interesting, but I think it was supposed to say something about finding God in the worst of circumstances
and I’m an atheist but that’s what I thought they were trying to say, good movie btw
@ Alex
So you think Guy Pearce was representing God? So did the kid die?
no I thought the family at the end represented like guardian angels sent from God, I think the kid lived
OK. I like that.
I think the kid was veal.
I think the family mentions they’d seen the father and son and had been following them for a while. Am I mad? I was pretty exhausted by that last scene. So that would do away with the coincidence part.
I think the ending was a fantasy of the writer (director? producers?) who wanted to shoehorn a hopeful ending onto this limp adaptation.
Haven’t seen the film . . . is the ending similar to the ending of the novel? If so, I’d say it’s another iteration of McCarthy’s ending of No Country For Old Men.
No, it isn’t the book’s ending.
If it’s not the book’s ending, I automatically dislike it . . . one more reason for me not to see this.
You will hate everything about this film, as I did.
The ending is sort of similar to the ending of the book but it is not the same ending, there is more ambiguity in the book. Overall I though the film was pretty mediocre, which is sad because the book was fantastic and highly adaptable.
What made it difficult to adapt in my mind (not having seen the film) is the non-specificity of the apocalyptic event.
That would have been okay if they had just shot it as a minimalist film with no score and a more static camera. Strip away style, as McCarthy did, and let the bare skeleton of the story hang in the dead air.
^yes!
I loved the movie. Took me days to stop thinking about it.
I just watched it and adored it, I am going to pretend that it didn’t end the way it did though, it should have ended with him looking at the ocean with the gun in his hand, black then a gun shot then credits. Though I think the fantasy idea is highly possible.
The unspecific nature of the end of the world is important, we don’t need to be told, we know – which is the point. Our society is more and more drifting into absolute oblivion, are we going to let it happen or not?
The book really made an impression on me four years ago when I read it and it was hard for me to imagine them developing it into a film but I think they did a pretty damn good job on it.
Yeah, the ending wasn’t as touching as the book’s because it was a little too good to be true, but it still ended similar to the book. The one part that struck me really hard during the movie, which I won’t easily forget, was when the father stripped the theif bare and left him. In the book, it was the old man, (i think I’m remembering this correctly, maybe not) that robbed them. I like the way the movie separated the characters.
As for your theory, I like it. Very interesting. I picked up hints of that when we saw the dog because I don’t believe the family was ‘following’ them since the shelter. That was quite a ways back. (could’ve been a different dog) If the director was indeed going for the fantasy however, I don’t know that he gave it enough ‘umph.’
There were so many things they could’ve left exactly the same as the book and the film wouldn’t have suffered a bit, but the continual insistence on changing these little details and rearranging events, separating characters – it’s all just baffling and it makes the work highly volatile. Just LEAVE IT ALONE! If they’re going to adapt something, just adapt it. Why all the changing around of everything? If it has to be changed, then why not just write something entirely new?
I thought the film was alright. I didn’t find the book itself to be that great to be perfectly honest, but the film didn’t even manage to make it to that meager level.
The film had an “OK” look to it, but surprisingly it just wasn’t gritty enough for me. The makeup department did a wonderful job though, heh.
The film would be better titled The Road Lite.
Still an excellent film.
A little confused here… I’m surprised at how much flak this moving is catching over not being “exactly” like the book. I thought it was pretty damn close to the book. (I didn’t expect it to be. And I wouldn’t have been pissed if it wasn’t. I read the book. Now I’m watching a movie.) The book wasn’t very meaty with actual plot but more so with feelings and that’s tough to film. The movie did a fine job at capturing those same feelings. I think all this flak is making my appreciation for the film even greater.
The film was never going to capture McCarthy’s brilliant prose, that’s one problem it just couldn’t hurdle.
The film pulls it punches and downplays a lot of the horror of this world, making it lose so much of the books power.
Threads on The Road should all henceforth be retitled, “When love of the original source is impossible for some people to transcend.”
I like McCarthy OK, but to be honest, I wouldn’t be able to read two or three of his works in a row. The tone of his work is monochromatic and it tends to lead the reader in one dark direction.
The ending of the film was fine. I think there was enough ambiguity that would lead the viewer to still have questions as to whether you can trust the family, but that highlights the division between the Man and his son that frames the story. The man is rooted in Skepticism and the boy still has a glimmer of hope for humanity, or at least the capacity for empathy.
Truman Sparks
First: I cannot discuss this without giving away the end of the movie. So be warned; SPOILERS AHEAD!
Second: if this thread already exists, I apologize.
Here goes. My theory is that the last scene of THE ROAD might be a fantasy created by the little boy. I can sort of back this up by a few points:
1. The character played by Guy Pearce (sp?) is missing thumbs, just like the african-american guy from the previous scene.
2. The boy might have seen another boy earlier in the movie, but he is the only one that sees him. Was this another fantasy fortelling the one to come?
3. It seems pretty unlikely that the morning after his father dies a complete family, including a dog, picks him up. This is the first complete family we see in the movie, unless you count the nuclear (bad pun) family that was harvesting humans.
4. All elements of the family seem like things the boy observed along the way. The dog he heard in the fallout shelter (I know the family says they have been watching them and that it could be the same dog); vague memories of his mom; the boy and girl that he has been wishing for through the whole movie; and the father almost identical to the one that just died—even willing to “carry the flame (or fire—I forget)”.
Am I reaching here?