Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

Quint walked THE ROAD at Telluride!!

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with my thoughts on THE ROAD, which screened at the Telluride Film Festival along with a tribute to its star Viggo Mortensen. Let me start with a recap of the tribute. It’s not a massive ordeal, but they did show clips from many of Viggo’s movies including A WALK ON THE MOON, LORD OF THE RINGS, CARLITO’S WAY, WITNESS and GI JANE (unfortunately no DAYLIGHT) then brought Viggo out (in a “Make Art Not War” t-shirt) to talk a little. He was very engaging, especially when it came to his relationship with his son, which got him on a good 5 minute long track talking about how movies were the bond between him and his mother and the same is true between him and his son. It really kind of hit me dead center, to be honest. Movies weren’t what bonded me to my parents so much, even though we had a lot of similar interests. My mom loved horror movies and courtroom dramas, my dad like spaghetti westerns. Although film wasn’t a hugely important part of the parental bonding process it is and has always been very important with my personal relationships. Every girlfriend I’ve had started with a movie. Every good friend I’ve had will either pull me in into a movie marathon or join in on mine on a regular basis (I just had an Elliot Gould-a-thon). It was just cool to hear that’s how he relates to his kid, obsessively getting on different movie kicks (he mentioned Kurosawa and Godzilla) and seeing big event pictures, no matter how shitty, opening weekend. Mortensen also spoke about his career and that the first movie he did was Woody Allen’s THE PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO… but his scene got cut out. Next movie he did was SWING SHIFT… where he played a guys trying to pick up Goldie Hawn at a movie theater… and his scene was cut. He said his parents started to doubt he was in New York trying to become an actor.

Enough with that, let’s get down to the movie. Yes, I’ve read Cormac McCarthy’s book and yes I love it. Yes, I’ve seen John Hillcoat and Joe Penhall’s adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s book and it’s a slightly different experience, but a pretty damn good adaptation. There’s a certain cadence to McCarthy’s novel, a hypnotic use of language and repetition that works on a literary level, but could never really work on a visual, cinematic level. Hillcoat realized this and adapted accordingly. But that’s not a warning flag, I promise. McCarthy’s characters are the same, the world is the same, the tone is the same and none of the heart (or the balls) of the story is missing. The biggest pill to swallow for fans of the book is in The Boy character. Kodi Smit-McPhee plays him in the movie and does a great job, but he’s not exactly as I read him as a character. That’s natural in an adaptation, though. He doesn’t have as long to come out of his shell. Thankfully Smit-McPhee’s a good actor and is able to balance The Boy’s innocence in such a way that it never becomes precocious. The kid’s naïve in the same way an Amish dude would be in a Best Buy. He doesn’t know anything but the post apocalyptic world, born after the fires started and the world went to shit. Mortensen is predictably fantastic. That dude can say 5 different things with his face in one ten second take. He’s raw, nervous, slightly crazed, but still has a working moral compass. His every movement is to protect his kid as they make their way through the gray landscape that used to be America. It’s not a safe world. Food is all but gone. Seemingly all animal life has died off, society has shut down so the survivors of this plague are either scroungers or hunters, literally feeding off the slim remainder of humanity. Hillcoat’s execution of the world is epic and sad and more than a little scary in how it’s probably not too far from what would actually happen in this world if there was an apocalyptic event. We never see the reason for the devastation we only see the results. We’re also given a few brief glimpses at life before the shit hit the fan. There’s green plants, sunlight… but that’s barely registered, serving only to cement this changed landscape into something the audience can recognize. That’s also the extent of Charleze Theron’s performance. If you’re like me when you saw that trailer which is cut to make it look the wife’s a huge character and might even be on the road with The Man and The Boy you got a bit nervous. That feels like a studio note. “Where’s the love interest? We can get that Theron girl! She’ll sell tickets!” So it’s not a paranoid delusion on the part of the fans. I can put your fears at ease. Theron’s character is only seen in flashback. Her purpose seems to be to haunt Mortensen’s character, actually. There is more to her in the movie than in McCarthy’s book, but it’s handled very well and it never crosses the line to betraying the father/son heart of the film. If anything the added depth to the wife character improves that dynamic. The smaller characters in the film made me smile, especially Robert Duvall as the old traveler that our leads stumble across. Duvall knocks his brief bit part out of the park playing this half-blind wanderer who has somehow survived the hell the world has become. The dude’s a treasure and still has the power to hit you in your emotional core with nothing but a line delivery. Also of note is Michael K. Williams who plays The Thief. Fans of the book knows just how important this scene is to the story, especially to the evolving dynamic between The Boy and The Man. Williams is heart-breaking in this role, again very brief, but a hit and run performance. The movie’s fucking dark, but just like the book there’s a glimmer of hope. There’s no magic cure, no deus ex machina to come in at the end and save the world and all of God’s chillin’. There is only this reality the hope that the innate goodness in people will show itself eventually and our species won’t get snubbed out. Hillcoat isn’t afraid to explore the darker aspects of the book, like The Man’s willingness to blow his own kid’s brains out if it looks like they’re trapped and might get captured by the rapist cannibals scavenging this wasteland. He also made the right decision in bringing on Javier Aguirresarobe (THE OTHERS) to photograph this movie, really cementing this reality. The Road isn’t the typical studio film. It’s one of the rare epic-scale R-rated harsh films that sometimes squeak out of the studio system when all the stars align. I was very impressed with it, even as a fan of the book. After the movie, Viggo came back up on the stage and answered a few questions. When put on the spot to add on a final word he thought for a second then dug into his bag and brought out his personal copy of THE ROAD. There were what looked like a hundred stick-it notes marking different pages and the spine was cracked and worn. It’s obviously seen a lot of use. To close the event he read a bit from McCarthy’s description of the sea-area landscape. That was pretty cool and I was able to snap a pic.

My Telluride ended today. I’m on my way out of town tomorrow morning, but I’ll be filing reports all week, logging all my Telluride reviews and interviews before Fantastic Fest rolls around and I am once again swamped. Keep your eyes peeled. I got reviews of Jason Reitman’s UP IN THE AIR, Todd Solondz’s LIFE DURING WARTIME, the adorable Carey Mulligan’s star-making AN EDUCATION and quite a bit more all on deck! -Quint quint@aintitcool.com Follow Me On Twitter



Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Sept. 8, 2009, 1:51 a.m. CST

    Viggo is always good

    by BadMrWonka

    seriously...even in Crimson Tide

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:02 a.m. CST

    Make Art Not War - Make Hits Not Flops

    by BoRock_A_Boomer

    I guess it's not nice to bring up the whole money, business thing because it's art

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:06 a.m. CST

    This one snuck up on me

    by Jaka

    Even though I remember hearing it was in production. Glad to hear all the positive reviews (people crying?) for this one. However, I would have seen it anyway as it's got Viggo (is he in the Hobbit films - that's Aragorn hair) in it and it's "my kinda thing". But DAAAAANG Quint! Where's the "Up In The Air" review? Did it not hit you as great? Because that thing is getting press EVERYWHERE from the Telluride showing(s). Considering the fact that I LOVED Juno and dig Clooney and Bateman, I'm pretty dang excited about it now.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:07 a.m. CST

    It could be a hit

    by Jaka

    I mean, it's not even out yet. And it's definitely getting good work of mouth. Plus, Viggo rules all. lol I get your point, though.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:07 a.m. CST

    This film might reverse the demise of cinema

    by Ray Gamma

    If the studios can see that it is possible to make a success of a brutal, epic story for ADULTS, then this film holds great promise.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:09 a.m. CST

    Quint,

    by BadMrWonka

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:09 a.m. CST

    Jaka

    by Quint

    It's great. More in the Thank You For Smoking vein and Clooney and Vera Farmiga rock it in the movie. There's a bit of a speedbump going from act 2 to act 3, but it doesn't kill the flick. I've been writing a lot in-between films, but just haven't had much time to sit down and write... either at interviews or movies. I saw The Road this morning and had a lot to say about it so that review to priority. Next up is Up In The Air, I swear!

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:10 a.m. CST

    Quint

    by BadMrWonka

    why are they screening Up in the Air now, and we don't even have a trailer yet? strange to read reviews in Variety and elsewhere and yet, I have no idea about the look or feel of the film.<p>is it me, or is that weird? it's weird, right? the chronology seems off.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:12 a.m. CST

    The Road is one of the greatest novels of our time

    by Ray Gamma

    ANd you guys want to hijack the thread to talk about "Up in the Air", come on guys, not on this thread please.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:13 a.m. CST

    Wonka

    by Quint

    Reitman screened Juno before the Toronto premiere at Telluride and said he considers it a lucky charm. The world premiere of UITA is at Toronto... and after the screening Reitman said the trailer will be hitting very, very soon. To answer your question, I think it's a buzz thing. The studio was confident in the movie, Reitman was and it's a good flick, so it seemed to work. It was the talk of the fest and as a result the talk of the trades.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:15 a.m. CST

    BoRock_A_Boomer

    by BadMrWonka

    you know how many movies were predicted to flop because they were "too dark"? dozens. <p>American Beauty is the classic example. if a movie resonates enough with people, dark is ok. hell, The Dark Knight was pretty dark (no pun intended) and I think that made a couple bucks. <p>this movie will make it's money back, guaranteed. and with worldwide box office, it's definitely gonna make money.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:17 a.m. CST

    This may be a hard...

    by codymr

    film to sit though, but I am looking forward to it. Mortensen is always amazing to watch and I had no idea Duvall was in this too. His inclusion as a bit part just makes me want to see this more. <P> After the bubblegum that is the summer tent pole season, I really enjoy the good stuff that comes out in the fall. It really does reflect the two sides of my personality: The summer satisfies my inner child while autumn presents me with challenging adult fare.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:19 a.m. CST

    Quint

    by BadMrWonka

    that makes sense. it just seems like a hard opening, letting dozens of critics see it before anyone else, so that if there are negative reviews then that is ALL that is out there for a while. but you're right, I guess if you are confident enough in a positive reception, then it's not much of a risk. I'm certainly excited for it.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:22 a.m. CST

    WHAT PASSAGE DID VIGGO READ?

    by Mullah Omar

    And why did he choose that particular passage? <br> <br> Got to admit, THE ROAD is the film I'm most excited to see this Fall/Winter. From the source to the director to the stars, etc, every piece seems primed for perfection. <br> <br> HOWEVER, and by your comments it seems like you might share this reservation, Quint . . . the kid looks too old. Did that bother you? Did they work around that? Does he come off as younger than he looks in stills?

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:45 a.m. CST

    In Viggo I trust

    by rock_n_roll_jesus

    I'm really excited to see this. Viggo picks good projects or is at least giving his best even in mediocre projects (Hidalgo?). The trailer looks good so I'm keeping my fingers crossed until I see this. I can see why all the Charlize Theron scenes in the trailer are making people nervous. Remember the poster for All The Pretty Horses? Tragedy how they handled the marketing of that film. At least it looks like they are being pretty up front about the grim nature of The Road. All the Pretty Horses marketing campaign didn't prepare all the Mom's for Matt Damon viciously stabbing a man to death in prison.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:45 a.m. CST

    Between The Road and...

    by meta4

    Book Of Eli I'm stoked to see both end products.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:48 a.m. CST

    Maybe it's just an American cultural thing

    by Ray Gamma

    But Americans seem to really like making mostly obnoxiously happy shouty brightly-coloured loud things like Hannah Montana, Transformers and High School Musical. </P> <P>A bleak film based on such a bleak book as "The Road" would never have any problem becoming a hit over here in Europe , where miserablism and tragedy are very much ingrained in our culture and are artforms in themselves. </P> <P> Think about it, it even took a British director to take a dumb popcorn franchise like "Batman" and turn it into an epic, bleak, tragic opera with "The Dark Knight".

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:53 a.m. CST

    QUINT: did you watch THE LONG GOODBYE?

    by manifestchaos

    Such an interesting take on Marlowe.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:56 a.m. CST

    ALSO,

    by manifestchaos

    I believe you meant 'chillun' or perhaps some variation thereof. Chillin' is chilling.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 3:05 a.m. CST

    Quint, Are the any post-punk looking dudes in modified sports ge

    by rock_n_roll_jesus

    Because I'm concerned. Nothing ruins a good post apocalyptic thriller like some post-punk tweaker in modified football pads. It just screams costume design department to me. How does The Road hold up in that respect?

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 3:06 a.m. CST

    Ray Gamma . . .

    by Mullah Omar

    Are you confusing the USA with Japan? Or Bollywood? Or EuroVision? <br> <br> Regardless, I don't know why anyone would be proud of their tradition of misery. Then again, I never jumped on the emo bandwagon, and I avoid the strain of French films where people argue in a kitchen for 90 minutes. And I know these both play big - not just in the dimmer parts of the EU, but in hipster-saturated areas of the USA.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 3:08 a.m. CST

    so, is it like Fallout 3 or not?

    by lavatory love machine

    because that would be cool

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 3:12 a.m. CST

    Viggo for the part of the Gunslinger!!

    by Marxeffect

    Perfect!

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 3:24 a.m. CST

    Viggo looks like The Naked Cowboy guy from Times Square...

    by ZombieHeathLedger

    in this pic, except, y'know, with clothes. Viggo is a great actor, I'll give anything he's in a looksee.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 3:29 a.m. CST

    the book was boring

    by DioxholsterReturns

    i imagine the movie will be the same

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 3:32 a.m. CST

    Esquire called it "the Most Important Movie of the Year"

    by LoneGun

    I've been looking forward to this film more than any other coming out in 2009. The book left me with a huge lump in my throat. And Hillcoat's previous film, THE PROPOSITION, still haunts me. He seems like the perfect director for this. Viggo Mortensen is on an unbelievably hot streak right now. THE ROAD is just primed for greatness.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 3:49 a.m. CST

    Love to see Viggo play a...

    by DC Films

    ...Daniel Craig Bond nemesis, in the Robert Shaw vein.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 4:28 a.m. CST

    QUINT

    by mwhyntie

    Did you watch THE LONG GOODBYE? Fuck, that is a great movie, should write about that, there's a lot to say. Altman was a smart fucker, probly my favourite movie.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 4:31 a.m. CST

    The Road (to nowhere)

    by criticalbliss

    The Road sucked. Repetitive, didactic, and miserablist, it suffered from a lack of plot and internalization. The theme was wafer-thin, the characterization nonexistent, and the dialogue monochromatic (everyone speaks the same in McCarthy world). Basically, McCarthy is a ham and a hack. Granted, the film could still work if it improves on the novel's shortcomings and/or deepens the thematic undercurrents and the characters that inhabit this nihilistic bullshit universe. I do hope it IS good. There are moments when McCarthy really shines, but as a whole his novels are underwhelming and maddening experiences with little insight into the human condition. Furthermore, let's be honest and admit that this has been done before--by better authors... <p> That is all.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 4:35 a.m. CST

    CannibalRape does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    The wasteland is ruled by Cannibal Rapists? Makes you look more fondly on the days when Humongous ruled the wasteland.<p> 'I don't know whether to ear you or fuck you... What the hey, i'll do both!'

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 4:40 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Does Viggo kill a bunch of bad guys and kick some cannibal rapist ass in this film? Or is it not that sort of film?<p> Please don't tell me the cannibal rapists win?!! Because I like a film where the villains get their comeuppance, otherwise you walk out of the theatre feeling all uneasy and troubled.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 4:45 a.m. CST

    Cobra--Kai

    by Continentalop

    I take it you have not read the book. <P> Without giving anything away, very few of the Cannibal Rapist get any sort of comeuppance. But if the movie is as good as the book, go see it; you are in for a very thought provoking experience.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 4:54 a.m. CST

    Favorite "parent mercy kills young child" scenes

    by JackRabbitSlim

    and, seemingly unlike in 'The Road', these misguided daddies and mommies succeed in sendeing junior off to NeverNever Land. <p> 'The Mist' - Big bad bugs threaten Thomas Jane and friends, including his adorable moppet of son. Shoots them all - no bullets for Daddy - whooops - soldiers rescue him. <p> 'The Rapture' - Mommy Mimi Rogers becomes BibleBeater whacko - convinced end-of-world is coming - when *gasp* it doesnt arrive - Colt 45s adorable daughter BUT ... doesnt shoot herself. Naughty Mimi. <p> Damn, I know there's more. Oh well. Movie sounds interesting. And as I remember, 'All the Pretty Horses' was tanked because Billy Bob presented a 4 and 1/2 hour cut to the brothers Weinstein who refused to release it and chopsockied it into the thing we all saw.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 4:54 a.m. CST

    criticalbliss

    by Continentalop

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I will say that I disagree with you about the Road or Cormac McCarthy. <P> And it generally has been my experience that when people criticize other works of art for offering "little insight into the human condition" no little about humanity and have very little life experience. Not everything can be an uplifting tale like Rudy.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 4:55 a.m. CST

    Correction

    by Continentalop

    KNOW little about humanity. <P> On that note I realize it is late - time for bed.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 5:04 a.m. CST

    Hey critical bliss

    by goatboy500

    how many pulitzers have you won? oh, okay, shut the fuck up then. go back to writing your gay ronald weasley fan stories. McCarthy is neither a ham or a hack. Repetitive? Miserablist? A story centering on a father and son travelling ALONE on a bleak post apocalyptic landscape where there are only a few survivors left and NOTHING ELSE in the search for refuge. Chuh, that would be repetitive and miserablist then. What would you prefer? A plucky talking animal sidekick and a sugar coated moral lesson where we all just learn to get along? The road haunted me for days, and its not even my favourite McCarthy book. That would be Blood Meridian, which TIME magazine called the 2nd greatest book of the 20th century. You wouldn't like it though, the ending isn't administered via enema, so you have to use your brain. You know, books and shit. Yeah.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 5:05 a.m. CST

    The irony of Hannah Montana? Directed by a Brit

    by JackRabbitSlim

    Peter Chelsom to be precise. <p> Seriously, folks, "Euros are this" - "Americans are that" - generalizations are crude and notoriously inaccurate. We can do better.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 5:11 a.m. CST

    "...little insight into the human condition..."

    by LoneGun

    McCarthy"s NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN offered tons of "insight into the human condition" and where its leading our society. And THE ROAD is a Great survival tale - not just about the survival of life, but the survival of human dignity and kindness in a world without morality.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 5:14 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Conti, no not read the book. But if there's as much as one cannibal rapist left alive when I walk out of the theatre then i'll be double-locking my door when I go to bed and sleeping with a loaded gun under the pillow.<p> Cannibal rapists scare me man. They just scare me.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 5:23 a.m. CST

    My only question SPOILER

    by David Cloverfield

    SPOILER SPOILER If the movie has the baby on a stick or not. That was the point of no return to me in the book, I didn't put it down till I finished it. Then I took a shower.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 5:33 a.m. CST

    Cobra--Kai, all I can tell you is

    by Continentalop

    That you might want to sleep with a shotgun nearby (better weapon to use against cannibal rapist). <P> Plus they don't like the term "rape" or "cannibal." They prefer the term "Surprise anthropophagus sex."

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 5:51 a.m. CST

    Omar Little....

    by Karl Childers

    is going to OWN this movie.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 6:07 a.m. CST

    I met Viggo after work at a bar. Coolest fuckin' dude.

    by Crimson King

    The night the Chicago International Film Festival ended, I guess Good was the closing film. There's this bar by my work we always go to. Well, this particular night, he was there. I got to talk to him a little bit about The Road. He was totally fucking cool. My biggest regret is not getting there earlier, 'cause I'm almost certain he'd've had a drink with me.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 6:20 a.m. CST

    Would like to know...

    by Aaronthenia

    what Mccarthy thinks of the movie. I would like to hear what (if any) of his input was. The novel was so great and shows an author at his top form. This is a film where in my opinion studio notes should not exist.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 6:35 a.m. CST

    JackRabbitSlim RE: All The Pretty Horses

    by Droid

    There's a three hour plus cut out there in the ether that seems unlikely to see the light of day. <p>As the story goes, the Fucksteins Scissorhands'd Billy Bobs version and in doing so the score was replaced (using another composer). Billy Bob apparently wants to release a DC but will only do so if he can use the original score. Unfortunately Daniel Lanois, the original composer, owns the rights to his score and refuses to allow it to be used, because he felt insulted or somesuch. <p>Which is unfortunate because you can see the potential of a great flick in the version of ATPH that was released.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 6:37 a.m. CST

    "Every girlfriend I’ve had started with a movie"

    by Dead Megatron

    So, every girlfriend you evert had was IMAGINARY? I mean, in the aforementioned PURPLE ROSE OF THE CAIRO-style

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 6:58 a.m. CST

    Conti, it pains me to disagree, but...

    by spud mcspud

    I HATED that book. What was the point of it?? The humanity? Well, I read all that sort of stuff in better books such as I AM LEGEND. And just because Viggo tries to keep his son alive and tries to tell him not ALL people are bad, well that's not enough. I'll give you the literary style - the book is written in very sparse sentences, very descriptive and completely cut to the bone, which helped bring out the desolation he was describing. But isn't that the literary version of fretwanking? In the end, THE ROAD was just a massively depressing, grisly apocalypse novel that DID outline quite a touching relationship - which McCarthy then completely derailed with that "Carrying the fire" stuff.<P> "Carrying the fire"... Bruce Joel Rubin would have been embarrassed by how saccharine-sweet THAT concept is. And criticalbliss is right in that nothing really happened - what's the point of reading, in excruciatingly miserable detail, how a man falls apart bit by bit as he scavenges and tries to teach his son how to survive and then occasionally meets other humans, only for something devastating and more miserable to happen every time?<P> And the ending smacks of wish fulfilment too. Honestly, George Miller would have rejected it for being too boring, Richard Curtis would have found that ending too convenient, and even Bruce Joel Rubin would have found it too schmaltzy.<P> I DID consider, I might have hated the novel because of the profound depression it gave me for days after reading it. But no... it's another literary case of the Emperor's New Clothes, and it's getting plaudits for being - essentially - all the boring bits of THE STAND and SURVIVORS rammed together, with an ending on it that John Hughes would have found too much.<P> Sorry, I HATED that book. Most over-rated read of the year. For those of you who enjoyed it - have at it, hope ya like the movie. I'll be avoiding this like whatever plague it is that decimates the Earth.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 6:59 a.m. CST

    Can't wait for Mr Nice Gaius coments

    by AsimovLives

    That guy is a master jedi in all things Cormac McCarthy.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 7:02 a.m. CST

    HOUSTON500

    by spud mcspud

    Fucking hell! Elitist much? I bet you hate graphic novels too, 'cos comics are for KIDS, yeah!<P> It's a pointless fucking novel, end of. An apocalyptic novel that tells you it might be grim and depressing to survive an apocalypse??<P> do you think Cormac McCarthy even WATCHES post-apocalyptic movies?? He took several hundred pages to tell us something we see in EVERY single post-apocalypse movie - it's GRIM AND DEPRESSING. And your point is??<P> Go back to your Sebastian Faulks and Salman Rushdie, convince the world of what a beret-wearing fucking merlot drinking high-falutin' intellectual you are. Fucking elitists...

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 7:08 a.m. CST

    Cobra-Kai

    by spud mcspud

    Nowhere near as much fighting hapens in the book as you'd think. It's full of stuff like the Dad finding a can of Coke in an abandoned drinks maching, giving some to his Son, then the Son telling him "Dad, you said you'd not do that,", and the Dad agreeing, taking a swig, then mentally berating himself for letting his grim survivalist worldview get overshadowed for a second by concern for his son, when he's trying to show him how to survive. Then he beats himself mentally for several pages more, then back to two or three chapters of sifting through ash for anything usable, with many conversations between Dad and Son that are so soul-crushingly depressing that you find yourself, at the end of the novel, wanting to kill YOURSELF so you'd never have to endure such a Godforsaken life if the Earth did burn as it does in the novel.<P> It's far and away the most depressing novel ever written, and there's barely any action in it AT ALL. Sound like your thing?? Not mine....

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 7:08 a.m. CST

    Spud U Like

    by savagedave

    "An apocalyptic novel that tells you it might be grim and depressing to survive an apocalypse??"<p>You think that's all it was?

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 7:10 a.m. CST

    spud mcspud

    by Droid

    Maybe McCarthy's "point" is that there is no point. <p>We live, we do the best we can to survive, we die. <p>Not every book has to have a "message".

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 7:21 a.m. CST

    Mullah Omar

    by AsimovLives

    Ray Gamma is quite right about what he says. Though i think he used a porr chocie of words when he said "misery".<br><br>So it seems that outside USA, and this include Japan, movie audiences in general are far more adapt to accept a darker movie with tragic endings then our american cousins. Seems audiences outside USa are more ready to watch a movie that might present the harsher, darker aspects of life. Seems the audiences outside USA don't mind to see presented in a movie the misery and darkness and the bad things that exist in this world, or to have fictional worlds created which are darker.<br><br>I'd say that generally speaking, the people from the rest of the world have a more fatalistic view of life and th world, which makes them far more ready to accept grimmer and darker movies, in contrast to the attitudes of most american audiences and even some fellow geeks here at AICN.<br><br>It also passes as how people define escapism itself. For many americans and even fellow geeks at AICN, they seem to think that escapism means happy jolly stories with happy simple endings. Thing is, that is not waht escapism means. Escapism means you are taken out of your daily life world and you get transported into another reality, be they real of fictional. Thus, evne in fictional escapism, there's still way to have it as a dark, grim, harsh story with challenging, unexpected, ambigious and/or tragic endings.<br><br>I hate to go on a manicheist them/us presentation of this subject, but it's undeniable that among most of the american audiences and among the Holylwood studios executives and the majority of american filmmakers, there's this notion that darker movies are not so easy to be accepted and are pretermited over happier one. QWhile it's not as black and white as this, does seem the majority of the american attitude toward movies is in this lines, hurthing the chances to make more serious and darker movies with less happier endings.<br><br>Frankly, i admit that one of the things that most irritates me about a movie is to see a movie which has a forced stucked on late in the production happy ending, when it's beyond obvious that the movie was going into a more darker, grimmer, subtle, ambigous and unhappier ending. This is terribly frustrationg, it's a betrayal of the movie's own narrative logic, and i have witness too many times the collective groans of audiences who watch an artifically stucked happy ending on a story that wasn't headed that way. The groans of people having their intelligence insulted for feebles, shallow, dumb commercial reasons, and a betrayal of their trust as participants and audiences to a story they have watched and payed to do so. I think Holylwood should grow more balls about their movies, and start respecting the audiences. and also start rememberign that there are people outside the USA watching their movies, who many times help their movie get really sucessful, even many time bring more money to them then the domestic audiences. Might be about time that Hollywod, when they design a movie for world consuption, they would also take into consideration what the WORLDWIDE audiences also want and also what they think, and stop this american provincialism that Holywood is still stuck on. Hollywood doesn't make movies just for USA, it makes movies for THE WHOLE WORLD.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 7:35 a.m. CST

    "could never really work...."?? nonsense!

    by FleshMachine

    fucking nonsense...the whole time i read that book imagined how PERFECTLY it could translate to film...all the hypnotic nuances, cadence, language, the repitition etc.. could ABSOLUTLEY be put on film EXACTLY like is was in the book...there is nothing in The Road that is "unfilmable"...to suggest otherwise is apologistic.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 7:39 a.m. CST

    any less than a "best picture" film...

    by FleshMachine

    and they fucked it up. a proper adaptation should be one of the all time great films...the book was brilliant...as should the film. if they did not do this...they fucked it up.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 7:42 a.m. CST

    Spud does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    Spud, thanks for the comments. I think i'll watch the film first, and if it floats my boat I might go on and read the book.<p> However if it's depressing as you say then I doubt if it'll be for me. I like films that make you think but ultimately for me a film has to entertain also. Cannibal rapists and babies on skewers sounds like it'll give me nightmares rather than elucidate me on the human condition.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 8:01 a.m. CST

    "that hit dead center with me"

    by ZombieHeathLedger

    If it had hit dead center with you, Quint, it would have specifically meant that you, too, have bonded with your parents over films like Viggo has with his son or even more "dead center" if you your self had a son. It can't be "dead center" if it's something else entirely like say, bonding with girlfriends or movie friends. That would be relatable to you in a roundabout way but hardly qualify as "dead center," believe me, this is coming from a Father of a son myself, bonding with your son is unlike ANYTHING else in the whole world.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 8:02 a.m. CST

    The book...

    by ScriptCunt

    Ya know, it takes REAL talent to write a book about a post-apocalyptic world filled with cannibals and misery AND bore the hell out of me with it but Mccarthy managed to do it in The Road. It reads more like an overwrought poem than an actual narrative and I guess that worked for most people. Anyway, here's hoping for better things from the film.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 8:11 a.m. CST

    savagedave

    by spud mcspud

    "An apocalyptic novel that tells you it might be grim and depressing to survive an apocalypse??"<P> You think that's all it was?<P> Nope, I think it was a calculated decision to write the most depressing, miserable and downright horrific book ever written. And he succeeded.<P> As entertainment, of ANY kind, I honestly cannot see the point of it. It was just grim, fucked up, gut-wrenching stuff, and then he stuck on a concept so embarrassing it sounded like something Patrick Swayze could have said to Demi at the end of GHOST. It was awful, pure schmaltz. And it clashed so horribly with the prefectly described horror of the last few hundred pages that it felt like some editor had rammed it in there to relieve the misery.<P> It was just... pointless. And at the end of the book, I didn't feel in any way that I'd gained anything from the experience, except a grudging admiration at his gift for description in very sparse prose. But as entertainment... there is NOTHING to entertain in any way in that book. It's just pure, concentrated misery with a crap ending.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 8:14 a.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by spud mcspud

    I agree with everything you say, and to add to your eloquent post, I submit that this is the very reason that ARMY OF DARKNESS: THE MEDIEVAL DEAD had that Godawful S-Mart ending at the cinemas in the UK in '93 rather than that brilliant PLANET OF THE APES inspired future London ending. Sometimes a non-happy ending doesn't have to mean a BAD ending - sometimes, it's just what you need.<P> Well, except for LOGAN'S RUN. I LIKED that happy ending...

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 8:21 a.m. CST

    Make art not war - douchebag.

    by JuanSanchez

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 8:22 a.m. CST

    About Viggo...

    by quicksilver80

    How was he in Eastern Promises? is it good?

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 8:46 a.m. CST

    You all read the book because of Oprah

    by hst666

    Just admit it, you lterary dilletantes. <p><p> Kidding, but I don't tend to trust books that sell millions of copies. Puts it in the same league as Interview with a Vampire and the DaVinci Code. Could be good.<p><p>Haven't read any McCarthy and I don't need happy endings (love noir) but I did not like the movie version of No Country. I have heard that they changed a few things that might have made the moview hang together better, so I don't know. I will see this and decide whether I should pick up any of his books. Until then, I'll stick to my Eco, Updike, Chandler, Greene, and Pynchon when I want to read something literary.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 8:47 a.m. CST

    About the novel

    by FluffyUnbound

    I think you can't really compare it to other apocalyptic fiction and say that we've seen the same "grim and depressing" scenario before. McCarthy's amp on that only goes to eleven. I read a lot of apocalyptic stuff, but he understands better than anyone else exactly how mankind would cling to life if the food chain went down, and how every last scrap of substance would be hunted down and consumed, with the most drawn-out agony possible. I was shocked by how clear it was to him and how clear he made it. And I also think that the repetition is kind of the point. To me, the novel is an elaborate exercise in contrast. The grinding, endless series of grim sequences is presented to set you up for a single scene, basically a single paragraph, at the end when he writes about trout in a mountain stream, and the horror of what has been lost is piledrived into you like a speeding freight train of grief. But I still don't really see how they can do the same thing in film, although I'm curious to see how they try.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 8:51 a.m. CST

    quiksilver80 re: Eastern Promises

    by ZombieHeathLedger

    Viggo was good, Eastern Promises was not. I felt the same about Appaloosa, Viggo good, movie overall? bad.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 9:01 a.m. CST

    quicksilver80...EASTERN PROMISES...

    by FlickaPoo

    ...I liked it a lot. Viggo's performance impressed me in particular...a complete transformation from more recent roles...but without makeup, no dramatic wardrobe to rely on and no full retard...just a completely different person through body language and presence...I was impressed.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 9:05 a.m. CST

    hst666

    by savagedave

    No I read it because of Blood Meridian, which is still the most astounding thing I've ever read. I strongly recommend checking it out.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 9:07 a.m. CST

    I've never bitched about the writing on this site,

    by AlienDragQueen

    but can you at least give a blurb about the premise for those who've never heard of the Road? I clicked on the link because I'm a Viggo fan, but the only bits and pieces of the plot are sprinkled throughout the article, and it was clearly written for people who are familiar with the book. Just sayin'

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 9:10 a.m. CST

    ...and quicksilver80...

    by FlickaPoo

    ...don't listen to ZombieHeath, EASTERN PROMISES is probably a debatable sort of film...it might do it for you or it might not, but it's well worth seeing...Cronenberg never makes movies that can be dismissed casually like that.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 9:24 a.m. CST

    Holy crap! Hillcoat directed The Proposition?!

    by Jaka

    I had no idea. I absolutely LOVE that film. And thanks Quint - that's exactly what I was looking for. Something to temper all the praise. Juno wasn't perfect, either, but I still love it. If UITA comes close to that I'll be most pleased.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 9:27 a.m. CST

    FlickaPoo

    by quicksilver80

    You're right about Cronenberg, I loved A History of Violence...I'll have to check Appaloosa too.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 9:41 a.m. CST

    Classy guy

    by pumaman

    Viggo is a phenomenal actor and a true artist. I heard recently that he was thinking of quitting acting ! I really hope this isn't true.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 9:50 a.m. CST

    Anyone who would claim...

    by we_pray_for_mad_skillz

    that I AM LEGEND is a "better book" than THE ROAD is obviously a complete and utter moron. <p> Sure, McCarthy isn't the world's greatest living writer of fiction, because his book is "depressing." Great reasoning there. <p> Then, just call anyone with half a brain an "elitist" and you're home free. Totally solid thinking. I can tell that you're quite literate. <p> That's sarcasm by the way, since I'm positive that you'd never be able to tell yourself, given the apparently low level of your reading comprehension skills. <p> You sound like a Sarah Palin supporter.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 9:57 a.m. CST

    recap of the tribute

    by Series7

    And they didn't include any of his stuff from the The Prophecy? Are you fucking kidding me? The shit he said in that movie was awesome! <P> I can lay you out and fill your mouth with your mother's feces, or we can talk.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 9:59 a.m. CST

    we_pray_for_mad_skillz

    by hst666

    But does The Road have a point? Also, I tend to find the best tragedies have moments of humor as well. It helps define the ultimate tragedy. I do plan to see the film. Just asking.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 10:03 a.m. CST

    we_pray_for_mad_skillz

    by spud mcspud

    Yeah, that Richard Matheson's a real slouch in comparison to McCarthy. It's not like he's one of the most significant sci-fi authors of all time or anything. Oh... wait...<P> And what else is THE ROAD but depressing? Because the only evidence of that "hope" we're all clinging to in the morass of misery that is THE ROAD comes courtesy of the single most glaringly schmaltzy sequence of the novel.<P> "Are you carrying the fire?"<P> Are you fucking serious??<P> You REALLY don't think that whole concept is more than a bit John Hughes? Or Richard Curtis? I mean, from the grim, grinding reality of THE ROAD we're left with "Are you carrying the fire?". And that doesn't, in any way, seem convenient, cheesy, or nakedly emotionally manipulative (in a bad Hollywood script way, not in a worthy literary way as the entire rest of the novel is written) to you?<P> For fuck's sake. You probably think the denoument of GHOST was a work of spectacular emotional truth, and that THE TIME TRAVELLER'S WIFE has aq better ending in the movie than the book. How you can accept that Godawful segment towards the end of the novel, given what has gone before, doesn't just mark you out as someone who doesn't see what the problem is with that, but just a moron in general. The novel and that segment DO NOT FIT - stylistically, thematically, however you want to look at it.<P> THE ROAD has a happy ending tacked onto it with all the finesse of Lt Andie MacDowall saying "Is it raining? I hadn't noticed" at the end of FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL. Ron Howard would have thought it too much. And I can't BELIEVE it's getting a free pass from you guys. Yeeeeesh...<P> Oh, and the elitist thing was aimed at HOUSTON500, a guy who likes to throw around stuff like "how many pulitzers have you won? oh, okay, shut the fuck up then. go back to writing your gay ronald weasley fan stories". And you DON'T think he sounds like an elitist?<P> Get back on your high horse and move on, son. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 10:06 a.m. CST

    Looking forward to it

    by jimmy_009

    This and Wild Things are my two most anticipated movies. Cool to hear he takes his kid to every shitty event movie that comes out. Once my son was old enough to see movies in the theater my standard for seeing one wasn't "is it good?" but "will HE enjoy it." Glad to see dads are the same all over.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 10:08 a.m. CST

    I don't think The Road has a happy ending...

    by quicksilver80

    It's kind of sad, sprinkled with a little hope, at least for me.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 10:12 a.m. CST

    quicksilver80

    by spud mcspud

    It just kind of jarred for me, at least after what happened with the old man/drifter, then the thief, then the ship, and the cottage in the woods (which I will NEVER forget - that sequence is ingrained in my nightmares). There's virtually no hope in the rest of the novel, excepting the flashes of humanity the Man keeps having (and which he keeps from the Son, who gets where he's coming from regardless), so for it to suddenly pop up where it does, right where WE need to see it... Too convenient. It made me feel like I did when you saw the son at the door at the end of Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS - GAAAHHH! Why not keep the courage of your convictions and have it be bleak to the bitter end??!

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 10:13 a.m. CST

    spud mcspud

    by AsimovLives

    I have rarely been accused of eloquence much before.<br><br>Yes, in some occasions, an happy ending is the right ending for a movie. Movies like True Romance, Sense and Sensebility, Amelie and Slumdog Millionaire earned their happy endings, because they were forestalled through the movie. This is an important thing, a movie has to EARN it's happy ending, or else it's just a shameless cheap attempt at audience's manipulation for the same of greedy commercialism.<br><br>Yes, sometimes an happy ending is the ending that a story merits. But it has to earn it. And most times, they don't, or they get the wrong happy ending, a dumbified one.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 10:14 a.m. CST

    EASTERN PROMISES

    by Series7

    Came off as a good piolet episode to an HBO tv show that never got made.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 10:15 a.m. CST

    Spud McSpud

    by jimmy_009

    I didn't think that the fire thing was cheesy at all. Having a son myself I could see that as something a dad might say so that his son would understand. Good dads talk to their sons (and daughters I guess) about what it is to be a good person. I know I do. Since I'm not religious I talk in terms of good guys, bad guys, heroes, etc. I don't know if you have kids, but I doubt you'd be talking to them in finely veiled metaphors for the human condition. You'd talk to them in ways they can relate to and understand. I think that's what you're not considering in your analysis.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 10:17 a.m. CST

    The ending

    by jimmy_009

    That was in no way a happy ending. (spoiler) there's nothing to say that the group that finds him at the end doesn't get eaten the very same day. In all likelihood that group won't make it very far. Maybe one or two will survive the year. There's nothing happy about the ending because nothing about the environment they're in has changed one bit.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 10:17 a.m. CST

    The Road HAS a point

    by AsimovLives

    That it's important to retain the best elements of our own human nature, things like love, dedication and devotion, to remain humane even when things have gone to hell. Specially when things have gone to hell. That's the point of the novel. i know that and i haven't even read the book or watched the movie. It completly puzzles and boggles my mind that people who have read the book or seen the movie and could not figured that out. Some people read and watch movies and they just don't.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 10:21 a.m. CST

    "CARRYING THE FIRE" = MAKES SENSE IN THE BOOK

    by Mullah Omar

    SPOILERS <br> <br> I don't see how that language as something you can reasonably attack. It is dialogue. The father is talking to what I presumed to be a 5-7 year old kid. How do you and people you know explain complicated concepts to little kids? You'll note that when the kid uses the "carry the fire" line on the veteran at the end, the veteran calls it out as being kind of freaky, so if you want acknowledgment that it sounds bizarre, there you go, a character IN THE STORY ITSELF calls out the phrase/concept as weird. <br> <br> END SPOILERS

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 10:21 a.m. CST

    Spud

    by quicksilver80

    I understand your point. Collateral comes to mind. Come on, a taxi driver beating a stone cold ex military assassin?!? I'm still waiting for the alternate ending. But the ending in The Road worked for me.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 10:22 a.m. CST

    we_pray_for_mad_skillz

    by AsimovLives

    Two rights do not make a wrong. I Am Legend and The Road are both excelent books. Both can exist as great books. Some people just prefer one over the other. and to dismiss I Am Legend as mere pulp without any other more high values is nonsense. I Am Legend is Literature with a capital L.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 10:29 a.m. CST

    quicksilver80

    by AsimovLives

    Throughout the entire movie Collateral there's this constant reminder, throught the plot, that luck is incredibly important factor for our lives and how things work out. At the end, when Jamie Foxx mannages to shoot Tom Cruise dead, he does not because Foxx he suddently outskilled Cruise, but because he lucked out. Events such as that, lucky moments happening throughtout the movie, sell on that concept. If there's a point in that movie, it's that.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 10:31 a.m. CST

    Asimov

    by quicksilver80

    I guess you're right, but I was rooting for Cruise anyway, as I was rooting for Jackman in The Prestige...

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 10:41 a.m. CST

    Quint, you came through big time with this review

    by YackBacker

    What a great recap of your evening and an excellent on-point review as well. Professional.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 10:43 a.m. CST

    quicksilver80

    by AsimovLives

    Rooting for Cruise in Colateral? He's a fucking psychopath, an heartless killer. He would had cap one in the head of Foxx had he had it all done his way. He was the fucking villain. Charismatic, yes, sympathetic, no.<br><br>Same way for Hugh Jackman in The Prestige, he's the movie villain. Of couse, since Christopher Nolan is no hack (unlike that Jar Jar Abrams pussy ass shit), he made the villain interesting, three-dimentional, human and charismatic, and as a slight of hand, had the villain had more screentime then the true hero of the story, Fallon (the other twin could be also considered as the movie's other villain).

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 10:45 a.m. CST

    Variety trashed this film...

    by TheWaqman

    which had me slightly scared. But it's a fucking Hillcoat film with Viggo Mortensen as the lead. This just can't be a bad film. And also I loved the book.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 10:46 a.m. CST

    YackBacker

    by AsimovLives

    I hear ya. It kinda almost makes me want to try to forget Quint's misguided positive reviews for Transformers 1 and Jar Jar Abrams's Shit Trek.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 10:46 a.m. CST

    Eastern Promises.....

    by TheWaqman

    was by no means a bad film at all. It was an extremely entertaining mob-fantasy film. Mortensen and Cassell were great, they were both hilarious and brutal. Also Watts was solid as always.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 10:46 a.m. CST

    I just want...

    by quicksilver80

    The villain to win once in a while...what's wrong with that?

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 10:48 a.m. CST

    I wish they made an Eastern Promises-like TV show....

    by TheWaqman

    for HBO. Russia Mafia is infinitely more interesting than all of the shows on there now. Even True Blood.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 10:50 a.m. CST

    EASTERN PROMISES

    by Mullah Omar

    ...was a very interesting film that skipped a complicated third act and went straight to a conclusion. I'd love to see some kind of sequel where they explained what happened during that gap. I liked the film, but the structure made it a bit of a disappointment in that it skipped what would have been some of the best stuff.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 10:55 a.m. CST

    TheWaqman

    by AsimovLives

    If Variety, a rag whose only concern is box office, trashed the movie, that's good news for me then, it means the movie is good. Variety are the same losers who gave Jar Jar Abrams's Shit Trek rave reviews. This is really good news, there's all indications that The road is really a god movie. Being trashed by clueless money-obsessed idiots is always good news.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 10:57 a.m. CST

    quicksilver80

    by AsimovLives

    There's nothing wrong in wanting a villain to win once in a while in a movie. But that's not an happy ending.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 11 a.m. CST

    Eastern Promises

    by AsimovLives

    It's the kind of movie where you can see the intelligence and talent of a director elevating it to a muich higher level had the movie been directed by the usual director joe. Cronenberg, with the help of the excelent cast and a very solid no-nonsense script, made the movie be about more things then what meets the eye.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 11:36 a.m. CST

    Final Conversation

    by Anakin722

    I loved The Road, one of the best books I've ever read. *SPOILER ALERT!!* The final conversation between The Boy and The Man, especially the last line that The Man says to The Boy, just destroyed me when I read it, and it still gets to me every time. For those looking for a them to the book, that final line is the theme. Or at least I think so. Jesus I hope it's in the movie.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 11:44 a.m. CST

    New Movie Clips

    by Mr. Guy

    Hey, I just saw 5 clips posted on traileraddict. Maybe aintitcool already mentioned something about that and I missed it, but big deal. They showed a little bit of the cellar scene, and I'm still cleaning the shit I sprayed all over my office immediately after I saw it. Anyway, here's the link: http://www.traileraddict.com/tags/the-road

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 11:49 a.m. CST

    BUT DOES IT HAVE BABY BBQ??!

    by HoboCode

    No baby bbq. No see.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 11:54 a.m. CST

    The Road...

    by STLost

    Good book. Should make an interesting movie. If moviegoers haven't read the book then they'll probably be in for a shock when they see the film. Really depressing. <p> Catching up on movies I haven't seen by getting them free at the library..... <p> The Dark Knight - very good movie, but I prefer "Batman Begins" to this one. <p> Iron Man - I don't get all the hoopla over this one. It was so-so. Robert Downey Jr. played the role very well.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, noon CST

    spud mcspud

    by Nerd_Rage_Retard_Strength

    ugh. did you really have to be the guy who calls people an elitist? fuck, i hate that meaningless word and i've been seeing it thrown around a lot on this site lately.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 12:13 p.m. CST

    EASTERN PROMISES (spoilers)

    by ZombieHeathLedger

    Guys, gimme a break. I love me some Cronenberg but EASTERN PROMISES was a real let down. I mean, as I said, Viggo was great (though his accent got a bit Boris and Natasha for me at times) but the supposed climactic ending when Viggo has to stop the blubbering, bad son from throwing the baby into the water when they are only like five feet from him? There was never a doubt they were going to get the baby back. Bleh. Cronenberg has made some GREAT films, Videodrome, The Fly, A History of Violence but sorry, comparatively speaking, Eastern Promises falls well below all of those. I agree with Series 7, Eastern Promises would've made an awesome HBO series but it was a miss for me. Just my two cents.<br> <br> And as for COLLATERAL, I think that's Cruise's best work. You do find yourself rooting for him even tho he's the villain. I love that movie. I think it's one of Mann's best as well.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 12:28 p.m. CST

    Cruise is a better actor than Brad Pitt...

    by TheWaqman

    too bad he's also a nutty unlikeable guy though. Complete opposite of Pitt. Magolia, 4th of July and Collateral are my favorite performances from him.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 12:29 p.m. CST

    Eastern Promises wasn't...

    by TheWaqman

    an amazing Cronenberg film. But it was still solid. And entertaining. Cassell was hilarious. That ice cream line killed me.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 12:31 p.m. CST

    God, I hope this movie is as good as the book...

    by The Dum Guy

    <br><br>The one book of McCarthy's that I would love to see made into a movie(s) would be Blood Meridian.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 12:53 p.m. CST

    Asimov

    by Toonol

    "Hollywood doesn't make movies just for USA, it makes movies for THE WHOLE WORLD."<p> There's a good reason you say Hollywood makes movies for the WHOLE WORLD. If it made them with dismal European art sensibilities, it WOULDN'T. Hollywood dominates the industry world-wide; whatever criticism you level at it, and it deserves some criticism, it's appealing to a hell of a lot more people than France's film industry.<p> Whatever you think of America's Hollywood, something about it WORKS. Your complaint smacks of "The food is terrible, and the portions too small."

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 1:05 p.m. CST

    Good analysis jimmy_009

    by KillDozer

    As someone who also has a young son, I didn't think the fire thing was cheesy either. Rang true to me. Use language that your kid is going to understand.<p>I read this book before and after I had a son, and this book really affected me in a different way the second time. Pretty much from the second he appeared on the scene I've been struggling with the awesome responsibility of helping to mold the mind of this tiny little person. And I've got help and plenty of positive examples to follow. In The Road, here's a father truly alone in a world where goodness and decency are words that, for the most part, don't even exist outside a dictionary anymore and yet he is still struggling to teach his son that those words have meaning. Powerful stuff, IMO.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 1:16 p.m. CST

    Carey Mulligan? as in 'Sally Sparrow'? What? Where?

    by BiggusDickus

    Show me now!

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 1:19 p.m. CST

    Toonol

    by AsimovLives

    What works massively well for Holylwood is the backstage politics that allowed them to became the biggest film market since the mid 70s. Holylwood is not big because they produce better movies, it's big because of backstage handlings and politics, and the fact Hollywood can get more money to produce movies then any other movie industry there is. That's it.<br><br>And by "dismal European art sensibilities" you must mean making movies unaffraid to have femmaler action heroes in the lead roles, unaffraid to have bleak mood, unaffraid to make challenging and unconventional endings even for the blockbusters, unaffraid to go for broke and tell the story all the way through to it's logical clnclusion instead of goig for the ending that has the most votes from a test screening audience, unaffraid to tackle harsh real life subjects without stupid glossy, unaffraid to make fantasy movies with a twist and draker mood, unaffraid to put unsympathetic but very interesting characters as the lead, unaffraid to show sex in a good light, unaffraid to show sex as a natural and good thing, unaffraid to challenge the rules of narrative and make experimentation (which 25 years later Holywood will finally catch on), unaffraid to use special effects judicially instead of shoving it all in an attempt to disguise the fact the story sucks (aka, the typical Hollywood way), unaffraid to present stories from other cultures and with character speaking in their own native language with subtitles, unaffraid to show the true face of the world and the people outside the borders... the lsit could go on. By "dismal European art sensibilities", you could just mean the very things that can make an european or Japanese, korean, australian and asian movie better then the Hollywood produced ones.<br><br>If your rant post was you having a fit because you are so thin-skinned you cann0t see any moderatly criticism of anything from your country, and in this case, Hollywood bullshit, allow me to give you this advise, friend: get some backbone, will you? That over-reactive pseudo-patriotic emo bullshit will do you no good.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 1:23 p.m. CST

    What makes Hollywood work? Backstage politics

    by AsimovLives

    People who think Hollywood has a prevalence over all other movie industries in the world is due to quality products, they are completly and totally misguided. I could just compare the ebst form Holylwood form the best from Korea alone to prove how dumbified and disrespectful to audiences the vast majority of Hollywood's products are. I still can't believe that true talented and unconventional guys like Christopher Nolan and work and thrive there. And that occasionally, a mvoie like The Road mannages to get produced. The exceptions that proves the rule.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:36 p.m. CST

    QUINT

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Thanks for pulling through with this write-up, sir. Your thoughts on the film (while mercifully short of specific details) are enough to make me feel better about Variety's bizarre evisceration. I've got a feeling that this film will not be for everyone. But if folks are willing to give it a shot and think about the fable and its characters, I think (and I hope) the film will be a rewarding experience.<P>That being said, I have watched both Duvall's scene and the one with Dillahunt. I have to say, they both looked pretty damn spot on. However, now that I have these initial impressions, I almost feel like I've seen the film already. But I guess that's a result of how vivid McCarthy's imagery is in my head.<P>Bring on October 16th.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:37 p.m. CST

    FluffyUnbound

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Great post, sir. I couldn't have said it better myself.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:41 p.m. CST

    Spud mcspud

    by Continentalop

    I'm not going to try to change your mind, but for me the "carrying the fire" message worked. It has actually been a recurring theme in other McCarthy books (Blood Meridian and especially No Country for Old Men). An intentionally ambiguous image, I always took it as McCarthy's metaphor for hope, for the possibility of a better future and as the guiding principles of morality and how someday they will lead us. <P>

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:43 p.m. CST

    RE: criticalbliss

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Try not to be too harsh on this guy. Apparently, he runs some sort of online book clubs or something and feels that he is a sort of expert on characterization and "miserablist" authors. While I don't hold his opinion on THE ROAD (or McCarthy for that matter) against him, I find his efforts at critiquing it/him to be complete subjective and, in some cases, wildly off the mark. Needless to say, I completely disagree with his statements.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:44 p.m. CST

    Robert Duvall shoulda won for The Apostle, dammit!

    by SoylentMean

    I'll harp on that forever. Fuck the Academy Awards.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:45 p.m. CST

    spud mcspud

    by empty_syzygy

    Wow. It's obvious you completely missed the point of the book. To dismiss it as totally bleak and dark is silly. The whole novel is filled with moments between the father and son which illustrate the goodness of humanity. Just because the setting and circumstances are grim doesn't mean this novel is a pointless exorcise in blackness. What it is is perhaps the most fully realized notion of how people would behave in extreme circumstances. Further, to say that it had a cheesy, tacked on happy ending is idiotic. The father DIES in the end. How is this happy??? The son is faced with living and surviving with a bunch of strangers he doesn't even know if he can trust. Also, to say it was a matter of convenience is wrong as if you were paying attention during the course of the book there are many instances where it is hinted that other people are following the father and son. So really they don't just happen upon these characters. Anyways, who am I to defend a pulitzer prize winning author who also wrote Blood Meridian, NCFOM, and Child of God, among others. Saying he is a hack is simply ignorance. He's been deemed great in the court of public opinion time and again. Sorry if his writing is challenging and difficult, it can't all be Stevie King.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:47 p.m. CST

    The Dum Guy / BLOOD MERIDIAN

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    I've brought this up in Talkback several times - BLOOD MERIDIAN is no longer in Sir Ridley Scott's hands. It is being written and directed by Todd Field (IN THE BEDROOM and LITTLE CHILDREN). With the exception of a few trades, this somehow slipped by most of the online community. I found it to be a fascinating development as I wasn't sure Scott's more commercial tendencies would be a good fit.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:50 p.m. CST

    HoboCode

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Uh, word is there won't be a baby BBQ. Although I would like to have the shock of that moment intact (I think it would scare the bejeezus out of John Q. Public), I hardly think that's a legitimate reason to NOT see the film.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:52 p.m. CST

    Todd Field directing Blood Meridian??!!!

    by TheWaqman

    OMG Hell yeah! Nothing against Ridley Scott or Russell Crowe but neither would be a good fit for this book.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:53 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by Continentalop

    You do realize what Abrams is to Star Trek, Nolan is to Batman? He added something that was not in the comics or earlier versions of the character: a completely soap operatic love story that and gave him teenage angst instead of staying to true to the Batman character, much like Kirk in the new Star Trek. <P> Also, how unconventional is Nolan? He has made on truly great movie - Memento - but it isn't like he has followed that up with the Godfather, GoodFellas, There Will Be Blood or Fargo. If anything, he is the 90's Robert Zemeckis of this decade - making movies that have the polish of class but not the depth of truly great art. His films are the equivalent of someone calling pool billiards because it makes it seem classier and more respectable. <P> Maybe Inception will change that, but I guess we'll have to wait and see...

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 2:58 p.m. CST

    Yeah, THE ROAD does NOT have a happy ending.

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    And I'm not even referring to the final heartbreaking moments between father and son.<P>If you re-read the final paragraph (as noted by FluffyUnbound), it should be abundantly clear that the world is dead.<P>Gone.<P> Finished.<P>It's over and mankind only ever has/had one shot at making it.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 3:06 p.m. CST

    Spud and the can of coke

    by VylanAntagonist

    Setting aside your largely subjective take on the book as being 'too dark' or bleak, asserting that the novel lacks any insight into post-apocalyptic fiction speaks more to an inability to parse the material than an actual absence of meaning. Your summation of the Coke scene seems to back that up. The father is raising a son when there isn't really any point or context to it anymore. He grapples with why and how for the entire novel and the concept of 'bearing the fire' is his only means of trying to impart concepts to his son in the absence of anything that would reinforce them, their value, or even a reason to continue on. The can of coke is a completely foreign artifact to the Boy, a meaningless legacy of what once was but will never be again. The product, the taste, the world that spawned it- These things are all gone and soon to be forgotten. They are a legacy of a world the Boy never lived in. Letting his son drink most of it had nothing to do with forgetting survivalist instincts and everything to do with being a parent and wanting to give something, anything, to a son being raised in a world of nothing. Even that gift was bittersweet, because he knew it would never be replicated, but he desperately wanted the Boy to have that shared point of reference, that bit of experience and knowledge that would soon be lost to the world forever. The 'conflict' that caused him to grudgingly sip it himself stemmed from the Boy's burgeoning nobility and goodness. The father was succeeding with him, in making him decent in spite of a world that had no place for it. So the Boy wanted his father to share, because it was right and he loved his dad. And so the father shared, because he was honoring that wish, even though what to him it was merely yet another thing once taken for granted, but lost, whereas to his boy, it was something wholly foreign and vital. As a father of three, I keenly and palpably felt the insight in even that brief scene. Maybe this is a book you'll be able to come back to later in life, Spud, and find meaning and truth where you could not previously perceive it.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 3:44 p.m. CST

    The scRoad

    by criticalbliss

    The road was black. Dust and ash were everywhere. <p> The boy woke up beside him. I dreamed about a penguin, the boy said. <p> I know.<p> Dust and ash were everywhere. The world was like a crusted chapel full of mendicant dead. <p> God. God. I hate you God. <p> The road was black.<p> THE END

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 3:44 p.m. CST

    I rest my case...

    by criticalbliss

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 4:02 p.m. CST

    "AICN..."

    by ebonic_plague

    "...now with book trolls."

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 4:06 p.m. CST

    criticalbitch, bitch, bitch

    by Continentalop

    The Road sucks. <P> The Road is depressing. <P> The Road is overrated. <P> I don't understand it so it must be bad. <P> Other people like it, including many authors and critics, so they must be wrong because I don't get it. <P> I can't think of a good argument so I will just put out a bad parody of the Road and miss the nuances of it, such as how the simplicity of language and sparse use of words in the Road is very similar to the Bible. <P> I will just keep harping away, making weak arguments instead of just admitting my criticism is a completely subjective viewpoint. <P> THE END.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 4:16 p.m. CST

    Mr. Nice Gaius, october 16th

    by AsimovLives

    'Nuff said.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 4:16 p.m. CST

    Who would actually PAY to see such depressing shit?

    by zekmoe

    I mean are we all masochists? Let human tragedy, with no positive outcome, unfold before our eyes. THanks, but I'll pass.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 4:21 p.m. CST

    You rest it on what?

    by savagedave

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 4:22 p.m. CST

    Questions zekmoe, what kind of pussy avoid this stuff?

    by Continentalop

    Ok, that is a little glib. But you know the Ancient Greeks, Romans and Shakespeare wrote things called TRAGEDIES where every one dies in the end, and sometimes in horrible ways (OEDIPUS for example) - why is it that modern audiences have to have everything be light and sunny all the time. Sometimes life is tragic and horrible; seems like people live in a state of denial when they avoid that. <p>

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 4:24 p.m. CST

    I'd be interested to see

    by savagedave

    The trailer for Blood Meridian should they ever get it off the ground.<p>Epic shot of desert<p>Stirring strings<p>"IN A WORLD....ONE BOY...MUST SEEK HIS DESTINY" etc etc

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 4:26 p.m. CST

    Continentalop

    by AsimovLives

    Complety wrong about that, my friend. Nolan for Batman was a breath of fresh air, and he helped brough to Batman much respectability. Jar Jar The Shit Abrams, however, he turned Star Trek into a complete retarded stupid dumb idiotic incompetent bad parody bullshit, and robbed it of all it's merits and respectability ot toom it to build since TOS first graced the screens. Nolan and Jar Jar Hack Ass Abrams couldn't be more differents, as filmmakers and regarding the direction a approach to each of their movie franchises. They are as different as true talent (Nolan) and complety untalented bullshit hackdom (the Jar Jar Abrams lying fuck-ass nulity) can be. How this goes unnoticed by some is the kind of uncompreesible stuff that boggles the mind sky high.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 4:26 p.m. CST

    "No good movie is depressing. All bad movies are depressing"

    by Nasty In The Pasty

    Roger Ebert.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 4:29 p.m. CST

    Who the fuck cares if there is not an happy ending!

    by AsimovLives

    What kind of dammaged fragille emo shit personalities are this that cannot take a story with a depressing or unhappy ending? How the fuck people get to be such girly nancy-boys? Get a fucking grip, for fuck's sake! If an unhappy ending disturbes you so much, think like this: IT'S ONLY A MOVIE! And get a pair!

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 4:30 p.m. CST

    BY ODIN'S BEARD, VIGGO LOOKS JUST LIKE THOR!!!

    by BringingSexyBack

    The resemblance is uncanny.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 4:32 p.m. CST

    I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WOULD DO IF A BUNCH OF CANNIBALS

    by BringingSexyBack

    were chasing me down. They can't eat some vegetables?!?!

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 4:34 p.m. CST

    Continentalop

    by dancetothebeatofthelivingdead

    Have to disagree with you on that note, The Dark Knight was a truly great movie. The only thing that held it down from being one of THE greats was the main character and that damn ferry scene. Nolan has shown undeniable promise and just may have a Godfather or a Goodfellas up his sleeve. <br> <br> BTW, it took the Coens 12 years to come up with a Fargo and 23 for NCFOM. Scorcese needed 31 years for Goodfellas, (although he made better films earlier, and Coppola made the Godfather in his 12th year directing. Nolan's first feature, Memento, came out this decade. Have a little patience before you start comparing him to titans.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 4:37 p.m. CST

    Speaking of sad apocalyptic visions...

    by LastOfTheV8Interceptors

    ... just read that some guy named Luca Guadagnino is gonna remake "Suspiria". No lie. Good luck with that. The original was lightning in a bottle my friends.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 4:41 p.m. CST

    This is gonna be TITS!

    by Mariusz

    Hillcoat did a spectacular job on The Proposition. I'm positive this will be the same. I can't wait!

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 4:50 p.m. CST

    The Proposition will make my top 50 list for this decade

    by SoylentMean

    That's a solid, haunting film.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 5:10 p.m. CST

    Mr. Nice Gaius: Scott

    by The Dum Guy

    I wasn't even aware Scott was involved with making the film.<br><br>I just hope whoever gets to make this can stay true to the tone of the novel, it is a really violent and nihilistic compared to most Hollywood films. Of course most of McCarthy's works aren't what most people expect, I'm thinking of all the bitching I heard about the ending of NCFOM, imagine if they made a really faithful film of The Crossing with the books ending, I can only imagine how many people would leave the theatre scratching their heads.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 5:11 p.m. CST

    dancingtothebeatofthelivingdead

    by Continentalop

    True it took the Coens 12 years, but before Fargo they also made Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, Miller's Crossing, and some would argue that Barton Fink qualifies for that as well. And Scorsese did Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, and Raging Bull in his first 12 years (and I will exclude Coppola because he was first shooting movies during a period when Hollywood refused to take any risk or give any chances until the late sixties, and even then people had to fight to get their shot; but I will say “I’m a Big Boy Now” was a bold attempt and he did write the opening scene for Patton, so he should be immortalized for that alone). <P> And while THE DARK KNIGHT might be a great super-hero movie, I wouldn't call it a great movie. Not in the same sense that RAGING BULL or CHINATOWN is (or even EMPIRE STRIKES BACK of RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARC, but that is just a personal opinion). Like you said, the main character and the ferry scene hold it back. Also, it suffers from delusions of pretension; it has “oh so serious” themes, but it plays them against a backdrop of a guy dressed as a giant bat fighting crime. Sorry, but Super-Heroes are power fulfillment fantasies - whenever you have a movie featuring them, it becomes more about living vicariously through Batman and less about what and why he is fighting. Just because us comic book geeks here like super-heroes stories doesn't mean that we can escape the fact that at heart they are childish fantasies, no matter how we present them. Sometimes I think we should take the Joker's words to heart about being so serious. <P> And my point about Nolan is he might someday be a great director, but I think it is a little premature to start calling him that. I do see promise in him, but I also find it annoying how others are already labeling him as this great master. He is so far a good director who has made some good (maybe arguably one great) blockbusters and one great film. Which is something that should be admired and respected, but when people start putting TDK in the same category as GODFATHER or UNFORGIVEN, I have to shake my head. Not only because I don’t think it is as good as those movies, but also because it isn’t the same type of movie as those ones. It only appears to be in the same category, but that is an illusion. It is a the glass lizard of cinema; it appears an “important” epic, but really it is just a super-hero crime thriller that is slighlyg bloated with it’s self inportance. And there is nothing wrong with being a super-hero movie - I just wish Nolan felt the same way instead of trying to hide what it really is. <p> BTW - MEMENTO was his second feature. His first was FOLLOWING, and that is a pretty clever low-budget film.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 5:26 p.m. CST

    Continentalop

    by dancetothebeatofthelivingdead

    Wow, I appreciate the well-thought-out and intelligent response. On an AICN Talkback, you're more likely to see a response of, "You stupid fuck, you just don't get it." <br> <br> I agree with everything you said except for one or two points. First off, labeling TDK a super-hero movie. I believe TDK is one superhero movie that transcemds the genre and if you replaced Batman with a vigilante who wants his identity kept secret, you have the same movie and a totally different repsonse to it. Oh well, to each his own. Also, I simply used the examples that you gave, not meaning to take anything away from the three directors earlier efforts. My point was, Nolan possibly has greatness in him and has shown that potential. Is he great yet? No, but he can be.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 5:27 p.m. CST

    PLEASE GET RID OF THE BAT VOICE!!!!!!

    by BringingSexyBack

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 5:33 p.m. CST

    All bad movies are depressing? REALLY?

    by TakingScorpiosCalls

    tell that to the mst3k guys.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 5:37 p.m. CST

    ONLY NOLAN IS HOLDING HIMSELF BACK

    by BringingSexyBack

    Once he unleashes the fury, ain't nobody gonna stop him.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 5:37 p.m. CST

    Unhappy endings are getting annoying and overrated

    by TakingScorpiosCalls

    It used to be a novelty, Empire Strikes Back being the totempole. But nowadays with so many movies having it, for the sake of having one, gets BORING. I'm so fed up with it at this point. I just remember how Harrison Ford wanted Han to die in Jedi, way too much pot going on there. Thank fuck Lucas did one good thing and stopped that loony idea. YUB NUB YUB NUB YUB NUB. oh and fuck this movie too.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 5:39 p.m. CST

    SPIELBERG MADE JAWS, THEN CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, THEN

    by BringingSexyBack

    1941. The lesson? Don't fuck it up!~!!!!!

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 5:42 p.m. CST

    HAN SOLO *SHOULD* HAVE DIED IN ESB

    by BringingSexyBack

    How fucking annoying was he in ROTJ? Very!

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 5:45 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by Continentalop

    “helped brough(t) to Batman much respectability” Let me think here...<P> Batman has been one of the most popular super-heroes during most of his 70 year publishing span <P> His image has been licensed for numerous toys, games, collectibles and video games <P> There has been at least five cartoons I can think of he has starred in, and that doesn’t even count his appearances in Super Friends or Justice League <P> He has appeared on the big screen in 5 times before Nolan did his first Batman movie, and he also starred in at least one Chapter Serial. <P> And Tim Burton’s Batmn was both a cultural phenomenon and a smash hit, and helped launch the superhero movie as the big genre <P> I would say Batman has brought Nolan much respectability and not the other way around. Before Batman Begins, Nolan was the director of a cult hit Memento (which made $35 million - what most Hollywood films make in their opening weekend in the US alone) and had established himself as a decent director of low and medium budget crime thrillers and neo-noirs. He had yet to prove himself as a box office draw. That was until he did Batman Begins and TDK, which propelled him to the A-list. <p> And the thing is, if Batman Begins had been a bomb WB would still have tried to launch another Batman movie in a decade or two, just like how they will try as soon as this series is done. To think that only Nolan could have somehow helmed this series and made anything remotely this financial successful is absurd - the Batman franchise has already proven to be highly profitable. I find it hard to believe that maybe a David Fincher or a Darren Aronofsky couldn’t have delivered a successful film. Maybe not half a billion, I admit, but they maybe would have made a Batman Begins that was more successful so in the end all things even out. <p> That isn’t to say Nolan hasn’t done a good job - he has - but I would argue that it is the character of Batman and his supporting cast who are the major draws to this film. If someone had chosen a slightly different direction than Nolan there is a good chance the film series would have been just as successful. <P> Also, film is a subjective medium. Personally, I prefer Nolan’s Batman over what I have seen of Abram’s Star Trek. But both are just as open to criticism, especially when they are adapting such well loved and popular characters who’s vans are so well versed in them. Just as you might find it hard to believe people are willing to accept Abram’s Star Trek, I find it just as hard that people are willing to accept a whiny, angst ridden Bruce Wayne. Bruce and Kirk seem to have come from the same melodramatic mold IMO.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 5:46 p.m. CST

    I GOT TO STAY HOME TODAY

    by BringingSexyBack

    My mommy wouldn't let me go to school to listen to the bad pwesident.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 5:46 p.m. CST

    BSB

    by TakingScorpiosCalls

    ubhhhhhhhhh he was just fine.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 5:47 p.m. CST

    I AGREE WITH CONTI

    by BringingSexyBack

    Bale needs to get grittier. And drop the bat voice.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 5:49 p.m. CST

    SPEAKING OF MEMENTO, THAT WAS ONE GRITTY ASS MOVIE

    by BringingSexyBack

    Nolan needs to get back to that place.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 5:53 p.m. CST

    by BringingSexyBack

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 6:38 p.m. CST

    I'm all for a,,,

    by quicksilver80

    bleak, dark, miserable ending...In my head, Hugh Jackman is alive in one of those tanks (The Prestige)

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 8:39 p.m. CST

    5 clips

    by skellngtn

    someone above mentioned these(http://www.traileraddict.com/tags/the-road) and as much as didn't want to see them before Oct. 16, I couldn't resist...spoilers galore if you haven't read the book...the Bad Guys clip has more of "the house of horrors" than in the book. they're virtually all CGI background free clips too. The world looks different than what was in my head from the book, more backwoods PA, less devastated, ash filled Earth.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 8:40 p.m. CST

    I'm An Amish Dude...

    by Rebeck2

    And I'm on a computer at Best Buy. Thanks for the shout-out.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 8:59 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives And Other Such Idiots...

    by Rebeck2

    Shut the fuck up. THE ROAD was written by an American, you fucking douchebag - and it was a hugely celebrated and read book in the US. What does that to your theory about Americans and happy endings? I get so tired of these ridiculous generalizations made about Americans on here. Without fail, they are "theories" that make you feel better about yourself and your country because you are supposedly so much more sophisticated and wise to the melancholy truths of life. Shut. The. Fuck. Up. At least save your arguments for movies that don't DISPROVE your thesis! Fuckin' idiot.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 9:23 p.m. CST

    AMERICA RULES

    by BringingSexyBack

    End of story.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 9:25 p.m. CST

    Asimov Is A Bitch

    by Rebeck2

    I just read the post where you told Toonol how he should lighten up about his country and Hollywood etc. Let me ask: are you Brit by any chance? Because if so, your film industry is a joke. Oops. I didn't offend you, did I? Because it really is a joke. Pathetic really. It has all the health and vitality of a TB ward. And it has Richard Curtis, probably the shittiest writer-director around. THE BOAT THAT ROCKED, there's a great non-Hollywood movie - I wonder if it will go straight to video over here? Oh, but thank god you're not patriotic or nationalistic in any way, so I know you won't take any offense. Thank god. The way you write off Hollywood as only being successful because of backstage deals or whatever the fuck is such a joke - no one is forcing the people around the world to go to American movies and although I'm not happy with the output these days and I love PLENTY of foreign films, if you're going simply by ratio of good to bad, Hollywood has everybody else beat. That's just a fact, motherfucker. Sorry. Hell, just take the decade of the 1970's alone. Take out all American films and you lose some of the greatest classics ever made IN THE WORLD. PERIOD. Please argue that and show your stupidity! Please!! I'm begging you! And they are not known for their happy endings either. Oh, true, they're not as profound as the CARRY ON or MR. BEAN films, but that kind of depth just doesn't exist in America. Slink back to your dank little hole in the wall and whine some more. Or better still, stop going to American movies. Take a stand. Only go to the far superior foreign films and don't give one more dime to Hollywood. Have the balls to act on your "convictions". You'll show them. You'll also never do it. You fucking elitist pasty-faced little bitch.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 9:28 p.m. CST

    HE'S PORTUGESE

    by BringingSexyBack

    Nuff said.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 9:31 p.m. CST

    Oh Well Then...

    by Rebeck2

    The Portugese film market is something else entirely. THRIVING. And one amazing title after another... I take it all back.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 9:31 p.m. CST

    LET

    by BringingSexyBack

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 9:32 p.m. CST

    I LOVE THAT PORTUGESE FILM ...

    by BringingSexyBack

    Oh wait, it was Spanish. Never mind.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 9:35 p.m. CST

    PORTUGAL CAN'T EVEN CLAIM ONE DIRECTOR

    by BringingSexyBack

    to match Uwe Boll's caliber. I mean, seriously.

  • Sept. 8, 2009, 10:47 p.m. CST

    "this is my opinion & if it isn't yours you are stupid"

    by rock_n_roll_jesus

    Why is this always where these talkbacks end up? If we ever needed proof that the human race is doomed we need look no further than AICN talkbacks. It's interesting how people behave when they are anonymous. I think there should be a new rule. AICN will post your REAL NAME AND ADDRESS if you can't be respectful of others. Let's see what happens then? Not so tough now?

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 2:16 a.m. CST

    Unto all those that wish torment and damnation: Fuck Dat...

    by The Dum Guy

    The morale o' the story is that things come to an end. I don't know how to say it any more easier... in the end humans' die.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 2:39 a.m. CST

    BringingSexyBack

    by AsimovLives

    We can claim the oldest director still in active, which is also the most awared director ever in the history of cinema. Do your research before you open your big mouth, buddy.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 2:46 a.m. CST

    Continentalop

    by AsimovLives

    The subjective excuse can only let you do so far. But there are things which are plain obvious and beyond the scope of "just subjective". The subjective excuse, i'm affraid, has been too used by people to excuse their bad calls and low judgement. I'll leave that subjecty at that.<br><br>The Dark Knight is a great movie. Not a great comic book movie, a great movie, period. You see, the fundamental difference between you and me in this case is that i don't measure movies by the genre they belong. This is why i never say a movie is "good for this or that genre". No. Movies are either good or bad. Genre is a classification, not a statement of quality.<br><br>The Dark Knight is a great movie. Jar Jar Abrams's Shit Trek is a terrible movie. And The Road will not merely be reduced to "post-apocalypse movie" or "depressing movie". The Road will either be a good movie or a bad movie. Anmd all signts show that this movie is going for the The Dark Knight type, and not the Jar Jar Abrams's Shit Trek type, i.e., the good type and not the shit type.<br><br>I'd wish that the geeks stop classifiying or excusing movies just because of their genre. That's the kind of stuff that ignorants of cinema in the audiences would be expected to say, but movie geeks? Weird!

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 3:37 a.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by Continentalop

    Subjective taste always plays a part in it. Not everyone has the same life experiences or can approach a movie as a tabula rasa. That is a ridiculous thing to expect. <P> Was a woman I once met wrong to hate A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, a movie I consider brilliant? No, when you take in account she was raped at a young age. Treating rape as something frivolous, even in the obviously over-the-top manner Kubrick did it, isn’t going to fly with her no matter what. And rightly so. <P> And yes you have to take into account what genre a film is. Genre implies what the film’s goal was, what it was trying to accomplish. You can’t have conversations like this after a movie: <P> “Great horror movie I just saw.” <P> “Really? Did it scare you?” <P> “Oh no, not at all. But it was scary...” <P> Sorry, but movies are great when they accomplish what they are trying to do. As a Super-Hero movie, TDK is near great, but the problem is that it veers off and tries to be a serious crime epic alá THE GODFATHER or LA CONFIDENTIAL, mixed with the story of Bruce Wayne’s internal anguish. On that front it doesn’t hold up. Why? Because it is a film about a man dressed a s a bat trying to fight crime with his bare hands - the more he tried to make it more “serious”, the more ridiculous it became for me. <P> And the Bruce Wayne character was completely incongruent for me. A man who dedicates himself to fight crime using only his mind and his bare hands, yet he is so indecisive about his own personal relationships and sits around brooding about his lack of a real life with Rachel. Hard to believe such a man would travel half the world and dedicate years to learn martial arts in a Himalayan monastery, dress up in a costume and spend millions to fight crime as a vigilante when he is so desperate to quit that life. NP< This isn’t the Batman from the comics, nor does that personality fit the type of character I imagine would set out to be Batman IMO. That is based on my own experiences; my own SUBJECTIVE view point. Others can claim they can believe it, that is a completely legitimate viewpoint, but to me Batman in BB and TDK seemed like a refuge from a Douglas Sirk movie. I imagine Lee Marvin from POINT BLACK or Daniel Craig from CASINO ROYALE would eat him up in 30 seconds flat. I also could imagine Anton Chigurl would have blasted him right in his face; and I can’t see him lasting a round with most MMA heavyweights. All of these are big problems when we are supposed to suspend disbelief that Batman is the ultimate ass-kicker. <P> The other big problem for me was that they tried to do this deep theme of the Joker tempting Batman and the idea of how far one should go for justice. Well, the problem with treating that seriously is that Batman is a vigilante. No matter how they look at it he is operating outside of the law. And the more realistic they tried to make the film and the Nolanverse, the more it made his anti-killing the Joker stance preposterous. In a comic book, or a comic book universe, it is acceptable because it is a world filled with costume crime-fighters and outlandish events, and it isn’t supposed to be viewed as being realistic, but in Nolan’s “realistic” universe it just makes Batman someone who doesn’t kill because of dogmatic reasons. He is a zealot, not a hero. However that isn’t what Nolan’s Batman series says - they still look at him and treat him as a hero. <P> That is why I don’t think Nolan’s TDK is a great movie. It tries to squeeze in serious themes that don’t work well with that genre; in fact they go against the nature of that genre. These themes in fact point out the absurdity of a costume crime-fighter - something that goes against Nolan’s expressed desire to make Batman plausible. <p> And guess what? People can disagree with me, once again proving my point that film is a subjective medium. I don't hold a monopoly on determining what is good, and neither does anyone else here.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 5:39 a.m. CST

    Abrams Trek is a good movie.

    by Sal_Bando

    Mammaries of Mommy just hasn't gotten over its' success yet. Prob. never will. <p> Know what Oporto Bob? They're makin' more of'em. And Mr. Abrams will be Directin' them. Yessir. <p> ContiPops--I agree about Bats II: Heath Ledgered. It was FINE but NOT great. As you said-it's a MAN IN A BAT SOOT fightin' crime. Come on. Would that fly in say Mr. Majestyk? Bronson should have put a grain bag over his head or something?! (having seen Chucky in person back in the day, that might have been funny...)<p> Why the nerve. I still think Jeff Fahey'd make for a good Killer Moth, myself.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 6:22 a.m. CST

    Continentalop

    by AsimovLives

    Let me make this clear to you: you are one of the very few in here i really respect, opinions and intelligence and character. Most of the time, i happen to agree quite a lot with what you say, to the point i can't find anything to "discuss". Which puzzles me even futher that you are so forgiving on Jar Jar Abrams's Shit Trek while you seem to be too eager to find flaws to beat on The Dark Knight for reason i find unexpected and puzzling. and not to mention you still perpectuate a common misconception of the philosophical term of "subjectivity" and misuse it to justify personal tastes.<br><br>that girl you met IS WRONG about A Clockwork Orange. How so? The same way i would be wrong if i declared a 2008 Ford Mustang to be a better car then the Ferrari Fioriano and a car engineer expert woudl declare the Ferrari to be the best car. Who would be the guy in the wrong and the guy in the right? I would be in the wrong, and the engineer guy would be in the right. My subjective PREFERENCE would be worth shit due to ignorance, and made double if i would dismiss the opinion of a more informed and interested person. All that my "subjective" preference wouldn't be even worth to wipe my ass on it, pardon my french.<br><br>Same thing happens with movies. howeve,r some people sems to exempt movies such criteria because... well, i don't know the because, really. It seems tha tbecause it's movies, we now can hallow in self-indulgence self-satisfaction, and not aply to it some intellectual rigour. And by intellectual i don't mean big phisolophical intelelctualism, but the same intellectual rigour which would make you determine that one brand of yogurt is better then another when you go shopping.<br><br>The way i see it, if you have a great interest in movies, if you claim yourself a movie, geek, you cannot slack about your view and receptiveness about movies. No slack allowed.<br><br>For me, the thing that most puzzlesme about your argumentation above is your complain, and it is a complain, that Christopher Nolan decided to elevate a comic book movie into the level of a crime drama. and why would that be a bad thing? why would that be something to criticise instead of praise? I praise Nolan's dcision. I'm puzzled with the complain. This attitude shows a certain contempt for the comic book genre. I see a similiar contempt for Science Fiction. too many people who claim they dig comic book movies of science fiction have this attitude which says they only accept them but if they are cheesy and pulp. but wow is he who tries to make a movie of those genre and takes them more seriously and decide to make serious and dramatic movies in that genre. i find this attitude, specially among so many fans, to be not only puzzling, but also kind of insulting. What's wrong to try to elevate a movie to something higher and better then the usual "norm" of the genre? Why should that to be criticized? I fully endorse that attitude. It's the hallmark of a serious, intelligent, competent and talented filmmaker if he decised to go that way. it's easy to camp it up, it's darn hard to make it good and intelligent and to legitimise as cinema. not just within the genre, but as cinema in general. to make a genre movie so good it works not only as genre, but as A FILM.<br><br>The Dark knight is brilant for that. that, while you watch it, you get the notion you are watching a crime drama, and damn good one. So what if the movie is a Batman movie, why can't it be a crime drama? IT SHOULD BE A CRIME DRAMA! If anything, nolan is showing far more rspect to Batman then most of the so-called comic fans.<br><br>Should an horror movie just be classified by the jump scares it causes? There's no more to it then that? Of course there are. I'm so neutered on horror that by now extremely very few movies makes me react the way an horror movie "should". And yet, there's many horror movie which, though they fail to cause me horror, i still love them immensely. Why? Because they are GOOD MOVIES. Because the story is good. Because the acting is good. Because the directing is very good. Because of that and many other elements. A Tale of Two Sisters didn't scared me, and yet i profoundly love that movie. Not like, LOVE! Because it's a darn great movie. Being horror is secondary. Genre is secondary. quality is all it matters. and no, the matte rof quality is not as subjective as many would want it to be. preferences is subjective, in the colloqual definition of the term. Quality is measured by more things other then just personal preferences.<br><br>I find it strange your problem with Bruce Wayne's character. You seem to think that his single-minded determination to fight crime, risking limp and health, is diametric opposed to his "indecision2 about his love life. Well, for starters, you cna findthat kind on "incongruence" in too many REAL LIFE PEOPLE. Too many times you will find people who are very certain about one aspect of their lives and very insecure in others. In fact, i would say that's the norm and not the exception. To accept that in a fictional character is no biggie, it's accepting a reality about people. but thing is, Bruce Wayne has no second thoughs about his love life, he is actually quite determined: he wants Rachael Dawes. And nobody else. and he's constantly ooing her. The hesitation is not from him, it's from her. And i would even say, as things are in The Dark Knight, she doesn't have doubts: she wants Harvey Dent.<br><br>I'm sorry if you find difficult to have some good drama in a movie which you decided should only be about a guy dressed as a bat punching the living daylights out of criminals, and compare it with soap melodrama. Well, for starters, what the nolan rothers did was to build characterization to the movie's characters, something quite welcomed for a genre which too often is merely a bunch of explosions stringed together with barely a plot. Secondly, you had to mention Casino Royale and Point Blank. Now, i really like Casino Royale a lot, and i ADORE Point Blank. and however, you seem to be under the mistaken assumption that those two movies are a collection of action scenes where the brutal castigation of thei protagonist's adversaries happens every five minutes. Not so. Casino Royale spends a lot of time with characterization and dialogue. Point Blank is nothing but characterization, mood build and dialogues, with occasional very short bursts of action to make a point (pardon the pun). In that regard, i would say that the nolan's Bruce Wayne is a direct descendant of John Boorman and Lee Marvin's Walker from Point Blank. They are not disparate characters, they are close relatives. i would string them up close to one another in an heartbeat.<br><br>The Dark Knight never once forgets that Batman operates outside the law and that he's a vigilante. And the very ending of it rest on that very notion. The movie is far smarter then you give it credit in that concern. Thing is, the movie doesn't say it out loud everything it is about, but it still shows it thoughout. The movie treats the audiences as if they are intelligent. It shows, but doesn't hammer. If it has to make a clear point, it does so, and is not affraid to go shakespeare on it. but alos so much is handled more subtly.<br><br>The Nolans showed tremendous ambition with the Dark Knight. That is as it should. And their ambition didn't start and ended with box office considerations. They went beyond that. they wanted to make a very good, ambitious, epic crime batman movie, and they suceeded. The Dark Knight is not just a great movie because one loves comics or action movies or vigilantes dressed in costumes. The Dark Knight works and is great for all the reasons great movies are great: because they are very fucking good, and are much better then most.<br><br>The point is never if one agrees or not with you or me or anybody else. disagreeing is not the issue. The issue is alsways, what based your opinion, and if it holds water. It's not enough to say i like this or tha,t or this is bad or not. And certainly it doesn't suffice to just invoke "personal subjective opision" and leave that as that, as if it's some divine comandment. It doesn't end like that. Never has, never will. There are either informed opinions, or opinions based on ignorance. That's it. And i prefer the first, if you understand me. i don't put too much stock inmy opinions if i know i have little to no information to bakc it up. When that happens, i trust those who know better. Stick to "personal subjective opinions" merely because they are mine is nonsense. My ego is not so fragille that i need to be stuck to such.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 7:03 a.m. CST

    Sal_Bando

    by AsimovLives

    I don«'t guive a shit about Jar Jar Abrams' Shit Trek. The szame way i don't give a shit about the commercial sucess of Transformers 2. It's not much my concern their commercial sucess, i'm not he studio who will get the cash, so why should i care much? All i care if a movie is good or not, and box foffice doesn't tell me that. so, you better stop using the "box office sucess envy" nonsense for why i supposedly don't like Jar Jar Abrams's Shit Trek. Because that's very stupid. I don't like Jar Jar Abrams's Shit Trek because it's a very bad movie. That's it.<br><br>Though i have to say, the box office history of Jar Jar Abrams' Shit Trek does bring me a lot of amusiement, specially considering that it contradicts the very thing, the magor argument hat the Shit Trek groupies uses to defend it. Becasue, contrary to that faith article from the Shit Trek groupies, the box office history of that movie tells a different story, of a movie that didn't didn't break even on domestic box office, and flopped abroad. The box office results of Shit Ttek are so disapointing that the movie has barely break, after giving the distribution houses their due half point percentage. The box office is so disapointing and below expectations and first week-end projections that even Paramount Pictures ar enow more cautious and less bombastic about their bragging of their movie. in fac,t they stoped bragging at all, and now thety became mor cautious in their prenouncements, as in when they said there's STILL reasons to go ahead with the sequel, because they ar enow taking into account the money that MIGHT come form the home entertaiment market. But that's it.<br><br>The fact is, you Shit Trek gorupies do not have ONE SINGLE RATIONAL REASON to support your beloved crap movie. not one! It's all articles of faith and repetition from Paramount Pictures advertizements. Pure nonsense. It's for you groupies that things must be really hurting, that reality is crashing down on you and ruining your little party. Or maybe you are stuill still blissfully unaware, living in blissful ignorance, so not to have your fantasies burned. Certainly seems to be the case for some of you. Like you.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 7:04 a.m. CST

    The Road will be a good movie, i'm confident of that

    by AsimovLives

    From the director of Ghosts Of The Civil Dead and The Proposition? The prospects are very good!

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 8:18 a.m. CST

    I can already picture it

    by tradeskilz

    I love you son. I love you dad. Son, the world is what you make of it. I love you dad. Then we have 2 hours of the dad and son screaming for eachother when bad things happens. Fuck im already annoyed.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 8:59 a.m. CST

    tradeskilz

    by AsimovLives

    You couldn't be more wrong. Wait until Mr Nice Gaius reads your post.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 10:09 a.m. CST

    Hey spud mcspud

    by goatboy500

    Hey spud mcSpud, nice name, are you scottish? cos i'm scottish. so fuck off. also, random much? Who said anything about graphic novels? Not that it's FUCK ALL to do with you, but yes, i love graphic novels. Not ALL graphic novels mind, just the ones i like, does that make me elitist? To just like SOME graphic novels? My favourite comic is Preacher followed by watchmen. 2 examples of the genre that are decidedly not for kids. Anyway, back to schooling your teenage ass about conducting arguments on the internet. One, my point wasn't that Mccarthy thinks it would be grim to go through an apocalypse, i was defending the tone of the (pulitzer prize winning and bestselling) book to the first cunt (you shall hereafter be named 'second cunt'). Also, I neither know nor care if Mr McCarthy has watched any apocalyptic films, cos guess what? he didn't make a film. He wrote a book. Its a subtle difference to someone who's clearly used only to reading the instructions on his 'anal welt' medication, but films and books are quite different. Very different in fact. Two, it was clear that the first cunt didn;t read the book, as another TB'r pointed out, yet it's clear that you did by your post, so well done. your thumbs must be killing you, but it's also clear you didn't get the point of it (calling me elitist backs up my point). And no, McCarthy didn't write the book to tell us how scary an apocalypse would be, it's a story about the love a father has for his child, and the lengths he goes go to to protect his son in an incredibly harsh unkind world. He just chose the harshest most unkindest world in which to set it to further illustrate his point (it's called story telling fucko). Also, are you sayin that no peice of art, whether it be a comic, a song, a film , a tv show, or whatever should have ever have even remotely similar elements? Cos you've seen similar stuff in other post apocalyptic film you don;t think you should be made to sit through them again? Cos, y'know, Moby Dick and Jaws have a sort of similar premise, man verus nature, water..... uh...there's a boat in there as well..... but by your rationale, jaws shouldn;t exist. Now who's being elitist? So, way to miss the point, fuckface. Nice try though, basing your opinion on my character on a single post where i offer a reasoned (yet sarcastic) reply to someone talking utter shite on here. Sebastian Faulks? Who the fuck's that?

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 10:17 a.m. CST

    PS Mr Spuddy McSpudcunt

    by goatboy500

    RE:My comment about 'how many pulitzers have you won...' The first cunt said the book 'sucked' with no real reasoning behind it, He Slated McCarthy's writing. Now, everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but i'd have to give the same response to someone saying that the Beatles 'sucked'. It's quite obivous that a person like that is wrong, despite what their 'opinion' says. Only a fucking IDIOT would read a Cormac McCarthy novel and not be struck by his writing. (admittedly, the Road isn;t the best place to start) The story might not gel with your sensibilities, or you might find it hard to follow (as No Country took me 2 attempts to get all the important details for instance) but its like saying aretha can't sing, Ginger couldn;t dance and Rembrandt couldn;t paint. That person might think that, and they;re entitled to, but they're fucking wrong, end of. PPS, calm the fuck down man, its a film adaptation of a book you hated. My advice? (this is a tricky one) the answer is simple. don't fuckin watch it.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 10:19 a.m. CST

    PPPS

    by goatboy500

    if you are scottish, you can still fuck off.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 10:33 a.m. CST

    PPPPS

    by goatboy500

    On a final note, if you went up to a so called elitist and offered them merlot they’d have a quiet word with the waiter and have you ejected from the premises. Fud.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 10:45 a.m. CST

    I Liked This Movie Better When It Was Called "I Am Legend"

    by the_first_rule_of_fight_club

    puh-leeze. easily one of the most derivative and over-rated books of the last decade. even quint isn't exactly gushing about it, because he's being polite (or he's been paid to). i can't believe people are still plugging away at the whole "a handful of survivors in a post-apocalyptic world full of cannibals/vampires/zombies etc...". been there, done that. this.will.suck.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 10:49 a.m. CST

    Escalation does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    In all my years of AICN i'm not sure that i've seen anything quite like it...<p> AsimovLives to Conti = 232 words<p> Conti to AsimovLives = 723 words<p> AsimovLives to Conti = 1554 words<p> By my mathematical reckoning Conti's next reply will be precisely 3090 words long.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 11 a.m. CST

    the_first_rule_of_fight_club

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Oh, boo-hoo. Fail.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 11:01 a.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Did you say earlier that you have not yet read THE ROAD?

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 11:03 a.m. CST

    The first rule of fight club is shut the fuck up.

    by goatboy500

    There is no handful of survivors, there's just the two. There are cannibals cos there's nothing to eat. No vampires zombies or anything like that. Hey, try reading the book. It's easier to criticise something you have knowledge of. The second rule of fight club is fuck off.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 11:29 a.m. CST

    Mr. Nice Gaius

    by AsimovLives

    Remember what i said about Blood Meridian? Same thing. I really need to stop doing that.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 11:31 a.m. CST

    Cobra--Kai

    by AsimovLives

    You did a word count? I'll be very impressed if you actually counted the words of the posts yourself, without any aid of a text program.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 11:35 a.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Understood. Then I would insist that you read THE ROAD before the film...unless you want the film to be the way you first experience the story.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 11:48 a.m. CST

    Mr. Nice Gaius

    by AsimovLives

    Thanks for the advise. Well, i want do the second thing, watch the movie first, be it my first experience of the story. And i trust i'll not be disapointed. Like you, i have high hopes for the movie. It's like how it was for District 9 for me, ihad good hopes for the movie,and after i watched it, it was confirmed and surpassed. I feel the same for Moon too. I don't know how to describe this, but sometimes, some movies-to-be just make sense to have good hopes for them. You know what i mean?

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 11:52 a.m. CST

    Cobra--Kai

    by AsimovLives

    Obviopusly you enjoy Karate Kid a lot, so there was soemthing i wanted to ask you. You see, back in the day when the movie was released, the movie was a hugh sucess, a true popularity phenomenum. So much so that inscritions for Karate classes sky-rocketed. I was wondering if the same thing happened in your neck of the woods.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 11:53 a.m. CST

    I think that I do.

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    But as a true fan of the book, I'm still strangely nervous for this film.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 12:28 p.m. CST

    HOUSTON500

    by the_first_rule_of_fight_club

    oh, gee, what a huge difference: cannibals, not zombies! are you really that stupid? by the way, the second rule of fight club is, "you do not talk about fight club". which is the same as the first rule. and, by the way, i have read the book and it sucked. as will this movie. it's amazing how hollywood keeps getting morons like you to pay for the same garbage over and over again: "28 Days Later", "28 Weeks Later", "Doomsday", "I Am Legend", etc... i bet you think there are HUGE differences between all of these. newsflash, asshole: they're all the same movie.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 12:32 p.m. CST

    OH GOD

    by BringingSexyBack

    Long posts here!!!!

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 12:35 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by Continentalop

    A girl who was raped is not wrong in thinking A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is a bad movie. A black man is not wrong in thinking BIRTH OF A NATION is a bad movie. A jew is not wrong in thinking TRIUMPH OF THE WILL is a bad movie. They are not saying the are badly crafted or badly made, they are expressing an opinion that the sentiment and subject matter of the film is completely wrong, therefore making it a bad movie. That is why we don't like many films, is because we don't like the subject matter or the interpretation of the character. You can't tell me Abrams STAR TREK is badly directed, you can't tell me it has bad production value, cheap special effects or even a godawful script. You might not like Abrams, but he does understand the basic components of narratvie structure. <P> So why do you hate STAR TREK? Because of your subjective viewpoint that he got the characters wrong, that the situations and plot is forced and phony, and the movie does not draw you in. You don’t like it because it doesn’t effect your sensibilities (just like it didn't effect mine). That is completely and utterly subjective, because obviously it worked for so many other people. You can only take out of a movie what you take in. What annoys you about Star Trek is the same thing that annoys me about TDK (but not to the same level), and that is an inability by me to find it believable (especially regarding the Bruce Wayne character). <P> You say he is very believable and pull out your examples. Well guess what, it hasn't been in my life experience that guys who achieve things like he has act the way he does. It is incongruent when someone who is supposedly the epitome of willpower. <P> And you can say I am wrong, but I can just as easily say you are wrong. My life experiences have taught me that guys who are trying to do what Bruce Wayne is doing, become the epitome of something, hardly act the way he does. They suffer very little self-doubt or conflicted feelings because such feelings would interfere with their life mission. And I am not going to get into a pissing contest about who knows more about how such men would act, but I feel pretty comfortable that my own past experiences have given me a pretty good idea. <P> (Also, I don’t think CASINO ROYALE and POINT BLANK are all action; I don’t know where you got that idea. I said Daniel Craig and Lee Marvin would kill Bruce Wayne, and I stand by that assessment. Don’t tell me that Bale’s portrayal of Wayne projects anywhere near the same toughness or determination as they do. I see him quitting 2 minutes in a fight with those guys, if it manages to last that long. Nothing about Bale and Nolan’s version of Batman projects any sort of true mental toughness, unlike Craig, Lee Marvin or Gibson’s Max Rockatansky). <P> And it is admirable to try and elevatie the super-hero genre. But as a former fan of the genre as a kid, I understand what they are – wish fulfilment fantasies. It is a man wearing a costume fighting crime. It is as childish concept as you can get. No matter how he tries to treat it seriously, it will still be ridiculous and a better concept to take a little more lightly and not hold up in reverence as being a deep movie. How can any adult truly look at the idea of another man fighting crime just with his fist and not killing, and dressed as a bat in the process, and treat it as seriously as Nolan and his fans seem to? <P> That isn’t to say you can’t have a great Batman movie and you should’t be able to enjoy it, but at least admit you enjoy it for giving you a taste of the child power fantasy. It is also not THE GODFATHER or CITIZEN KANE or THERE WILL BE BLOOD, which is what it tries to pass itself off as. Steven Speilberg rejuvenated the monster movie in the 70s by treating it seriously in JAWS. He pushed the limit of what you could do in earlier movies (by having a boy die), had poignant and powerful scenes (Quint telling what happened at the Indianapolis), made references to earlier works of art (Moby Dick) and was well acted and shot. One thing he didn’t do was add overdraught melodrama like they had in TDK, nor did he try to wrap his film up in the illusion that it was something more and greater than what it was – he was happy to make a great killer shark movie, which is what made that a great film. I wish Nolan would just be happy making a super-hero movie instead of treating it like it is Shakespeare, because when he tries to get all deep and overly philosophical in TDK I am reminded how absurd this entire thing is. <p> Oh, as for being puzzled why comic book fans wouldn’t accept this, I am puzzled how adult males so desperately need child power fantasies and are so ready to eat this up and demand that people accept it. But once again, that is a subjective opinion. My viewpoint is as an adult male I have moved on from needing such things, or when I do watch them I admit freely that it is appealing to my inner-child. I don’t need a child fantasy tailored to me as an adult. But that is my opinion, and I am willing to admit it. What I don't do is push that opinion on others and demand that my taste be used as the measuring stick and guideline for others.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 12:37 p.m. CST

    Cobra

    by Continentalop

    I don't think I matched your predicted number. I'm pretty sure I am short.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 12:52 p.m. CST

    ASIMOV - GOOD LUCK TOPPING THAT POST

    by BringingSexyBack

    USA 1, Portugal 0

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 12:53 p.m. CST

    Mr. Nice Gaius

    by AsimovLives

    I completly understand your nervousness about the movie. It was liek me when i learned that there was going to be a movie adaptation of A Scanner Darkly, which is my all time favorite book by Philip K. Dick. I was almost affraid to watch the movie, to tell you the truth. So, believe you me, i understand you perfectly.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 12:54 p.m. CST

    I'll say one thing about The Road

    by George Zip

    No other book has ever made me so grateful for the food on my plate.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 12:55 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Conti, 974. Ah, but your words are worth 3.1 times that of lesser men so the prediction proved to be uncannily accurate.<p> AsimovLives on the subject of KARATE KID i'd be honored if you took a look at this (lots of damn spaces to delete to make the link work im afraid):<p> http://www.aintitbalenews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=383:karate-kid-does-not-exist-in-this-dojo&catid=6:movie-reviews&Itemid=15

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 12:58 p.m. CST

    RE: the_first_rule_of_fight_club

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    We do not talk about that idiot.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 12:59 p.m. CST

    gee, is that really the first rule of fight club? whoopsies

    by goatboy500

    thanks for telling me, i didn't know that. [cough]fuckwit[cough]. Its called sarcasm pal, which i admit doesn;t always work in type but i thought mine would have been broad ebnough for you to see that. it clearly wasn't. ANYWAY. did you actually come on to the oldest and most popular movie geek website in the world and say that cannibals and zombies were the same? well myself and thousands of talkbackers would disagree there good buddy. i can't be as 'unstupid' as you but there's a glaring difference.... they're not the same thing. It's really that simple. zombies are the bodies of the recently dead risen up, they mindlessly eat the living and are slow and lumbering. like in night of the living dead. Cannibals are living people who choose to eat the flesh of other humans. They might be slow, they might be fast, they might drive fuckin tractors, but they're not dead. a slight difference there. and from your earlier description of the book, i certainly got the impression you hadn;t read it but now that you say you have and you think it 'sucked' then i apologise. but i think you're lying. FYI The flesh of humans is called 'longpig' because thats what we apparently taste like. Now, a cannibal would have had to have said that to someone for that to be common knowledge and zombies can't talk so.... do you get where this shit's going? 28 days later is the same movie as i am legend huh? no they're not. in fact everything you said... is wrong. if this is your first time at fight club, you have to fight. now.... fuck off.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 1:01 p.m. CST

    TENSION IS THE OPPOSITE OF ACTION

    by BringingSexyBack

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 1:03 p.m. CST

    THE PERSON SITTING NEXT TO YOU MIGHT BE A CANNIBAL

    by BringingSexyBack

    That's why I do the hand sanitizer thing religiously.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 1:04 p.m. CST

    THE ZOMBIES IN 28 DAYS/WEEKS WERE PRETTY FAST

    by BringingSexyBack

    But that's the exception, not the rule.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 1:05 p.m. CST

    VAMPIRES ARE LIKE A CROSS BETWEEN CANNIBALS AND ZOMBIES

    by BringingSexyBack

    They're wicked fast.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 1:06 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Slow zombies would be easy prey for cannibals. Just sayin.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 1:07 p.m. CST

    ZOMBIES TEND NOT TO EAT EACH OTHER

    by BringingSexyBack

    Cannibals? I don't know what there rules are.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 1:08 p.m. CST

    ps

    by goatboy500

    i have seen only one of the movies you mentioned, it was 28 days later and it featured NEITHER CANNIBALS OR ZOMBIES (if you want to get technical) I haven't got around to seeing the sequel, and I would rather have the ebola virus than watch a will fucking smith film. My earlier posts were about defending the book against people like you who have read the reviews on amazon and the wiki page and think that's the same as reading it. The main protagonists in the book are a father and son, not a 'small band of survivors' there are canniblas in this film because there's NO FOOD LEF, but they aren;t the focus of it. In fact why am i telling you this, you've read it. So you should know your first post was pretty much all......... bullshit.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 1:09 p.m. CST

    HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU HAVEN'T EATEN SOME BURGER

    by BringingSexyBack

    that had human meat in it? You don't know what goes on in those factories.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 1:10 p.m. CST

    I am Legend, On the Beach, Earth Abides . . .

    by Turingtestee

    Great examples of the post-apocalyptic genera, to which a dozen or more could be added. For some reason I cant place The Road in that group. It just does not seem to me to be genera at all. McCarthy (I don't believe) didn't set out to tell an end-of-the-world tale about a father and son as much as tell a tale about a father and son at the end of the world.<P>The boy does end up in a safe place with good people where he remembers to talk to his father. The paragraph after speaks of a thing "Not be made right again," which echoes the fathers concern for the boy after witnessing the charnel house.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 1:21 p.m. CST

    Definition of trust

    by Continentalop

    Two cannibals blowing each other.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 1:21 p.m. CST

    ps

    by goatboy500

    i have seen only one of the movies you mentioned, it was 28 days later and it featured NEITHER CANNIBALS OR ZOMBIES (if you want to get technical) I haven't got around to seeing the sequel, and I would rather have the ebola virus than watch a will fucking smith film. My earlier posts were about defending the book against people like you who have read the reviews on amazon and the wiki page and think that's the same as reading it. The main protagonists in the book are a father and son, not a 'small band of survivors' there are canniblas in this film because there's NO FOOD LEF, but they aren;t the focus of it. In fact why am i telling you this, you've read it. So you should know your first post was pretty much all......... bullshit.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 1:28 p.m. CST

    Continentalop

    by AsimovLives

    On first account, you certainly failed on the word number as predicted by our friend Cobra-Kai. Tsk, tsk! I was counting on that, the mother of all posts. Still, no matter, it's good stuff, and i thank you for your time.<br>Now, in reply:<br><br>Now, risking souding like a cold fish, i don't abide by emotionalisms as a basis for a good opinion. I also had a very dear lady friend who was raped. Didn't stoped make me love that movie. Nor it did her, to tell you the truth. Mty mother died from cancer, my father nearly did. Cancer has claimed many of my family members. And i still laught at cancer jokes, if it's funny. i didn't gave up on black humour because of my family tragedies. I don't need to be black to find the racism in Birth Of A Nation repulsive and obnoxious. I don't need a personal reason to feel that way, to THINK that way.<br><br>Frankly, all those personal opinions based on such emotional reactions are hogwash. They are not the basis for a rational though. And yes, they will be wrong, if the reason for their ideas is just that, an emotional reaction. And i don't find the rape scene scenes in clockwork Orange amusing. They are repulsive. They are SUPPOSED to be repulsive. You shoudl feel bad watchign them, not amusied or thrilled! Your friend should know that. your friend should even had better reasons to understand that the movie, IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER, condines the acts, quite the contray, it uses those scenes to help futher the point of what a little shit the alex DeLarge character is. If she can't see that, she is wrong, and no matter what her harsh experiences she suffered will change that. to have a right opinion on something is not just to have an emotional reaction and that's it, and each and everynody is right. That's nonsense.<br><br>Subjectivity as been abused to justify opinions that have little to no consistency. It basuically justifies people who want to have an opinion but don't want to thinki about it much. Subjectivity, they rekon, would be enough flor them to not have to do the real heavy lifting, which is, to support their opinions. Basically, people use subjectivity to justify being opiniated. Being opiniated is not the same as having an opinion.<br><br>Basicaly, the majority of the people who use the word subjectivity have little ral understanding of what it really means. Reminds me of the people who use the expression "quantum leap" to try to describe a big chang,e when in fact it means the exact opposite (a quantum leap is the smallest change that occurs in the universe that can be measured, the jump of an electron from one orbit to another).<br><br>I can tell you that Jar Jar Abrams's Shit Trek is badly directed any day of the week. The movie presents an oportunity to me EVERY MINUTE OF IT'S RUNNING TIME. I would need to go to such dreadful movies as Pearl Harbor and Transformers 1 to see other movies which fails at such an alarming rate. I already have writen thoudsands of words on the subjec,t i could wrote dozens of thousands words more on it. The movie gives me enough ammo to last a lifetime.<br><br>I hate Shit Trek because it's a very bad movie. And it's not my emotional sensebilities that is affected by it. mostly, it's reason that makes me realise how truly bad that movie is. In true, this is the other way around as you put it, in true, i hate the movie because of the flaws and mistakes it makes which can be easily seen and understood rationally. In fac,t one needs to be extremely emotional to see no big flaws to the movie. People who loved and defend Shit Trek,, they all behave like creationist and religious fanatics, who see things through their beliefs first and foremost, and try toretcon a though for it. Me, it's the other way around, realising how bad the movie is, i felt hate. It's two entirely different things. If you ar enot of a rationalist persuation, like i am, i can understand why you cannot understand my position on this.<br><br>It's not easy to say if one thing is wrong or bad, or good and right. And that's the point. As it should. This is why you need to think about things to have an opinion, and not just pop up an emotion and voilá, instant opinion. Nah, it's harder then that. That's why it's also so worthy to defend it. And toc all upon the false opinions, aka, the opiniated stuff with little to no reason behind it.<br><br>I'll finish my already long post with this coment:<br>One of the things that always puzzles me is this type of idea, specially coming from a fan: that a comic/gerne is supposed to be this or that. In the case you mentioned abov,e comics, you say that it's supposed to be escapism.<br>What i find insultive to this is that you are putting speed limits on comics. Why should a comic just supposed to be "escapism"? You know what a comic is supposed to be? Whatever the author wants it to be. If you can go with the authors intentions or not, that's your problem. If you don't liek it, fine, don't. but to claim that a comic can only be one thing, and oen thing only is, frankly, doing it a terrible diservice. Thank goodness some authors are not limited by such a small tunnel vision of comics. There would be no Watchmen if that was so.<br>And finally, i arrive at the second point, and the one i think is more impotant, and that is, the definition of "escapism". O see from too many people a pretty ill and reductive defition of it. Bascially, it's all happy adventure and should amke you feel happy and good with yourself afterwards. But that is not all. That is not even what "escapism2 means. Escapism merely means that a piece of fiction transports you to a world different to the daily world you live in. That doesn't judt means superpowered dudes dressed in coloured costumes fighting superpowered malcontents also dressed with coloured costumes. If you are a car mechanic and you watch Boston Legal, you are watching escapism, you are watchign ashow about a different type of reality that is not your daily bread. Escapism doesn't mean fantasy. You see a documentary about the war atrocities of Burma, and that's escapism, because that's not your daily life experience. That's the thing.<br><br>So, yeah, you can tell that i do get a bit anoyed when people use such notions as "subjectivity" and "escapism" and i see them being terribly misused to justify a point which should had been done differently. And it kinda upsets me that it's used as of it's gospel, wioth people not even bothering to udnerstand the real meaning behind things. It upsets me the dogmatic fashion people hold opinions on movies, just for the sake of "subjectivity", or "escapism" or some ill-understood notion of fun or whatever. Everyone of them reeks to me of desperate group-thinking. It's not cool.<br><br>Forgive me if i take my liking of movies quite seriously, but i do take my fun seriously. The trade off is excelent: when movies are really good, i have a hell of a time. No Jar Jar Abrams's Shit Trek groupie can even dream to have form that movie the same kind of satisfaction i get from The Dark Knight. Because quality is the greatest fun there is.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 1:29 p.m. CST

    Cobra-Kai, how many words was that?

    by AsimovLives

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 1:30 p.m. CST

    the_first_rule_of_retard_club

    by Continentalop

    You know what that SCARFACE, PUBLIC ENEMY, LITTLE CAESAR, GODFATHER, GODFELLAS, THE DEPARTED and FRIENDS OF EDDIE COYLE are all about organized crime. That means they are all the same movie. <P> The same thing with SEARCHER; THE GOOD, THE BAD & THE UGLY; UNFORGIVEN, DANCES WITH WOLVES and TOMBSTONE. All Westerns, which means they are all the same movie. <P> Thanks first_rule, you have just helped narrow down my DVD collection and must see list by 99%.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 1:31 p.m. CST

    How can you tell somebody is a geek?

    by AsimovLives

    He/she can tell the difference between a zombie and a cannibal. As you would. It's basically the geekdom's driving license test.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 1:31 p.m. CST

    ps

    by goatboy500

    i have seen only one of the movies you mentioned, it was 28 days later and it featured NEITHER CANNIBALS OR ZOMBIES (if you want to get technical) I haven't got around to seeing the sequel, and I would rather have the ebola virus than watch a will fucking smith film. My earlier posts were about defending the book against people like you who have read the reviews on amazon and the wiki page and think that's the same as reading it. The main protagonists in the book are a father and son, not a 'small band of survivors' there are canniblas in this film because there's NO FOOD LEF, but they aren;t the focus of it. In fact why am i telling you this, you've read it. So you should know your first post was pretty much all......... bullshit.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 1:33 p.m. CST

    Does anyone else think that the

    by Turingtestee

    father was either a philosophy teacher or a writer?

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 1:33 p.m. CST

    Turingtestee

    by AsimovLives

    You cannot talk about post-apocalypse movies without mentioning THE QUIET EARTH.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 1:36 p.m. CST

    Continentalop

    by AsimovLives

    Don't ever think that with my posts ther eis any atmpt at insult to you, don't take them as that, please. As i said before, you are one of the very few i really have a lot of respect at AICN. That is the truth.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 1:42 p.m. CST

    Havent seen it, but it's soon to be netflixed

    by Turingtestee

    But, based on what I do know of it, I'm not sure I'll stay on board the whole flick.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 2:51 p.m. CST

    Childs age

    by Turingtestee

    Is he really so young? The way he is written, say 5-6ish. Factor in the situation and he could be as old as 10-12, being raised by one person in the complete and utter absence of any thing that could reasonably be called 'society'.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 2:52 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    That was 1,280 Asimov. And sorry to hear about your mother, for what it's worth.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 4:01 p.m. CST

    Cobra--Kai

    by AsimovLives

    It's worth a lot, Cobra. Thanks for the sympathy, friend.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 4:02 p.m. CST

    BringingSexyBack, see, i topped it

    by AsimovLives

    And it was only my second most word count post. It's just wrong to dare me.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 4:03 p.m. CST

    Turingtestee

    by AsimovLives

    If you like good movies, you will like THe Quiet Earth. Yes, it doesn't play exactly like what is expected from most post-apocalyptic movies, but that's part of it's charm.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 4:37 p.m. CST

    Fight club dude, you are totally wrong.

    by FluffyUnbound

    THE ROAD is about a planetwide disaster that is either an asteroid strike or a nuclear winter. [It's never confirmed either way.] The sun is gone, and the food chain has utterly collapsed. Because humans are smarter than dinosaurs, however, we aren't just going to keel over when the food chain fails and let small mammals, hibernators and alligators squeak their way through until the sun comes back; we're going to apply all of our intelligence and ingenuity to finding every last living thing on Earth and eating it. And every last living thing means each other, too. And before the end, every last human virtue and every last product of human culture will be sacrificed to make sure that every last thing is eaten. And when the novel opens the world has been like that for long enough that a kid can be born into it and grow to an unidentified but elementary-school level age, so things are pretty bad indeed. So no, it's not really I AM LEGEND.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 4:53 p.m. CST

    Cobra--Kai

    by AsimovLives

    I read your review of Karate Kid, and allow me to say, good job, sir. Very well writen and intelligent review. I don't need to agree with your opinion of the movie to enjoy and respect your review and your ideas. But despiste that my diffeent opinion, i understand perfectly your reasons. What more can one ask, really?<br><br>And risking beating a dead horse, this is what i find lacking in all the people who praise Jar Jar Abrams's Shit Trek, and that's even counting the professional critics. You, you made very well your point about this movie, one that, frankly, i don't give much of two farts about, to tell you the truth.<br><br>I don't think that Karate Kid's script is brillant, it's pretty formulaic, in fact. It's a true high concept script, which the 80s give birth to, and which i consider abominations. However, Karate Kid's still came early in the high concept formula days, so they still feel the need to put into the movie some really recognizable human beings into the story, and none is more well achieved then Myazaki. And the lamented departed Pat Morita milks the character for what it's worth. He really deserved his oscar nomination, on the strenghts of that scene you mentioned. Belçeive it or not, that scene was the first time i learned that some japanese-american did fought on the american forces in WWII, but on the european theater. Until then, i had assume all nippo-americans had been sent to the camps.<br><br>Godo that i fidn those elements form the movie, the thing is, Karate Kid for me still reads as a prototypical 80s movies. and since i had the misfortune to actually had lived through the 80s, during my teens, i hav eno romantic attatchment, no romantic looking back, no mythologizing for that decade. If fact, i fucking hated it! Fuck the 80s. The 80s are responsible for everything that's wrong with hollywood mvoies today. The good 80s movies are the exceptions, not the rule to that fucking decade. And Karate Kid for me is mixed into that bunch. No, i don't hate it, i just... well, it's there, and it helped some to retainthe high concept status quo in Hollywood.<br><br>If you aksed me what is my fave Karate kid movie, or at least the one i have a bit more sympathy, if i could call it tha,t i would say Karate Kid 2. And you know why? The reason will be perfectly shallow, but it is as it is: the femmale protagonist is a beautiful JAPANESE girl. Yes, it plays on a personal bias of mine, on this fetish i have about beautiful asian women. But she far outshines Elisabeth Shue on the looks department. And i consider Shue one fine looking dame. So, since i hacve so little inclination and love for the Karate Kid movies, my reasons for to chose a favorite came down to who was the prettier leading lady. Karate Kid 2 wins. As for Karate Kid 3, i never saw it, and frankly, i can't be bother to. Nor the one with Hillary Swank.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 4:55 p.m. CST

    FluffyUnbound

    by AsimovLives

    Another possible explaination for the world disaster of The Road is a gigantic vulcan eruption. I think they informally call it mega-vulcanos, and if one erupted, it would be bye-bye blue skies... LITERALLY. The whioel world would get fucked up beyond all recognition. Pretty much as in the movie.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 4:56 p.m. CST

    And I read what I just wrote

    by FluffyUnbound

    ...And I realized that you could read that and think I was talking about SWAN SONG or some such nonsense, where people drive around in jeeps and have little gunfights over canned food, or something a little better like ALAS BABYLON, where after nuclear war the big problem is that the protagonist runs out of coffee. And it's not like that at all. It's more like finding a snuff film where someone feeds starving Ethiopians a cooked human infant.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 4:57 p.m. CST

    I'm still waiting for a real i Am Legend movie

    by AsimovLives

    I don't count the Will Smith abomination as one.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 4:58 p.m. CST

    FluffyUnbound

    by AsimovLives

    You made your point quite very well understood, there was no need to retcon it. You were quite eloquent.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 4:59 p.m. CST

    Asimov

    by FluffyUnbound

    That's an excellent point. It could be that too. Personally, I have always voted for nuclear war, because the overall tone of the work seems to imply that these events are something mankind has done to the world, and not something that just happened to it. But there's good arguments for the different options too.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 5:07 p.m. CST

    FluffyUnbound

    by AsimovLives

    Not watchign the movie yet, nor even reading the book, of course what i have to say on the matter could just be a bunch of nonsense.<br><br>However, i suspect the idea behind the book is not that men is such a shit that they would cause a nuclear war, but that if a global cathastrophe ever came, men would reduce to act like beast, and everythignthat makes us proud of being humans would be the first casualty, with the exception of the Man and the Boy his son. The point, so to speak, would not be that men can cause the death mankind, but that mankind would be it's own destrioyer because it couldn't raise up beyoond their most basic needs for immediate day-to-day survival at the expense of humanism, compassion and love.<br><br>But what do i know? Really, the guy to tell all about this is Mr Nice Gaius, he's the resident The Road expert.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 5:11 p.m. CST

    The argument against nuclear war would be that

    by AsimovLives

    despiste all the most optimistic scenarios, the true of the matter is, mankind wouldn't survive much months after it. Even without the nuclear winter mankind would die off. Radiation alone would do that. Prolongued exposure to extreme radiation kills in itself,because it affects and disrupt out DNA. and in our DNA is the programming on how our cells works. distrupting our DNA coding means to destroy the very reason why our bodies works. He would die because there was no long instructions on how our body works. Pretty pathetic, isn't it?

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 5:47 p.m. CST

    I agree with Continentalop...

    by Ironhelix

    I had heard how awesome TDK was, so when I sat down to watch it, I expected to be blown away. I wasn't. Part of the reason is Bale's overacting beyond the needs of the role (as he also did in that new Terminator movie... don't get me started on that one), and the other part is the director's insistence that we take this totally absurd premise seriously. It wasn't a bad movie, but TDK was absolutely not exceptional.

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 10:12 p.m. CST

    FluffyUnbound

    by the_first_rule_of_fight_club

    a planetwide disaster, huh? isn't that kind of like, no, scratch that, EXACTLY like what happens in "I Am Legend"?

  • Sept. 9, 2009, 10:16 p.m. CST

    HOUSTON500

    by the_first_rule_of_fight_club

    listen, you incredible imbecile, i'm glad you derive smug pleasure from reiterating ad nauseum that there are only two survivors, not a handful. you do realize, though, that you not only sound autistic, you are also wrong. there's also the thief and someone else i can't remember. oh, and congratulations. as someone else said earlier, you passed the geek test: you, sir, can tell the difference between a cannibal and a zombie. your conversation must be scintillating on dates, that is, of course, if you've ever been on one. now please excuse me as i completely stop wasting my time on you.

  • Sept. 10, 2009, 3:33 a.m. CST

    quantas never had a crash

    by goatboy500

    hahaha, okay kid, imbecile huh? haven;t been on a date huh? nice arguments. you're wrong on both counts but i'm not gonna get into another large argument with you about shit that doesn;t matter. Oh and for the record, myself and other talkbackers have corrected your outrageous claims as to the distinction between 'zombie' and 'cannibal'. You also said I Am Legend was a classic of the post apocalyptic genre, a film that was pretty much universally derided as one of the quintessential examples of studio interference fucking up a movie. I can't really do anything with that either. And deriding me as a geek two posts after 'correcting' me on the correct rules of fight club isn't quite irony but is a perfect example of you being a humourless cunt. (HINT: 'imbecile' is a medical term, along with 'moron' and 'idiot' used to describe certain levels of low IQ. I'm not sure if an imbecile would know how to define irony but I can, so i'll just take idiot thanks). have a good one man, its all good.

  • Sept. 10, 2009, 3:34 a.m. CST

    ps

    by goatboy500

    so autistic is an insult now? you're a beautiful person. well done.

  • Sept. 10, 2009, 5:06 a.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by Continentalop

    Once again I disagree. All art has to be subjective, because we all don't have the same background or life experiences. Most people would call SAVING PRIVATE RYAN a masterpiece; I wouldn't. I would say it is a OK movie but it fails because it is not an accurate reflection of how the military operates based on my experience. I also know vets and members of the military who despise that movie because they see all the fakeness and how to them it is incredibly unbelievable (as one cad said, any soldier that had a brain would have fragged their CO Tom Hanks halfway through that movie). Are you or me going to tell an active duty marine, an ex-Korean war vet or Oliver Stone (ex-vet in Nam) wrong for pointing out what they see as false in that movie? <p> Plus all movies are supposed to work on your emotions. You are not supposed to have a rational reaction to art – art is supposed to work on your emotions and your sensibilities. Once again going to A CLOCKWORK ORANGE example, no matter how you explain it my friend can trump your argument by saying “It has never happened to you. You don’t know what you are talking about.” And she is right. No matter how you justify how Kubrick uses rape or shows it, she can point out it has happened to her and it is something you know nothing about. In her viewpoint it is not something funny or something you never depict in a satirical way – it as very serious matter. <p> And Kubrick does show it in a satirical way. I have been in theaters where people laugh and snicker during the rape scenes, and people parody the Singing in the Rain bit. Without a doubt he is making the scenes over-the-top and absurd. We can rationalize why he does that, we can justify it, but we can’t eliminate the emotional connection between the image or thought of rape with her life experiences. What Kubrick depicts goes against those experiences, making his depiction of it false and wrong by her viewpoint, making it a bad work of art. Her life experiences tell them this is false (and as Robert Altman said, he only cares in his films if they feel “true”, that is the most important part of a film). <P> Also, where is the question who determines what is a great film and where the line is drawn. GODFATHER I & II are obviously great, and so is CITIZEN KANE, but is THE CONVERSATION and LADY FROM SHANGHAI great or just near great. And then what about THE WARRIORS, ALIEN, THE SEVENTH SIGN, TEXAC CHAIN-SAW MASSACRE, KILL BILL, GODFATHER III and 48 HOURS? Which ones are great, which ones are good, and which ones are overrated or bad? And which film is better – THE BICYCLE THIEF, 8 ½ or RASHOMON? And who gets to determine that? The way you talk is that these great films are obviously great, but if that is the case what is the magic formula that makes them great? What quality instantly makes something great, and one film better than another? And if it is such an obvious thing, why is it that so many people, including many smart and talented people, be unable to agree. Why is it that Ingmar Bergman hated CITIZEN KANE, a movie many people consider the greatest ever made? <P> The answer is what makes a film great is a consensus of critics, filmmakers and viewers that film has effected them to a greater degree then another film has. And how do they know something effected them? By how much of an emotional response they had watching a film. Critics and filmmakers can go back and break the movie apart to see how that was achieved (by use of sound, camera movements, character, etc.) and appreciate the artistry and craftsmanship that filmmakers used to get that result, but in the end it was the way the film struck an emotional chord in them is why they appreciated it. <P> Now obviously certain movies show a certain degree of competence and artistic skill, and I am not saying that you can’t criticize or argue why you think or don’t think a film works. Many times people do “miss the point” of a film because such a point is beyond their experiences or knowledge and need to go back and see it with this new knowledge. Most filmgoers don’t look at film as art and see only a very limited range of films, basically blockbusters and escapism fare, so they don’t have the comprehension of cinematic grammar to really appreciate them. Just like many people don’t have the knowledge of dance or opera to truly appreciate and judge them. <p> Finally, two things; You bring up how people who love the new Star Trek act like religious fanatics. I hate to say this, but I disagree and actually think your argument sounds more like a religious fundamentalist. A zealot doesn’t harbor doubt or allow other people to have a different opinion; a zealot and fundamentalist believes that everything is clear cut and black and white. And a zealot thinks the idea of subjective viewpoint is a false one. When Obama brings up how gun control and abortion opponents and supporters both have good points in support of their ideas, the fundamentalist disagree with that and refuse to acknowledge that the other side has any legitimate argument. To them they are just flat out wrong and are unwilling to see the opponents viewpoint. How is the idea of someone appreciating Star Trek or disagreeing that TDK is a great movie different from a religious fundamentalist unwilling to accept that other people have the right to worship different religions, or that not everyone should have to worship your God and go to your church. <P> And finally, I never said I was against escapism or said that super-hero movies can only be escapism. I think super-heroes can be powerful metaphors, I just have a hard time buying them in a real world scenario. You can accept the idea of a costumed vigilante in a bat suit fighting crime – that is your subjective viewpoint that it is acceptable and you can suspend disbelief. But when they try to make it realistic, it is my subjective viewpoint that I can’t suspend my disbelief: I think of my own life experiences, the stuff I read and movies I have seen. I think to myself why the hell isn’t Tommy from GoodFellas putting a bullet in the Joker’s face when he tells the mobsters what to do, and how the hell is Batman beating up a handful of SWAT guys when they are almost always ex-SOF and most can do the el Presedente in under 4 (or even 3) seconds. They would shoot Batman in the face before he had time to react IN THE REAL WORLD, which is what Nolan is trying to present it as. I personally see TDK as Nolan trying to eat his cake and have it too, but other people see it differently. That is the point of art – everyone has their own perspective and interpretation of it. <P> I don’t know if you are familiar with Sergie Eisenstien’s work, but maybe you should read his two books, Film Form and Film Sense, where he goes into the connection between emotion, life experiences and are ability to enjoy or appreciate a film. The other thing you might want to watch is Martin Scorsese's Personal Journey Through American Film, where he goes over the films that influenced and affected him the most - and the majority of them did so because the hit him on a personal level. Scorsese is a firm believer of film as a personal subjective medium, as am I.

  • Sept. 10, 2009, 6:35 a.m. CST

    Continentalop

    by AsimovLives

    Comic book movies ARE escapism. Again, the problem here is not escapism, but your limited definition of it. Even realistic documentaries are escapism if they take you on a different reality then your daily own. Again, i have to stress this, escapism is not the problem. Escapism is not even a justification. Escapism is A DEFITION, a classification. That's it. To use it as a justification for an argumentation is the same to try to defend the movie becaus eit's blue. It's both nonense.<br><br>I don't understand the americna idea that there has to be one number one movie better then another. THE BICYCLE THIEF, 8 ½ or RASHOMON are all great. they ar enot great because of my personal opinion, they are great because they are great, and that greatness can be acessed RATIONALLY. What do you think critical analisis is? What do you think semiotics is? A rational approach to movies appreciation is simply this: you think about them, you acess them. It's not a passive attitude. To have feelings, and just feelings, and thus, the pseudo-subjective attitude, is passive. And inferior. It takes the less effort, it demans less from the perceiver, is has the lesser value.<br><br>I understand that you and namy others make the classic mistake of mistaking quality with preference. They are not the same. And i'll give you an example from my own self:<br>Casablanca. I don't like the movie much. I really don't. I think it's a barely disguised propaganda movie, sometimes it's even a blatant propaganda movie. While i compreend the circunstances of the time that made the movie be like so, it still grates me how crudly it does. and ye,t i'm certain that it's a great movie. Casablanca is a great movie. I know it's a great movie. I think it's a great movie. And i don't like it. My personal preference, what you call the "subjective" thingy, has nothing to do with accepting an uncontornable and undeniable fact. The movie is great and i don't like it. The moie will not get bad just because i don't like it. That would be stupid.<br><br>Captain Kronos: Vampyre Hunter. I love that movie, i really do. but i can't say it's a great movie. it isn't. It's a good movie. but it's not great. The movie doesn't became by magic great just because i love it.<br><br>I could bring more examples of movies i love and which are not masterpieces, and movies i don't care and are true great movies. And this is the point, really. a movie is not just great because of my or your preferneces. There's more to a movie's quality then just want i prefer, or that i had the shits one day and it perturbed my appreciation or because i was drunk and mistook a Michael Bay movie for a good one.<br><br>It's as simple as this, friend.

  • Sept. 10, 2009, 11:53 a.m. CST

    one of the best stories i've ever read

    by belledame

    the destruction of the biosphere was caused by an impact event. there are some interviews with mccarthy and some of his science genius cohorts that confirm this. it was asteroid impact with the atmosphere (like the Tunguska incident 100 years ago and apophis due in 2011 or so). multiple strikes from space that create immediate sonic destruction and flash fires, then a massive ash cloud that blots the sun. no sun kills plants, no plants kills herbivores, no herbivores kills carnivores, no herbis or carnis kills omnis (who have been fighting over these as they dwindled). all that's left are the people who survived the warring and being preyed on by large carnivores. what do they eat? whatever was missed in the warring and scavenging ...and/or people. being that hunger quickly deprives people of their dignity and often sanity, what you have left are people reduced to their base instincts by trauma and desperation. the man and the boy are diminished, just not nearly as much as the gangs and cannibals. their relationship saves them. the boy was born at the beginning of the cataclysm when the man was still part of a robust society. the man fully received the grace of a parent and that is his strongest identity as the world falls apart. the mother's grace is like that of the woman in "beloved" she knows how desperately at risk she and the boy are and would rather see him safely dead than continue on this way. i figure the boy to be around 10. he can remember living in house and the text makes clear that the whole family was on the road before the mother resigned, which has been at least a year past. they were hard pressed to make a movie as grim as the book. i was pissed it got yanked last year. cannot wait to see it. (although i am very freaked about the larder in the plantation house. *shudder*)

  • Sept. 10, 2009, 3:55 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by Continentalop

    AsimovLives, you can criticize my use of the term “escapism” but in the West the term has long been used to define movies and fiction that takes the reader completely out of reality. It has a specific connotation here, specifically meaning to let the viewer or reader “escape” from the perceived unpleasant or banal aspects of his daily life. By that definition, I am correct in calling certain movies “escapist” fare because the point of those movies is to supply the viewers a fantasy life that they can live vicariously through. You might not like that definition, but I used the term accurately. <P> In your last piece you say that we Americans must always rank things; but I wonder how you can say that when that is exactly what you are doing. You are instantly judging something good or bad, one or the other. That is a ranking method. And if something is good, than something must be better, and if something better, than something must be great. <P> Well, if by RATIONALLY examining a movie you can determine which one is a great movie, than you should be able to determine which one is greater than another. That is a rational step - listing all the qualities that make something great - and ranking them by those qualities. That is what you are advocating. So by your logic we should be able to determine what is better, CITIZEN KANE or the BICYCLE THIEF, GRAND ILLUSION or BREATHLESS. <P> The problem is that what makes many movies great is intangible qualities, things that are hard or impossible to explain. Yes, that is were criticism and analysis come in, because you try to figure out why that work of art works so effectively on you. However, art is not a science, you cannot truly prove why something works you can only theorize, hence why so many critics come to different conclusions about the meaning of a piece of art (including film). <P> If determining art is good or bad was so easy, we could have programmed robots and computers to do it for us. But we can’t because art (which film is) works on an emotional level. And because everyone has a different life experiences, no two pieces of art will effect him the same. That is why reacting to a film is subjective. <P> And the idea of that you can rationally break down a movie as you watch it seems ludicrous to me. Yes, I am an active movie goer, I think as I watch it, but I become truly engrossed into a movie when I am suddenly drawn into what is going on to the characters in the movie. It is that emotional connection that gets me involved in a movie. The way you talk is that we should all act like autistics and not have any emotional connection to the movie or the character, just sit back and count how many pieces of flair the movie has to qualify it as great or bad. If a movie has me doing that, I consider it a bad movie. I should be invested what is going on the screen, not figuring out if his use of a dolly makes this a great movie or not. <P> When critics and filmmakers, the experts watch a movie, they are not judging it on an intellectual level. That comes later when they try to rationalize why they liked something. If you have read the book “Blink” by Maxwell Gladwell you will know that critics base their decision on INTUITION. They have watched so many films, and have studied and analyzed so many, that they come to their first conclusions that a film is good or bad based on intuition. When they see a movie they love, the often can’t explain why they love it right of the bat, fortunately they have developed a grammar to help them explain why they like something and why they think it is good. That comes in the analysis phase. But at first they have to see if the film effects them, and that is on an emotional level. And no two critics will have the same taste. They suffer biases and prejudices as much as anyone else. That also effects their analysis. <P> Roger Ebert hated A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, Pauline Kael didn’t think much of GOODFELLAS, and Howard Hawks hated HIGH NOON. Now all those movies are considered classics. Why? Consensus amongst the experts. So were those critics and directors wrong? No, because they explained how they reacted to those films on an emotional level, which is how you are supposed to react to art, which makes it a subjective decision. <p> The difference with critics, filmmakers, aficionados like us and other experts versus mainstream audiences is that we see many movies, a whole lot more than they usually see, and we also see a lot of different variety. We have a film grammar and depth of knowledge they can never possess. Does that make our opinions superior to theirs? Maybe, just like maybe a food critic’s opinion will be superior to the average restaurant goer. But in the end you cannot blame the man who prefers a steak and beer over fine dining because within the context of his life, it taste better. And even two expert critics will argue over what a better restaurant is because they each have a different viewpoint. That is being subjective. <p> Which is why I amazed that you can set here and lecture me about making the difference between quality and preference. Sorry, but your argument is without merit because someone has to first define what quality is, and if you take a 100 critics I doubt they will agree what defines it. You will get a consensus about quality, you will not get a definitive answer. And I am sure that their preferences always seem to fall on the side of what they consider quality. A filmmaker who prefers the visuals will probably list camera work as his big qualities, while an actor will list acting as the number one quality. Once again, it is subjective to the viewer. <P> What you are doing is mistaking craftsmanship with artistry. A well made film is not necessarily a great film. Just because everything is in focus, the actors hit their marks, the sound is crisp and easy to understand, and the editing is smooth does not make it a great movie. Casavettes films are sloppy as hell but there is more artistry in SHADOWS or WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE then the polished films of Cecil B. DeMille IMO. Of course, someone with a different criteria might argue otherwise. <P> If determining what makes something quality is so easy, surely there must be a list somewhere out there that gives us the complete criteria. Can you tell me this magical formula that defines what makes something have quality? The formula that is 100% accurate and no one will disagree about it? You can send me a link that list all the great movies that no one doubts and you can never argue against, I will be thankful. Of course, I could probably find another list that goes against yours that is just as valid, because once again determining what is good or bad is subjective, it is not algebra. <p> You can say YOU hate STAR TREK and express why you think it is a bad movie, and you can say YOU love THE DARK KNIGHT and why you think it is a great movie – what you can’t do is say that you are 100% right no matter what. You are just expressing a subjective viewpoint and backing up your argument with critical analysis, you are not presenting a scientific law.

  • Sept. 10, 2009, 4:05 p.m. CST

    "Lop...great argument....should be the final word on the subject

    by Cheeses_of_Nazareth

    but, of course, it won't be...