Cannes Film Festival 2013

The M/C Review: 'The Road' proves tricky to adapt

There's some meat on the bones, but not enough to nourish

<p>Kodi-Smit McPhee and Viggo Mortensen play father and son at the end of the world in 'The Road,' John Hillcoat's adaptation of the acclaimed Cormac McCarthy novel</p>

Kodi-Smit McPhee and Viggo Mortensen play father and son at the end of the world in 'The Road,' John Hillcoat's adaptation of the acclaimed Cormac McCarthy novel

Credit: The Weinstein Company

Cormac McCarthy is not an easy author to adapt from page to screen. 

Each of his books seems to pose a different challenge to screenwriters and directors, too, and so there's no one answer for how to crack the problem of bringing his books to the bigscreen.  I think the Coens did a tremendous job with "No Country For Old Men," and there are parts of "All The Pretty Horses" that work very well, even if the film as a whole is sort of a heavily-manhandled mess as it was released.

"The Road" was a very different type of challenge, and it's one that I'm not sure John Hillcoat mastered.  He makes a valiant attempt, but the ways the film frustrated me as a viewer suggest that the job just plain got away from him, and as an end result, I think the film is muted, half-hearted, and dissatisfying, and one of the year's big heartbreaks, all things considered.

There is, after all, a long and healthy tradition of post-apocalyptic cinema, some of it trashy, some of it more serious-minded, and there are certainly classics in the genre that are hard to beat.  For "The Road" to stand apart from what's come before, it needed to find a particular angle on the material that we haven't seen before, or contribute something new to the language of how the ruined world might be portrayed on film. The dirty secret of McCarthy's justly-acclaimed novel is that the appeal does not lie in the story being told, but in how that story is told.  It's not what happens... it's the way McCarthy tells it.  "The Road" is all about language, about the evocative nature of how McCarthy paints his picture, and the spare emotional detail. It's a powerhouse of a book, but it's not especially a powerhouse of a story.

Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee co-star as a nameless Father and Son who find themselves wandering through a landscape ruined by some unspecified end of the world, and that's about all the plot there is to the film.  They encounter people along the way, some hostile, some not, and they try to find a way to survive while retaining some essential humanity in the process.  From time to time, Viggo flashes back to his life before the world fell apart, and we get glimpses of the nameless Mother, played by Charlize Theron, as she slowly gives in to despair and fear.  Viggo struggles to protect some small part of his son's innocence, even as he keeps him safe, and the process slowly but surely wears him down as a man and as a father.

Joe Penhall's script certainly covers most of the main events from the book, but it never figures out a way to translate the poetry of McCarthy's language into some sort of film equivalent.  The problem is just as much a problem for John Hillcoat, whose film "The Proposition" proved him to be more than willing to indulge extreme violence and disturbing imagery.  This entire film is oddly muted, and the roughest edges of McCarthy's book have been rounded off completely.  What remains relies entirely on the chemistry between Mortensen and his young co-star if it's going to work, and how you respond will no doubt depend on how much you respond to what happens between the two of them.  That's a problem for me, because as well-intentioned as I can tell he is, Smit-McPhee just doesn't have the chops to make the role work, and so no matter how hard Viggo works, no matter how much he acts his ass off in scene after scene, I don't really buy the connection between them, and so I don't buy the emotion that is so obviously meant to hit the viewer right where they live.

There are cameos by some very accomplished actors along the way, like Robert Duvall and Guy Pearce and Molly Parker and the great Garret Dillahunt and the also great Michael K. Williams, and all of them register in their brief onscreen time, but none of them really have a moment that pops or stands out.  It's all played at low volume, with a perpetual murk created by cinematographer Javier Aguirresarobe that certainly sets a mood.  It's technically accomplished, and the score by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis offers subtle support throughout, but for all the class and all the style of the film, it feels inert.  You can throw all the best people in the business at something, and it still doesn't guarantee that the film will work, and "The Road" seems to be a textbook case of that.

It's a shame, but not entirely unexpected.  "The Road" was always an unlikely blockbuster as a book, and as a film, it's been robbed of the precise things that made it special in the first place, leaving behind a shadow, a mere suggestion of what it could have been.

"The Road" opens in limited release on November 25th.

Can't get enough of Motion/Captured? Don't miss a post with daily HitFix Blog Alerts. Sign up now.

Don't miss out. Add Motion/Captured to your iGoogle, My Yahoo or My MSN experience by clicking here.

Not part of the HitFix Nation yet? Take 90 seconds and sign up today.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    stormshadow4life

    Hmmmm, that was my biggest concern with the movie...the boy. I will still see it since I've read some good reviews for the movie too. I liked the book, but it didn't blow me away, so maybe that'll help me enjoy the movie more. We'll see.

    November 23, 2009 at 7:52PM EST Reply to Comment


  • This is what I suspected, unfortunately. The book, beautiful and heartbreaking though it is, is also intentionally repetitive and episodic.
    There's no way McCarthy's poetic language could translate to the screen (without a clumsy voice over) so this was always going to be compromised.

    November 24, 2009 at 2:59AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Bob Kane

    Every 'luke warm' review I have read for this movie are from people who have already read the book. I saw this movie at the Toronto Film Festival and loved it. I had never read the book before and the movie worked on almost every level for me. I have a feeling other people in my position will feel the same.

    November 24, 2009 at 1:18PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Daniel August-Joseph

    I've read the book, and I thought this movie was excellent, maybe even as good as the book. No, it doesn't have the book's beautiful prose, but I think the way Hillcoat handles the relationship between the man and the boy is more than poignant enough to help embody the book's representation of the characters.

    November 24, 2009 at 5:59PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Lt. Ripley

    Man, this is dead wrong. The kid's performance is nuanced and real and very engaging and in my opinion an improvement over the kid in the book who came across as very whiney for someone who grew up in the world as it is portrayed. It definitely is a different experience but still an excellent film. I hate how people look at adaptations as adaptations instead of movies in their own right. It's too bad Moriarty let that get in the way for him.

    November 28, 2009 at 9:27PM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew I didn't say that I disliked the film because the book was better. I disliked the film because it is inert. Obviously Kodi's performance worked better for you, but I didn't like him at all, nor did I believe him in the film. I think the film is a dramatic misfire, regardless of source material.

      November 28, 2009 at 11:14PM EST

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web