comment #1

Sabina E says ...

Well, I thought the movie was okay, but not really that amazing. I'd give it 6 out of 10 stars... I've seen better movies.

Meh.

comment #2

smiley says ...

Best film of the year for me. It really takes you kicking and screaming to places you don't want to go. Shannon had all of the best lines.

comment #3

thebuddha says ...

Every time I see stills of Michael Shannon from Rev Road I can only think of he and Ewen Mcgregor teaming up for a revival of Sam Shepard's True West. I would rather a PTA-directed staging any day over Frost/Nixon

comment #4

MikeSchaeferSF says ...

I agree that the *size* of Shannon's and Davis's parts are what the Supporting category used to be all about. But I really found Shannon's perf distracting and not in a good way -- he seemed to be auditioning for a David Letterman biopic (I understand he actually watched old clips of Will Rogers). And he'd be *great* as Dave -- sign him up. But he was a bit too over-the-top for me in RR, a bit too "look at me I'm supposed to be crazy".

comment #5

Discman says ...

It’s great to see an informed reader give it up for Deakins’ breathtaking cinematography – the element that takes a superbly acted drama into another realm. How much more striking could a film look when it has scene after scene of two people talking? I thought Deakins might be nominated again this year against himself, this time for “The Reader,” but no, the good folks who nominate saw fit to honor only the film for which Deakins SHARES A CREDIT with Chris Menges, thereby robbing Deakins, just a little, of the FULL honor the guy deserves if/when he finally wins his Oscar.

comment #6

admiralmpj says ...

I still have no idea why this book was written, or why this film was made. I'm not saying it's terrible. I certainly admire the performances, and the look of the film, but there's a passion about this film and this material that completely escapes me. I was watching it, and not caring much at all about the characters of what the author was trying to communicate. (We're not average...we're better than that...oh my God, yes we are...is that really what you want to lead with??)

To me, it's a very, very well formed, well thought out, well intentioned bit of...frankly...nothing.

I'm with DeafBrown. It was okay, but I've seen better...much better.

comment #7

Gordie Lachance says ...

Speaking of thanking Jeff for recommendations, I need to for him steering me towards Bigger Than Life, which I missed at the Film Forum but picked up on dvd from Amazon UK.

It's listed at 7.98 pounds but if you add it to your cart it's really 6.94, which equates to 9.81 dollars, which is insane for a near-Criterion level disc (complete with a beautiful transfer and 20 page booklet) of an odd but near great film, which plays like a cross between Leave It To Beaver and The Shining.

While I was there, I picked up the also unavailable in the US Ishtar for under 5 pounds, which was nowhere near as bad as I had been led to believe, and by that I mean pretty darn good.

comment #8

Gordie Lachance says ...

admiralmpj said "I have no idea why this book was written"

Probably the greatest realist social satire of the 20th Century?

Really? Are you insane?

comment #9

actionman says ...

Rev Road is a great movie. It may not be the film that most people necessarily want to see on "date night" but it's a great effort from all involved. That said, I saw 12 or 13 movies in 2008 that I thought were better (or that I enjoyed more) but that doesn't change the fact that it's a serious movie with something serious to say.

Leo was indeed robbed. And Kate should be up for her work in this, not The Reader. And Deakins should have gotten the solo nom for this. The Reader was pretty but flat looking; his work in Rev Road was outstanding.

That one shot towards the end of the film during Shannon's last flip out as he's being told by Leo to leave the house where Deakins kept Winslet in focs while Shannon is flipping his lid was pure cinematography magic. You hear Shannon's words -- which cut like daggers -- yet by holding on Winslet's reaction the scene becomes layered in a way that other d.p.'s wouldn't even think about.

I also agree with Wells that if the film had been shot in B&W it would have been even better.

comment #10

Edward says ...

Gordie, glad to see someone else likes ISHTAR.

comment #11

Sabina E says ...

B/W would have worked really well for Rev Road... like "Good Night and Good Luck."

comment #12

Colin says ...

This film was excellent. My Dad is not a big fan of movies but the three he has seen in theatres the past few years. Departed, Prestige and Revolutionary Road are all winners in his book.

As much as I loved the film though did anyone come out of it feeling "It doesn't get better"?

comment #13

Gordon27 says ...

"but that doesn't change the fact that it's a serious movie with something serious to say."

So, just being a serious movie with something serious it's trying to say is now a positive thing? It doesn't matter that the same serious things have been said in dozens of movies before? Even 'Parenthood' covered all the same ground!

comment #14

cinefan says ...

SPOILER ALERT:

"Even 'Parenthood' covered all the same ground!"

Forgive me if my memory is wrong, but I don't remember any of the characters from Parenthood dying tragically after unsuccessfully trying to abort their baby. I also don't remember Steve Martin's character doing his secretary during his lunch breaks. I guess I am going to have to check out the movie again to refresh my memory...

comment #15

JHR says ...

Colin:

Your dad needs to get out and see more movies if he thinks Rev Road and The Prestige are "winners."

There are some mediocre movies in the "prestige" group this year, starting with Rev Road...I also disliked Milk and Ben Buttons in the Oscar race. Frost / Nixon is OK, the reason to see it is Langella...all of the above have some outstanding elements, but as far as the total film experience, they are disappointing...

Some of the good "prestige" films? The Wrestler, Rachel Getting Married, The Visitor, The Reader, Frozen River, VCB, Gran Torino...but only "The Reader" made the Oscar cut.

comment #16

Colin says ...

If you say so. I'll let Christopher Nolan's and Martin Scorsese's records speak for themselves.

comment #17

MilkMan says ...

Rev Road was so-so. Too lacking in the black humor that studs Yates' book. Mendes could use a lighter touch. DuhCaprio was his usual hysterical self. Winslet was great. She's always great. She should've won for Little Children. An idea: if anyone decides to remake DePalma's Phantom of the Paradise, Michael Shannon would make a perfect Beef.

comment #18

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Whoa...did I miss something here? What the hell is wrong with liking The Prestige?

comment #19

Colin says ...

Whoa...did I miss something here? What the hell is wrong with liking The Prestige?
-CitizenKaned

Seriously. You'd think it was attack great films day.

comment #20

austin111 says ...

There was plenty of black humor in Rev Road if you cared to look for it. From Winslet's clacking heels as she walks down the hall behind DiCaprio to the way DiCaprio carelessly seduces the secretary. It's there. You just have to be smart enough to see it. But I have to say that an awful lot of moviegoers have gotten plain lazy when it comes to watching films. Critics too, I might add. Lord, there are some famous films that wouldn't get the time of day from a lot people now because they wouldn't appreciate what was right in front of them.

comment #21

MilkMan says ...

You're absolutely right, Austin. I'm not smart enough to see what was clearly right there in front of me. In my defense though, I did laugh when she gave herself the abortion. That was supposed to be funny right? Anyway, thanks for setting me straight. It's great to have nice people like you here at HE.

comment #22

Gordon27 says ...

cinefan - I'm speaking of the themes of the movie, the deeper ideas that it's longing to express, not a rote summary of the plot points. But, I have to ask -- if you're trying to make the movie sound original, why would you bring up the Lifetime Movie Of The Week plot "twist"s? I mean, bring up the brilliant last scene/shot of the movie; give it a *chance* at least!

comment #23

Gordon27 says ...

"You just have to be smart enough to see it."

I loveloveLOVE talking to insecure film buffs. It's not enough for you to enjoy the movie. No sir; you have to try and prove that anybody who disagrees with your opinion is capital-W-Wrong. And, barring that, it comes down to, "Well, if you're *smart* enough to get the movie."

Right there, you've failed. Even granting, for a moment, that the movie *is* intelligent (which I certainly don't agree with), emotional response in the moment trumps intellectual response after the fact. That's a fundamental of art, and especially of personal subjective response to art.

comment #24

cinefan says ...

You do realize, Gordon27, that the film is based on a book that was written in 1961. You sound idiotic when you compare the film to a Lifetime movie or a bad Ron Howard movie when it's pretty clear that you haven't read the book from which all of the "Lifetime Movie of the Week" plot twists emanate.

comment #25

Gordon27 says ...

"You sound idiotic when you compare the film to a Lifetime movie or a bad Ron Howard movie when it's pretty clear that you haven't read the book from which all of the "Lifetime Movie of the Week" plot twists emanate."

I've been fairly open about the fact that I haven't read the book yet, save for a few pages of it, all of which were much better than the screen representation.

But I was under the impression we were talking about a movie which was released in 2008. If a book is written in 1961, and is incredibly influential over an entire sub-genre of dramas, it stands to reason that a filmed version of it fifty years later will have to update some of the things that were fresh when the book came out, as those things have now become cliches.

If you're saying that the only way to like the movie is to have read the book beforehand, fair enough. I certainly can't argue with that, having not read it before I saw it. But I don't see how you could say that that's a positive thing, that the movie can't stand on its own unless you've read the book, so I admit, I'm confused by your point. I guess I'm just an idiot!

comment #26

Gordon27 says ...

"it stands to reason that a filmed version of it fifty years later will have to update some of the things that were fresh when the book came out, as those things have now become cliches."

Comprable scenario - 'All The King's Men' is a great book partially because it's surprising that it was making all those points in the late '40's. The movie was a masterpiece. But, 65 years later, they tell the same story, and it comes out feeling tired and cliche-ridden, because that book had so much influence over the subgenre of "political dramas" that there was nothing new for the remake to say.

comment #27

cinefan says ...

What exactly would you have liked the filmmakers to have changed? The book is set in the 1950s and is a criticism of 1950s era conservative values. Yates wrote his book in 1961 when a new president was in the White House and the author had had time to reflect upon what he found wrong with the conservative Eisenhower era. This film comes out in 2008 at a time when we have a new president and we can look back and reflect upon what some of us found so wrong with a conservative era ushered in by Bush. For me, the film caused me to wonder a lot about just how different the two eras are. Would life for a woman like April Wheeler be much different today than it was in the 1950s? We almost elected to Vice-President a woman who would have outlawed abortion and caused significant harm to women's rights in this country. How far have we really progressed in 50 years? The film may not have had any modern relevance for you but, for some of us, it is incredibly resonant and thought-provoking. To each his own...

comment #28

Gordon27 says ...

"What exactly would you have liked the filmmakers to have changed?"

Having a script where things that are supposed to be surprising are not blatantly obvious would be a start.

But, as my #1 example, the whole, "Here, let's offer you a raise and a cushier job to counteract your desire to leave and follow through on your dreams." I can't imagine that was original even when Yates did it, but I'm sure he pulls it offer better than the movie did. If you give Frank a genuine reason to stay, and suddenly his decision becomes the mature one (in light of the "dream" they're not doing), that seems, to me, to throw off the whole balance of everything that follows it.

As for the rest of what you said,
1) again, these are all things which have been dealt with frequently in movies and stories, generally with more subtlely than 'Rev Road'.
2) maybe it's me, maybe it's because I didn't like the movie, but I didn't get the sense that "not being able to get a legal abortion" was anywhere near the root of the problems the Wheelers had. It seemed to me like their problem was that they got married too young, before they fully understood their place in the world, and before they really understood each other, and they gradually realized that their goals were pulling them apart, not together, but they tried to forge ahead anyway, first on the loose strings of their few shared dreams, and then just because they had a family. (And, in that sense, yes, I would say that there has been some progress in the last 50 years, in that the median age for getting married has gone up.)

If, as you say, the movie exists solely as a pro-choice story, that's okay, but I would revert back to comment #1; I've seen enough stories dealing with how horrible it is when women can't get abortions. Just because I agree with the sentiment, that doesn't make the movie itself good, or the sentiment well expressed. (It would've gained more traction if it was a hokey '60's movie earnestly expressing that emotion, a sort of "Guess Who Isn't Coming To Dinner? My Baby!"); you'd watch it now and say, "Man, that was cheesy and hasn't aged well, but it took guts to tell that story when abortion was still illegal."

"For me, the film caused me to wonder a lot about just how different the two eras are."

I guess if you know absolutely nothing about the '50's, yeah, it's portrait of the '50's would be a revelation.

comment #29

cinefan says ...

It seemed to me like their problem was that they got married too young, before they fully understood their place in the world, and before they really understood each other, and they gradually realized that their goals were pulling them apart, not together, but they tried to forge ahead anyway, first on the loose strings of their few shared dreams, and then just because they had a family.

I guess if you know absolutely nothing about the '50's, yeah, it's portrait of the '50's would be a revelation.

The film didn't provide new insight for me about the 1950s but about where we are today. What is the teenage pregnancy rate in this country? How many girls are there who are getting married too young because they are pregnant and because that's what their religious values tell them to do (look at the Palin family for well-known example of that)? April Wheeler in the 1950s did not have the option of getting a legal divorce and divorce was not really a tenable option either. Her tragedy was that she felt she had no escape from her situation except to end her pregnancy herself, an act which brought about her own death. Can we safely say that there are no April Wheelers living at this time and in this current society? Both the book and the film made me think about these issues seriously and because of that I found them worthwhile experiences. My advice would be to finish reading the book (I agree with you, by the way, that the book is superior to the film - one of the best American novels written in the past 60 years). Then, decide for yourself if the film fails the book and lacks intelligence as a film adaptation.

comment #30

cinefan says ...

That should read: did not have the option of getting a legal abortion...

comment #31

Gordon27 says ...

"Can we safely say that there are no April Wheelers living at this time and in this current society?"

Of course there are. One of my big issues with the movie as a whole, though, was that they painted everybody with the same brush.

Example: You've got Dylan Baker, and he talks like (to use a '50's term) a dandy, right? That's fine -- except that every other character in the movie talks a whole lot like him, so he doesn't stand out much as an example; he's just so slightly weirder talking than everybody else.

Example: At a certain point, Winslet is so stressed that she's chain smoking. (And we as a modern audience tsk-tsk, because she's pregnant.) Problem is, every single character in the movie who smokes chain smokes constantly, so the impact is blunted. Instead of being a window into her subconscious, it's "EVERYBODY IN THE FIFTIES SMOKES ALL THE TIME!"

Example: April is miserable in her marriage in her suburban life. But every single other character comes off as equally miserable (and if you say her problems resonate as gender-specific, why are all the men just as unhappy for all the same reasons?), because the movie is making some larger statement about suburban life. By doing it in the way they did, it blunts the specifics for her character.

I certainly wouldn't say that there are no Aprils in today's world. My problem with 'Road' (and this is largely true of every "aren't the suburbs terrible?" movie) is that it presents itself as if every married person in the suburbs is an April, and if they don't think they're an April, it's because they're too stupid to realize it, but don't worry, the movie will make sure that *you* understand how miserable their life is.

comment #32

cinefan says ...

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree in our assessments of the film. I enjoyed the back and forth, though and the lengthy discussion of the film (maybe that makes it a successful work of art if it can engender this much disagreement and in-depth analysis - I definitely would never devote this much time to analyzing a Michael Bay or Stephen Sommers film, for example...).

comment #33

Gordon27 says ...

I want you to know, though I disagree with your opinion, I think that your explanation of it was well-reasoned and well-stated. I always find it much harder to process and understand why I do like a movie than why I don't. [For instance, I love 'Slumdog', but it pulls all kinds of tricks, stuff that I find myself not liking in plenty of other movies. I can't say 'Gran Torino' was any more realistic or well-written than 'Button', but I consider it a good movie solely because I enjoyed Eastwood's performance that much.] I mean, this is all just after-the-fact intellectuallizing an emotional response, but I always find that easier when the emotion is negative. I guess it's because, when I'm really with a movie, I don't want to think about why I enjoyed it.

Anyway, good chat. I'm sure that, if you're around, I'll let you know what I think of the book, which I'm going to try to pick up this week, if they have it at the going-out-of-business book store. (Don't expect it to change my opinion of the movie -- no matter how much I love the book, I'll still think the movie didn't stand on its own two feet.)

comment #34

Jonah says ...

"I loveloveLOVE talking to insecure film buffs. It's not enough for you to enjoy the movie. No sir; you have to try and prove that anybody who disagrees with your opinion is capital-W-Wrong. And, barring that, it comes down to, "Well, if you're *smart* enough to get the movie.""

Absolutely true. But the irony is, you're as guilty of this as anybody. In a very subtle way you try to tear down the people that like the movies you don't like. Why isn't it enough that you don't like them? It's one thing to just discuss the film, but you insult those that disagree.

I don't expect you to agree with me on this. So a reply is probably not necessary.

comment #35

MilkMan says ...

Revolutionary Road is would have made a good movie in 1980s. Its themes and ideas are dated and irrelevant. It's hard to get all worked up about two beautiful middle class kids and their self-created dramas. Had their been any aesthetic distance in the movie I maybe could have been sucked in to the story. As it was made, I found the entire film to be shrill and melodramatic. The movie was campy like Frank Perry.It took itself so seriously that I had no choice but to give it the finger. I'm glad Winslet isn't going to win for her performance. Because she was off, sometimes even a little embarrassing. Oh Gordon and Cinefan, the two of you just got me so worked up! I feel like I'm going faint. Such men. Such power. I love watching a good swordfight. Now who wants a Madras?

comment #36

Gordon27 says ...

"It's one thing to just discuss the film, but you insult those that disagree."

I don't think i"ve insulted anybody who didn't insult me first. Once somebody insults me for disagreeing with them, I feel free to insult them as much or as little as I feel like, sure. It amuses me to act like a condescending asshole to condescending assholes. This place is a lot of fun for that.

Also, I haven't tried to convince anybody that their opinion is wrong, anywhere. I learned long ago how futile it is to try to intellectualize people away from an emotional response.

"I don't expect you to agree with me on this."

I do disagree with you that it's ironic, as I'm not insecure about my opinion. And that anything I do here is subtle. So, I guess half and half.

comment #37

JHR says ...

I agree with MilkMan on the forced melodrama...the acting in Rev Road felt forced, almost amateurish, especially for Winslet...DiCaprio was miscast...Bates was good...and Shannon was the best thing in the movie...

comment #38

cinefan says ...

I would just like to add to my earlier posts that I don't think Rev Road is the best film of the year (I would probably put it in my top ten, like Wells, but there are films that I enjoyed more this year and thought were superior, including Wall-E, The Wrestler, and Rachel Getting Married). Road, for me, has some clear strengths (the great cinematography by Deakins and the performances by Shannon and Winslet) and some clear weaknesses as well (a performance by Dicaprio that feels too mannered at times, a somewhat underwhelming ending after April's death, and underdeveloped supporting characters like Frank's coworkers). I was defending the film against charges that it had no relevance today and was horribly dated - for me and other admirers of the film, it spoke to a lot of the things that we have seen going on in society for the past 8 years under the Bush administration (some of which I've mentioned in my earlier posts). I respect people who have a negative emotional response as well as a positive one because film is so subjective that what can deeply move one person might leave someone else completely cold. Thanks, though, Gordon27 for your thoughtful analysis and insights into Road - they did cause me to think more about the film and why I have such strong feelings about it.

comment #39

Apemantus says ...

My god, Milkman. I stand in awe of you.