Anyone catch the movie 'The Road'?

[K1052]

As was already mentioned:
When the premise itself is implausible it's a little distracting to the story.

Since there never seems to be any concern about radiation I think it can safely be assumed that some sort of impact event is responsible...an asteroid or more likely a comet (or possibly a number of comet fragments) based on the brief description in the book. Personally, I don't find that implausible since such events are linked to a number of mass extinctions.

Given the years that had passed and the condition of the environment I think that is the only force that could have accomplished it.

 

[Anubis]

i thought it was incredibly boring /shrug

 

[irishScott]

The main thing that pissed me off (about the movie, haven't read the book) was an overwhelming brutality for brutality's sake. ie: The cannibalism portrayed wasn't survival cannibalism, it was just evil, gory brutality for it's own sake.

Spoiler

So there's this scene where the two main characters are sneaking into/stealing from a house of cannibals, and while exploring the basement they discover a human larder. The cannibals have captured humans, stripped them naked, and shoved them into a dark, moist environment with no sanitation for storage. Later, when the main characters barely escape, you hear them scream as the cannibals cut them open alive.

This makes no sense. Storing people that way would just make them diseased and thin, ruining any meat you might get. Preparing them alive also makes no sense, when the cannibals clearly had knives and guns available. Even if you want to conserve ammo, at least cut their throats and give them a quick death before skinning them.

There is no reason to show such brutality. It's not like Saving Private Ryan where it's an accurate depiction of what happened, it's just evil from the twisted mind of the director and possibly author.

 

[irishScott]

Since there never seems to be any concern about radiation I think it can safely be assumed that some sort of impact event is responsible...an asteroid or more likely a comet (or possibly a number of comet fragments) based on the brief description in the book. Personally, I don't find that implausible since such events are linked to a number of mass extinctions.

Given the years that had passed and the condition of the environment I think that is the only force that could have accomplished it.

Since when do impact craters evaporate oceans?

 

[Baptismbyfire]

The main thing that pissed me off (about the movie, haven't read the book) was an overwhelming brutality for brutality's sake. ie: The cannibalism portrayed wasn't survival cannibalism, it was just evil, gory brutality for it's own sake.

Spoiler

So there's this scene where the two main characters are sneaking into/stealing from a house of cannibals, and while exploring the basement they discover a human larder. The cannibals have captured humans, stripped them naked, and shoved them into a dark, moist environment with no sanitation for storage. Later, when the main characters barely escape, you hear them scream as the cannibals cut them open alive.

This makes no sense. Storing people that way would just make them diseased and thin, ruining any meat you might get. Preparing them alive also makes no sense, when the cannibals clearly had knives and guns available. Even if you want to conserve ammo, at least cut their throats and give them a quick death before skinning them.

There is no reason to show such brutality. It's not like Saving Private Ryan where it's an accurate depiction of what happened, it's just evil from the twisted mind of the director and possibly author.

I thought it was because they wanted to make the food last as long as possible, so they only chopped off one or two limbs off at a time. If you kill them, when they have more meat on their bones, you might have a feast, but then there is only so much you can eat. Also, since they had no electricity and refrigeration, I figured they tried to keep the meat on the body as long as possible, so it doesn't spoil as easily.

 

[ohtwell]

I've seen it and I have to agree it is depressing. I liked it, though!


: ) Amanda

 

[Pheran]

Since when do impact craters evaporate oceans?

What are you talking about? The ocean was not evaporated.

 

[eits]

i was going to, but never got the chance... maybe i should download it.

 

[irishScott]

What are you talking about? The ocean was not evaporated.

I'm remembering that shot of the docks with all the beached ships that were still moored in place.

 

[irishScott]

I thought it was because they wanted to make the food last as long as possible, so they only chopped off one or two limbs off at a time. If you kill them, when they have more meat on their bones, you might have a feast, but then there is only so much you can eat. Also, since they had no electricity and refrigeration, I figured they tried to keep the meat on the body as long as possible, so it doesn't spoil as easily.

Yes, because chopping a limb or two off a human being with minimal if any medical treatment doesn't kill them at all. /sarcasm

And no sanitation = disease. Why do modern slaughter-houses work? Because they pump the animals full of antibiotics and keep a basic level of sanitation.

 

[Pheran]

I'm remembering that shot of the docks with all the beached ships that were still moored in place.

I don't remember what you are talking about, but there is a shot with ships that have been washed up onto a highway, presumably by a massive tsunami. They visit the ocean in the movie, and there's plenty of water.

 

[coldmeat]

I didn't like it. The kid was especially bad, and would have ruined the movie for me even if I had liked the rest.

 

[n7]

Excellent movie.

But yeah, very dark movie.

 

[0roo0roo]

it wasn't depressing for the right reason, it was depressing because it was pointless.

 

[OlafSicky]

I had my shotgun out and in my mouth by the end of the movie. I don't recommend it :thumbsdown:

 

[Farang]

I read the book and saw the movie, I agree very depressing with no redeeming happy feelings to walk away with. Usually in this type of story it is very depressing but you take away some kind of hope. In this there was no hope, and never will be.

What I took away from it was that morality is fleeting. In the author's view, morality is something taken up as a convenience, and when it becomes inconvenient, it is dropped. It seems like even the main character struggles to 'carry the fire,' and has to be reminded by his son. It is a harsh view of what a post-apocalyptic world would look like, but I have a hard time arguing it isn't realistic.

Another take is that it is a view of human nature on its most primal level. The man and the son live as rats in the wilderness, yet with all the knowledge of modern civilization. How would you act if you suddenly became a rat?

 

[chowderhead]

I LOVE Post-Apocalyptic movies/books. I saw the movie than bought the book. I thought both were equally strong. To me, the story describes different aspects of humanity in the face of unimaginable horrors and bleakness and suffering. The story is a complete emotional roller coaster of courage and cowardice, love and sacrifice, anger, happiness, sadness, fear, and I would argue hope at the end. Ultimately, the story is about the bond and love between a father and son. They journey together on a nameless road. The man is fiercely protective of his son and would do anything to keep him safe. Knowing he himself is dying, the father tries as best he can to teach the son how to survive in a bleak and dying world. It is heartbreaking every time I watch the movie or read the book. The visuals are haunting in the movie and the acting is superb. McCarthy wrote a bleak and beautiful book.

I will always remember the father and the son even though they are nameless in the story.
The Road is one of my favorite movies/books of all time.

 

[adlep]

Thank you for the recommendation...
If you are into dark movies,

Do not forget to watch Devil's Rejects...

http://youtu.be/y4XmI0eBiMQ

http://youtu.be/vbooMZvH-Qg -> NSFW

 

[Tristicus]

Yes, it was a pretty good movie.

 

[HendrixFan]

Yes, it was a pretty good movie.

I agree.

Maybe I'm just nuts, but I found the ending uplifting. It seems that the son was the notion that there is hope for mankind. He wanted to help, he trusted. We started out as nomads tens of thousands of years ago but through common interest we developed society.

It has been a while since I've seen it, but doesn't a plant bloom near the end? It is the rebirth, symbolic of the son finding others who think like him, others who will help each other.

 

[sandorski]

Great movie. The Ending was was also well done, IMO. Left me with a, "I'm not so sure about this" kinda feeling. Definitely not a feel good movie, but a Feel movie.

 

[schneiderguy]

Great movie. The Ending was was also well done, IMO. Left me with a, "I'm not so sure about this" kinda feeling. Definitely not a feel good movie, but a Feel movie.

>that feel

 

[torpid]

Yes, because chopping a limb or two off a human being with minimal if any medical treatment doesn't kill them at all.

It will take longer than instant death, at least. Also, we don't know that they weren't being treated.

And no sanitation = disease. Why do modern slaughter-houses work? Because they pump the animals full of antibiotics and keep a basic level of sanitation.

Animals are allowed to roam outside without showering every day. The often have dirt and grime all over their bodies. And immediately cooking and then immediately eating the meat would probably kill off a huge majority of any bacteria or virus. Much of the issue with sanitation and disease outbreaks is due to the time between slaughter and cooking at home.

 

[Quasmo]

I couldn't even finish the movie. I think I would have enjoyed watching a grey screen for two hours. Which is essentially what the movie is.

 

[gorcorps]

Liked the book, didn't really care for the movie. Some things just aren't translatable to film and IMO this is one.