astralwerkor said about 3 years ago or at 11:10PM on Friday, May 30 2008 in films
Could have sworn there was thread on the subject, but further investigation suggested it had only been mentioned in the McCarthy thread. I have high expectation of this, because I loved the book so very much. I must say, its in the best possible hands I could think of. John Hillcoat, he of The Proposition is directing, and the father is being portrayed by Viggo Mortensen. They've finished filming, and it should be out by November. I, for one, am excited. Hope it meets my expectations. An interesting read here about the logistics of filming.
John Hillcoat is doing it?!
I was about to leave some snide comment along the lines of 'if it's not the Coens, it can get...' but I'll definitely be interested to see what Hillcoat does with it.
heard really good reports back about the filming. Great cast.
That was my reaction when I read the article. I had forgotten who was directing, and I was ready to dismiss it out-of-hand. But Hillcoat should have an interesting take I think. It also features Robert Duvall, Guy Pearce, Charlize Theron (in flashback as Mortensen's wife) and Michael Kenneth Williams (from The Wire). Intriguing.
So, uh, yeah, looks good huh?
SCARY.
was waiting for this, and thankfully it looks like it might be ok
favourite new read of last year
i hope it doesn't have a crappy score
in fact i hope it has no score
God that locked in the basement scene and the apocalypse army with their harem of slaves will
be strange on film. It's the kinda thing that reads well of the page but might look very 'mad max' on screen.
My dream job would be adapting books and movies like this into video games.
i read an interview where the director said they were very consciously trying to avoid the mad max thing. he called it an antimodel. I was skeptical about the film idea, but the more i read about it, the more promising it seems.Looking forward to seeing omar from the wire especially.
and it would make a great video game actually. you'd start with 20% health and get 2 bullets and a tarp. there's like 3 healths in the whole game.
that article linked up top actually
hopefully they kinda downplay the situation - don't sensationalise the whole thing
thats the way games have got to go. Surely people will get bored of combo moves and flashy graphics as the only way to note the progress of the gaming industry.
and then walk for ages, stop for a bit, walk for ages again, stop for a bit...
I'm not sure it'd translate that well into a game.
you have found some stagnant water, would you like to:
a) drink it
b) boil it
c) bathe in it
a) drink it
b) boil it
c) bathe in it
would you like to:
a) follow the road for a bit more b) stop
you are in a basement, it smells terrible. you hear moaning and screaming.....
View Comments 20 to 179
We've limited the amount of comments shown in these larger topics to allow for faster viewing, simply click here to load all the missing comments ...
How is knowing you are going to die leaving a son behind without you not horrific or traumatic?
This isn't a movie (or the book for that matter) about the apocalypse at all - I think you've missed the point entirely.
Anyway I thought it was an excellent film - was always going to have an enormous task living up to the book.
The dog was tacky - I felt the whole cinema wince a bit at that one, and the sunnier flashbacks were unnecessary too, despite his line about dreaming about good things meaning you're on your way out. However on the whole I thought it was remarkably faithful - many of the scenes were uncannily similar to how I'd pictured them.
That said, no matter how well it captured the atmosphere of the novel it just couldn't replicate the bleak silence of reading that story, or maybe it could have if it steered away from modern cinematic conventions - too many cuts (why can't people leave long, stunning shots alone anymore?) and I felt waaay too pushed around by the score, which I thought could have been a million times sparser, and frankly a lot less cliched.
Good to see Omar back from the ashes though.
Oh and how can you have the story without this at the end - though god knows how you'd do it, but you need it - it throws the whole event into miniature and it balances out and relieves the whole horror of the situation - it's one of the most beautiful things I've ever read...
Once there were brook trouts in the streams in the mountains. You could see them standing in the amber current where the white edges of their fins wimpled softly in the flow. They smelled of moss in your hand. Polished and muscular and torsional. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery.
I enjoyed the film, but somehow it didn't come across nearly half as oppressive as the atmosphere created in the novel. Of course, I already knew what was going to happen, so that is one obvious duh reason. But one thing that impacted upon me in the book is the sense of absolute starvation that the father/son reach, just before they find the miraculous food store. If I recall, the boy couldn't move in the woods and was close to dying, and the father finds the storage on his own, and brings food back to the boy? In the movie, that sense of hunger is not really conveyed, which I felt was really important in regard to the cannibalism thing etc.
i have been waiting for this film for nearly a year and probably hyped it up to myself before i saw it, probably because i couldnt be fucked reading the book. (though at least 4 people had explained it to me in detail, i knew what to expect)
When i left the cinema i wasnt overly impressed, but after a few days, the film has been stuck with me and thats all i can think about. to me, that makes a great movie. something that leaves you hanging in the balance and cant get it out of your head for days.
Then you're a fool! Having it explained to you is not the same thing. I loved the book.
yeah, you're making a mistake if you don't read it first. amazing book.
im well aware how good the book is. one day, in my own time i will read it.
i thought the score was good. sparse and simple.
and the flash backs are important to show colour and beuty, reinforcing how shit and grey everything is around them.
Very talented family
Thought it was solid. Didn't think it needed narrating and was disappointed it didn't include the baby spit roast.
8.5/10
The beginning took my breath away.
Incredible landscapes that were pretty close to how I’d imagined their world to look in the book.
It was pretty top notch but I got really bored towards the end (find apocalypse survival films pretty boring anyway)......and the ending itself was even worse than the books ending.
An ugly family with a mum, dad, brother and a fucking stupid looking dog arrive moments after his own dad died after spending years teaching him how to survive without him…..
6/10
shit giving the end away was a stupid thing to post for anyway who hasn't seen it, sorry!
i already spoilt it ten days ago.
And if you've read the BOOK, not a surprise anyway
don't see this just before bed.
caught a 9.30pm session yesterday, home just before midnight and no sleep til 1am because it took me that long to shake the anxiousness that the film engendered.
then i woke up several times because i started having Road dreams and needed to stop them before they became nightmares about the people in the basement or the guys on the truck or whatever.
excellent film though!
I thought it was great. I haven't read the book but I would like to.
I give it 8.8/10
Watched this over the long weekend. A really great, powerful film.
I couldn't agree more (though I should admit I have no interest in Cave or Ellis' work elsewhere). The ambient sound alone would have been more than enough of a rich aural experience, and the hackneyed emotional devices employed in the soundtrack were the only weak element throughout.
mickeypratt, juiceterry and hugsie - the appearance of the dog in the last scenes was not in the book but a perfect gesture. you need to understand the importance of dogs/wolves in mccarthy's work before you mock it. if the film took liberties with the book i'd have preferred that no human appeared at the end, just the dog. the dog was the only bit of the film where i lost my composure.
oh and instead of piano and violin, i think the triangle would have been a perfect instrument for the soundtrack.
AS FOR THE DOG:
In the book ,we know 'the stranger' can be trusted,because he wraps 'the man' in a blanket,after promising 'the boy' that he will.
Since the film adaption doesn't have this moment,we (the viewer) ,are shown that 'the stranger' is trustworthy.Because even after everything his family have been through,They haven't killed and eaten the dog.
As most people would have.
Good point juankilo. In such desperate times when people are drawn to such unforgivable measures, a young family with a dog shines on through. Just so happens to be the first humans the now lonesome boy comes across, even after admitting to following them.