bread and butter to an actor like himself. It's Riggs-lite but still carries that charisma, and there's nothing too unbelievable about the characters actions. Ray Winstone brings gravitas to a part that can be quite thankless (although his character could bring more to the table), while Danny Huston is making a name for himself in the role of person-in-suit-that-can't-be-trusted. Typecast it may be but it's understandable when he's just so good at it (See Children of men, 30 Days of Night, Ivan's xtc).
While you shouldn't have biases watching films when you review them, it's hard not to when you see a trailer as generic as Edge of Darkness'. The film itself is also pretty standard in the most basic terms but has enough good chemistry to keep my entertainment levels up. It may not reach the dizzying heights of the genre but it's high enough not to see the depths.
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Review: Un Prophete
Year: 2009 (U.K Release 2010)
Director: Jacques Audiard
Screenplay: Jacques Audiard, Thomas Bidegain, Abdel Raouf Dafri, Nicolas Peufaillit
Starring: Tahar Rahim, Niels Arestrup
Plot Synopsis is here
Be it mainstream or art house, I always get very worried about blurbs...in fact I hate them. They are taken out of context, many of them these days don't even say that the movies good and worst of all, because of the first two reasons Joe Six pack easily takes these quick soundbites as gospel because well it's easier than reading a review. Although that last part sounds like good ol fashioned bitterness, but in all seriousness how can you trust the words "BEST FILM OF THE YEAR" splashed on a Cover and poster when you look closer and realize that the quote is from the quality publication such as Zoo or Nuts? I can see it now....tits, tits, tits then a 15 word review from someone yelling that The Business is like Football factory times 10 and way more excellent.
This doesn't exclude more highbrow outlets who may have written in-depth reviews only to see what they've written condensed into a one word description. "Exquisite!" They holler. But does that mean the art direction? Heaven help me if I sit through something with "Exquisite" doilies for teacups in the Mise-en-scene only for it to have yet another cardboard performance by Keria Knightly.
This brings me to Un Prophete (A.K.A: A Prophet) a film which has had those evil, EVIL blurbs creeping up on it's poster, and which will no doubt ruin what ever DVD cover it will produce. Winner of the Grand Prize at Cannes and right now currently holding a 97% Fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes, Un Prophete is a modern day crime film in which a lazy writer such as myself could say is "in the same vein as generic gangster film". Sounds like a good blurb, no?
Only it's not. In fact compared to more populist choices, it's way more dense. A lot happens in the film, which has a time line that spans over years and not only is it set within the claustrophobic walls of prison, but the film is loaded with the racial tensions that the french can place in the frame with so much more confidence than Hollywood (with a tiny nod to the politics of the time seeping through). The film is also plot heavy, with a multitude of characters and secondary characters whizzing by. People come and go but throughout the center of it all is the lead character Malik who is played by young newcomer Tahar Rahim. We watch this young, prisoner through his jail sentence and watch him grow from a naive 19 year to something else entirely. What he grows into I will not divulge but how is a quietly absorbing tale that may require a second viewing to get my head around.
In most crime/gangster films, we follow a simple arc that hasn't changed much since the Golden age of Hollywood (see Scarface, White Heat) here, we get something a little different. This is a film that has everyone hold their cards close to their chest. We learn nothing until the characters learn something, and just when you think you know whats going to happen, a new development in plot will appear and throw a curve ball. This has much to do with how the character of Malik is written. Considered an Arab by the Corsican and a Corsican by the Muslim communities, when we first see him, he is like a sheep; timid, lost and docile but to watch him grow from within this environment is engrossing. By the end of the film you've seen a generation pass, both literally and figuratively and it's not the same person you saw from before. Because he LEARNS. This is not a cookie cutter character from the staple of generic genre film making but a character who watches, listens, thinks for himself and responds rationally to what is put in front of him. It doesn't feel like a script is providing this, it feels like what a real, fully formed person would do in the situation.
But what makes Malik so watchable is due to the person playing the part. Tahar Rahim plays Malik with an utter conviction. It helps that he is an unknown, but despite this, Rahim consumes the role fully. His performance held my attention throughout. Which is not to say that the secondary performers don't have their moments. In fact from the acting side of things, everyone carries their weight, but it's Rahim's anti-hero that drives the film.
It isn't just the acting that works. Jacques Audiard crafts some effective scenes throughout the movie. Highlights being of course the "razor scene" and a strikingly tense execution moment in a 4 by 4. Audiard turns the screws at just the right moments to keep the story interesting and although at times he becomes a little indulgent (there's a few random dream sequences that served no purpose in my view), and the film is longer than it may need to be, the film remains entertaining through it's running time.
Considered one of the better foreign films of last year, Un Prophete is a solid drama with some great moments. In all honesty I did expect more from the film (damn blurbs), but by the end of the feature, not only was I happy with the destination the film took me to, but I was surprised with the route in which it went. For something with a bit of bite, you can do worse than checking out Un Prophete.
Director: Jacques Audiard
Screenplay: Jacques Audiard, Thomas Bidegain, Abdel Raouf Dafri, Nicolas Peufaillit
Starring: Tahar Rahim, Niels Arestrup
Plot Synopsis is here
Be it mainstream or art house, I always get very worried about blurbs...in fact I hate them. They are taken out of context, many of them these days don't even say that the movies good and worst of all, because of the first two reasons Joe Six pack easily takes these quick soundbites as gospel because well it's easier than reading a review. Although that last part sounds like good ol fashioned bitterness, but in all seriousness how can you trust the words "BEST FILM OF THE YEAR" splashed on a Cover and poster when you look closer and realize that the quote is from the quality publication such as Zoo or Nuts? I can see it now....tits, tits, tits then a 15 word review from someone yelling that The Business is like Football factory times 10 and way more excellent.
This doesn't exclude more highbrow outlets who may have written in-depth reviews only to see what they've written condensed into a one word description. "Exquisite!" They holler. But does that mean the art direction? Heaven help me if I sit through something with "Exquisite" doilies for teacups in the Mise-en-scene only for it to have yet another cardboard performance by Keria Knightly.
This brings me to Un Prophete (A.K.A: A Prophet) a film which has had those evil, EVIL blurbs creeping up on it's poster, and which will no doubt ruin what ever DVD cover it will produce. Winner of the Grand Prize at Cannes and right now currently holding a 97% Fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes, Un Prophete is a modern day crime film in which a lazy writer such as myself could say is "in the same vein as generic gangster film". Sounds like a good blurb, no?
Only it's not. In fact compared to more populist choices, it's way more dense. A lot happens in the film, which has a time line that spans over years and not only is it set within the claustrophobic walls of prison, but the film is loaded with the racial tensions that the french can place in the frame with so much more confidence than Hollywood (with a tiny nod to the politics of the time seeping through). The film is also plot heavy, with a multitude of characters and secondary characters whizzing by. People come and go but throughout the center of it all is the lead character Malik who is played by young newcomer Tahar Rahim. We watch this young, prisoner through his jail sentence and watch him grow from a naive 19 year to something else entirely. What he grows into I will not divulge but how is a quietly absorbing tale that may require a second viewing to get my head around.
In most crime/gangster films, we follow a simple arc that hasn't changed much since the Golden age of Hollywood (see Scarface, White Heat) here, we get something a little different. This is a film that has everyone hold their cards close to their chest. We learn nothing until the characters learn something, and just when you think you know whats going to happen, a new development in plot will appear and throw a curve ball. This has much to do with how the character of Malik is written. Considered an Arab by the Corsican and a Corsican by the Muslim communities, when we first see him, he is like a sheep; timid, lost and docile but to watch him grow from within this environment is engrossing. By the end of the film you've seen a generation pass, both literally and figuratively and it's not the same person you saw from before. Because he LEARNS. This is not a cookie cutter character from the staple of generic genre film making but a character who watches, listens, thinks for himself and responds rationally to what is put in front of him. It doesn't feel like a script is providing this, it feels like what a real, fully formed person would do in the situation.
But what makes Malik so watchable is due to the person playing the part. Tahar Rahim plays Malik with an utter conviction. It helps that he is an unknown, but despite this, Rahim consumes the role fully. His performance held my attention throughout. Which is not to say that the secondary performers don't have their moments. In fact from the acting side of things, everyone carries their weight, but it's Rahim's anti-hero that drives the film.
It isn't just the acting that works. Jacques Audiard crafts some effective scenes throughout the movie. Highlights being of course the "razor scene" and a strikingly tense execution moment in a 4 by 4. Audiard turns the screws at just the right moments to keep the story interesting and although at times he becomes a little indulgent (there's a few random dream sequences that served no purpose in my view), and the film is longer than it may need to be, the film remains entertaining through it's running time.
Considered one of the better foreign films of last year, Un Prophete is a solid drama with some great moments. In all honesty I did expect more from the film (damn blurbs), but by the end of the feature, not only was I happy with the destination the film took me to, but I was surprised with the route in which it went. For something with a bit of bite, you can do worse than checking out Un Prophete.
Monday, 25 January 2010
Review: Ninja Assassin
Year: 2009 (U.K release 2010)
Director: James McTeigue
Screenplay: Matthew Sand, J. Michael Straczynski
Starring: Rain, Naomi Harris, Ben Miles
Plot synopsis is here (but seriously there's no point reading it)
A quick look at Wikipedia or the IMDB's trivia and you will find that J Michael Straczynski had rewritten Matthew Sand's script of Ninja Assassin in 53 hours. It was approved by Warner Brothers with no notes and the script went out to the actors within the same week. If said story is true then yes, that's pretty impressive. What I find even more impressive is that Warner Brothers were fine with passing this with NO PLOT WHAT SO EVER.
This isn't like Avatar where the plot doesn't feel fresh. No, this film, seriously has no plotting. There's flashbacks and there's a supposed Europol investigation over Ninja's (?) but don't you dare try and follow it as there is no point. About half an hour into the film I still had no idea why people were doing what they were doing. It's not as if the story is a jumbled mess, it's just non-existent.
It's fortunate that the people involved with this supposed screenplay is The Wachowski's (producers) and their friend James McTeigue (director) who novel idea with the product is to fill it with action with a side order of blood (I said novel, not original). The film is becomes strangely passable because despite it's pathetic script, the film is fueled with watchable fight scenes. Not all of them work (Filmmakers need to learn that fast editing in the darkened rooms does not a good set piece make) but when they do they make the film stick well enough with a Bloody B Movie charm that genre fans will most likely enjoy. McTeigue a well versed second unit director, choreographs the stylish action with a certain degree of skill and when the set pieces work, they were entertaining.
McTeigue's film also manages to cast actors who may have characters as flimsy as the paper they were written on, but have enough engagement to keep me wondering how much they got paid to star in the movie. Naomi Harris and The Bloke from coupling struggle well with very very little while Korean Pop Superstar sensation (yet I only know him from speed racer) Rain gets along with English a hell of a lot better than your Jackie Chan's or Jet Li's and while he hasn't got their ability, he has got an adequate amount screen presence to give the fight sequences enough draw. Although it's obvious that this is a film about how Rain looks than anything else.
As mentioned before Ninja Assassin is a film that will work if you love the genre. Images invoke
Martial Art films of the past (Enter the dragon) and the film doesn't scrimp on the amount and quality of the action. McTeigue clearly has a lot of expertise in the action camp. Also in watching this, he shows as a director, he is clearly finding the type of story he likes. Be it ninjas or vigilantes McTeigue clearly likes a format of story that involves a young, naive woman who encounters a mysterious stranger and falls into his world. However unlike his first film, Ninja Assassin hasn't got an Alan Moore story to fall back on.
Director: James McTeigue
Screenplay: Matthew Sand, J. Michael Straczynski
Starring: Rain, Naomi Harris, Ben Miles
Plot synopsis is here (but seriously there's no point reading it)
A quick look at Wikipedia or the IMDB's trivia and you will find that J Michael Straczynski had rewritten Matthew Sand's script of Ninja Assassin in 53 hours. It was approved by Warner Brothers with no notes and the script went out to the actors within the same week. If said story is true then yes, that's pretty impressive. What I find even more impressive is that Warner Brothers were fine with passing this with NO PLOT WHAT SO EVER.
This isn't like Avatar where the plot doesn't feel fresh. No, this film, seriously has no plotting. There's flashbacks and there's a supposed Europol investigation over Ninja's (?) but don't you dare try and follow it as there is no point. About half an hour into the film I still had no idea why people were doing what they were doing. It's not as if the story is a jumbled mess, it's just non-existent.
It's fortunate that the people involved with this supposed screenplay is The Wachowski's (producers) and their friend James McTeigue (director) who novel idea with the product is to fill it with action with a side order of blood (I said novel, not original). The film is becomes strangely passable because despite it's pathetic script, the film is fueled with watchable fight scenes. Not all of them work (Filmmakers need to learn that fast editing in the darkened rooms does not a good set piece make) but when they do they make the film stick well enough with a Bloody B Movie charm that genre fans will most likely enjoy. McTeigue a well versed second unit director, choreographs the stylish action with a certain degree of skill and when the set pieces work, they were entertaining.
McTeigue's film also manages to cast actors who may have characters as flimsy as the paper they were written on, but have enough engagement to keep me wondering how much they got paid to star in the movie. Naomi Harris and The Bloke from coupling struggle well with very very little while Korean Pop Superstar sensation (yet I only know him from speed racer) Rain gets along with English a hell of a lot better than your Jackie Chan's or Jet Li's and while he hasn't got their ability, he has got an adequate amount screen presence to give the fight sequences enough draw. Although it's obvious that this is a film about how Rain looks than anything else.
As mentioned before Ninja Assassin is a film that will work if you love the genre. Images invoke
Martial Art films of the past (Enter the dragon) and the film doesn't scrimp on the amount and quality of the action. McTeigue clearly has a lot of expertise in the action camp. Also in watching this, he shows as a director, he is clearly finding the type of story he likes. Be it ninjas or vigilantes McTeigue clearly likes a format of story that involves a young, naive woman who encounters a mysterious stranger and falls into his world. However unlike his first film, Ninja Assassin hasn't got an Alan Moore story to fall back on.
Monday, 18 January 2010
Review: The Book of Eli
Year: 2010
Director: The Hughes Brothers
Screenplay: Gary Whitta
Starring: Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman, Mila Kunis
You could say that The Book of Eli is the "louder" cousin to The Road. But whereas The road was a meditation on the very morals that make us human, The Book of Eli is about Denzel Washington kick ass and taking names. It also has a plot moment that shouldn't work if you think about it for more than one second, however the slick direction from The Hughes Brothers manage to distract me enough that I didn't notice how dumb said plot point was until I had left the cinema.
The film has other issues, there's far too much slow motion, it's slightly over long and none of the performances are any of the actors best. With all that said, I found something to enjoy within the movie. One of the main things being that after 8 years, the Hughes bros' can still infuse a film with a vigorous energy. It's not as immediate and hard hitting as their still superb debut (Menace 2 Society) but it shows that they still have the talent for directing set pieces. In fact despite the fact that the films best action sequence owes a lot to Bad Boys 2, it just so happens they nicked the best part of that movie and almost made it their own.
And it's not just moments of action. The brothers still have a knack for making a story engaging. Despite the aforementioned mis-steps, The Book of Eli still makes for a mostly engrossing watch. It helps that the siblings are directing the likes of Washington and Oldman (despite both actors being not at their best, they still bring a certain something to the parts), but the film also has some great visuals. and the underlying themes are interesting ones if not subtle.
Subtlety is not the films strong point. Not that it matters because like I mentioned before, this is a film about Denzel kicking ass. However it is that lack of subtlety that makes John Hillcoat's The Road the better view for me. There are images within Eli that almost mimic The Road but they lack the subtext that is loaded within the latter film. To put it simply; the reason it's a Coke can is important, the reason why it's a Motorola loudspeaker is money.
Director: The Hughes Brothers
Screenplay: Gary Whitta
Starring: Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman, Mila Kunis
You could say that The Book of Eli is the "louder" cousin to The Road. But whereas The road was a meditation on the very morals that make us human, The Book of Eli is about Denzel Washington kick ass and taking names. It also has a plot moment that shouldn't work if you think about it for more than one second, however the slick direction from The Hughes Brothers manage to distract me enough that I didn't notice how dumb said plot point was until I had left the cinema.
The film has other issues, there's far too much slow motion, it's slightly over long and none of the performances are any of the actors best. With all that said, I found something to enjoy within the movie. One of the main things being that after 8 years, the Hughes bros' can still infuse a film with a vigorous energy. It's not as immediate and hard hitting as their still superb debut (Menace 2 Society) but it shows that they still have the talent for directing set pieces. In fact despite the fact that the films best action sequence owes a lot to Bad Boys 2, it just so happens they nicked the best part of that movie and almost made it their own.
And it's not just moments of action. The brothers still have a knack for making a story engaging. Despite the aforementioned mis-steps, The Book of Eli still makes for a mostly engrossing watch. It helps that the siblings are directing the likes of Washington and Oldman (despite both actors being not at their best, they still bring a certain something to the parts), but the film also has some great visuals. and the underlying themes are interesting ones if not subtle.
Subtlety is not the films strong point. Not that it matters because like I mentioned before, this is a film about Denzel kicking ass. However it is that lack of subtlety that makes John Hillcoat's The Road the better view for me. There are images within Eli that almost mimic The Road but they lack the subtext that is loaded within the latter film. To put it simply; the reason it's a Coke can is important, the reason why it's a Motorola loudspeaker is money.
Monday, 11 January 2010
Review: The Road
Year: 2010
Director: John Hillcoat
Screenplay: Joe Penhall
Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Kodi Smit-McPhee
Synopsis is here
Like the fans who will never believe that a remake can be better than the original. Film adaptations from books face a similar scrutiny from people who find it hard to separate the two mediums. When a book you love is turned into a movie, it's very hard to get those images the pages have burned into your memory, So much so that everything, EVERYTHING that isn't in place in the film, even the elements that just wouldn't fit in a cinematic way become a flaw.
As an avid movie viewer I realize that trying to fit all the nuances that a book can carry, into a consumable two hour movie is more than a little difficult. One must also remember that even how a book is WRITTEN concocts a mental picture completely unique to the reader.
This brings me to Cormac McCathy's hard going but stunning 2006 novel The Road, a book that I wholeheartedly recommend to anyone with a healthy interest in reading. With this said I will say that the novel is at times a difficult read. When I heard about the movie, I was instantly intrigued. After the film being pushed back for various reasons The Road is finally released to maybe perhaps contend with the 2010 Oscars. But despite this does it manage to do what adaptations should do and evoke the spirit of the book?
In my opinion The film does extremely well although it has its flaws. Case in point: The Infamous coke scene in which The Boy is given a can of coke by the father and told to drink it. In the book we understand that this the first time the boy has even heard of coke let alone drank the stuff. It's a small moment but the poignancy behind it has hidden depths. Despite it being a basic hypothesis (No more coke) it can hard to fathom, particularly when we take such things for granted. This incident in the film doesn't come across right. There's something about McCathy's prose that gets under the skin. Tapping into that feeling is so very difficult. This brings me to my other example, being the final scenes, which are so close to my imagination it feels like director John Hillcoat opened my brain and rummaged through my skull to pick out the mental pictures. They were exactly how I imagined them to be.
It's understandable to see why certain aspects of the film are executed in the way they were and while it's clearly obvious that The filmmakers need to stay as faithful to the novel as possible. The Road still kinda needs to be a marketable mainstream film. So while it's a little frustrating that the film feels more "action packed" (I use that in the loosest term) than the book, Hillcoat still manages to bring across so much of the same emotional tug that resides in the book, and while the narration of the father's is quite clunky (I understand why it's used but show not tell) Hillcoat manages to combine create the stark imagery dreamed by the author and is still able to get the novel's message across.
That message is of course the frailty of humanity. When the chips are really down, and the shit has hit the fan and is beginning to stink, it's not likely that we will act like the stereotypes we see in a film like 2012, it's going to be a downward spiral in which we wouldn't be able to recognize ourselves in the mirror. The central relationship between the boy and his father is one which states that even when we reach the end of civilization; hope and compassion will still be taught and learned. Not only will the older generation try and teach, but the younger breed will also help to install in life lessons.
To make sure this is communicated as thoroughly as possible, Hillcoat has placed his faith in the hands of the the experienced method actor that is Viggo Mortensen and the upcoming youth; Kodi Smit-McPhee. This combination not only puts a face to the "names" (they are unnamed throughout) but fill every frame they're in with raw emotion. With Mortensen, the work he puts into this is almost too easy for him, Smit-McPhee however, is the revelation here. The bonding they had in pre-production clearly shows through here as they carry the movie from struggle to struggle. One of the reasons the film is just as hard to sit though as the book, is because the leads on screen manage to describe how difficult the situation really is with each look, glance and stare.
Hillcoat who was also director of the equally blunt western The Proposition directs the plot efficiently and keeps the pacing tight. No watch watching here, I found myself at times truly lost in the films images and performances and despite some changes Hillcoat's vision is so very close to the book it made me fall in love with the original material again. That's what I feel an adaptation should be about, not straying so far away from the premise that it's a completely new entity, but not hugging the material so tight that the film becomes turgid. It's about finding the balance. A difficult goal to achieve but one that Hillcoat aims for and hits the mark often.
Delays may have kept it from reaching our shores sooner, but once it got here I was happy it didn't disappoint. The Road for me was not only worth a watch but worth checking McCarthy's prose once more. and for those who know how hard that book can be, it says a lot about how I felt about the film.
Director: John Hillcoat
Screenplay: Joe Penhall
Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Kodi Smit-McPhee
Synopsis is here
Like the fans who will never believe that a remake can be better than the original. Film adaptations from books face a similar scrutiny from people who find it hard to separate the two mediums. When a book you love is turned into a movie, it's very hard to get those images the pages have burned into your memory, So much so that everything, EVERYTHING that isn't in place in the film, even the elements that just wouldn't fit in a cinematic way become a flaw.
As an avid movie viewer I realize that trying to fit all the nuances that a book can carry, into a consumable two hour movie is more than a little difficult. One must also remember that even how a book is WRITTEN concocts a mental picture completely unique to the reader.
This brings me to Cormac McCathy's hard going but stunning 2006 novel The Road, a book that I wholeheartedly recommend to anyone with a healthy interest in reading. With this said I will say that the novel is at times a difficult read. When I heard about the movie, I was instantly intrigued. After the film being pushed back for various reasons The Road is finally released to maybe perhaps contend with the 2010 Oscars. But despite this does it manage to do what adaptations should do and evoke the spirit of the book?
In my opinion The film does extremely well although it has its flaws. Case in point: The Infamous coke scene in which The Boy is given a can of coke by the father and told to drink it. In the book we understand that this the first time the boy has even heard of coke let alone drank the stuff. It's a small moment but the poignancy behind it has hidden depths. Despite it being a basic hypothesis (No more coke) it can hard to fathom, particularly when we take such things for granted. This incident in the film doesn't come across right. There's something about McCathy's prose that gets under the skin. Tapping into that feeling is so very difficult. This brings me to my other example, being the final scenes, which are so close to my imagination it feels like director John Hillcoat opened my brain and rummaged through my skull to pick out the mental pictures. They were exactly how I imagined them to be.
It's understandable to see why certain aspects of the film are executed in the way they were and while it's clearly obvious that The filmmakers need to stay as faithful to the novel as possible. The Road still kinda needs to be a marketable mainstream film. So while it's a little frustrating that the film feels more "action packed" (I use that in the loosest term) than the book, Hillcoat still manages to bring across so much of the same emotional tug that resides in the book, and while the narration of the father's is quite clunky (I understand why it's used but show not tell) Hillcoat manages to combine create the stark imagery dreamed by the author and is still able to get the novel's message across.
That message is of course the frailty of humanity. When the chips are really down, and the shit has hit the fan and is beginning to stink, it's not likely that we will act like the stereotypes we see in a film like 2012, it's going to be a downward spiral in which we wouldn't be able to recognize ourselves in the mirror. The central relationship between the boy and his father is one which states that even when we reach the end of civilization; hope and compassion will still be taught and learned. Not only will the older generation try and teach, but the younger breed will also help to install in life lessons.
To make sure this is communicated as thoroughly as possible, Hillcoat has placed his faith in the hands of the the experienced method actor that is Viggo Mortensen and the upcoming youth; Kodi Smit-McPhee. This combination not only puts a face to the "names" (they are unnamed throughout) but fill every frame they're in with raw emotion. With Mortensen, the work he puts into this is almost too easy for him, Smit-McPhee however, is the revelation here. The bonding they had in pre-production clearly shows through here as they carry the movie from struggle to struggle. One of the reasons the film is just as hard to sit though as the book, is because the leads on screen manage to describe how difficult the situation really is with each look, glance and stare.
Hillcoat who was also director of the equally blunt western The Proposition directs the plot efficiently and keeps the pacing tight. No watch watching here, I found myself at times truly lost in the films images and performances and despite some changes Hillcoat's vision is so very close to the book it made me fall in love with the original material again. That's what I feel an adaptation should be about, not straying so far away from the premise that it's a completely new entity, but not hugging the material so tight that the film becomes turgid. It's about finding the balance. A difficult goal to achieve but one that Hillcoat aims for and hits the mark often.
Delays may have kept it from reaching our shores sooner, but once it got here I was happy it didn't disappoint. The Road for me was not only worth a watch but worth checking McCarthy's prose once more. and for those who know how hard that book can be, it says a lot about how I felt about the film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
