Revolutionary Road

Stefen · January 18, 2009, 10:17:48 PM

I tend to hate movies that are about upper middle class white people in the Suburbs. This was good, but not great and isn't exempt from my usual feelings. I didn't hate it, because the acting is really good, but as a whole, it just comes off as dated. I don't mean in the sense that it takes place in 1955, but I just mean that the subject matter, while shocking for the time, isn't really anything that works in the present for anything other than a corny Hallmark made for TV movie. It felt almost like Mendes was trying to re-create American Beauty, but in a more grown-up way to try and mask his lack of maturity as a filmmaker in the decade since 1999. It does a good job at re-creating the era, and a lot of credit for that should be given to the actors. Kate Winslet was great as always and Leo didn't bug me playing an adult as much as he normally does. Dylan Baker as the smug co-worker was annoying, but he was supposed to be and I wish we got more of him.

I've never read the book so I can't comment on that, but I can see how in the beginning of the 60's some of the subject matter would have been considered Taboo, but like I said, here it just comes off as dated.

I'd recommend it for a rental just for the acting alone. It has it's merits, but overall it just further illustrates what's considered best of the year material in a shitty year like 08.

7.0/10.

Spoilers..........

I thought the end with the, "How do you want your eggs?" Scrambled?" bit at the end right before the at home do it yourself abortion kit infomercial was in bad taste. That was what that whole part was for, right? Or is my brain just sick?

Gamblour. · January 19, 2009, 08:38:36 AM

Haha I never thought of that, so I guess you're only slightly sick.

And we all keep saying it's a bad year for movies, but I think after last year being so amazing, it feels a lot worse than it actually is. The more I'm seeing from last year's slate, the more I'm realizing this. Every has its shitty or subpar lot, and every year some of them get nominated.

MacGuffin · January 20, 2009, 05:44:21 PM

The film was like a punch to the gut; so full of a spectrum of emotions. I do think it could have done better with a bit of editing for pacing. But to watch this story play out of these two people who we hardly get an introduction to, yet we know and understand everything about them, was like watching a train wreck in slow motion that you couldn't look away from (yes, I purposefully avoided a Titanic/iceberg analogy that the media all clinged too).

Kate and Leo were on the mark, and I predict she will get her first Oscar for this. And why has no one mentioned Michael Shannon? He stole those scenes he was in.

Gamblour. · January 21, 2009, 04:24:16 AM

Quote from: MacGuffin on January 20, 2009, 05:44:21 PM
Kate and Leo were on the mark, and I predict she will get her first Oscar for this. And why has no one mentioned Michael Shannon? He stole those scenes he was in.

Oh yeah, it's incredible. The supporting actors are so well cast. The sad neighbors and the meathead boss, pretty amazing all.

SiliasRuby · January 24, 2009, 05:58:03 PM

Quote from: Gamblour. on January 21, 2009, 04:24:16 AM
Quote from: MacGuffin on January 20, 2009, 05:44:21 PM
Kate and Leo were on the mark, and I predict she will get her first Oscar for this. And why has no one mentioned Michael Shannon? He stole those scenes he was in.

Oh yeah, it's incredible. The supporting actors are so well cast. The sad neighbors and the meathead boss, pretty amazing all.

I agree. Amazing powerhouse performances all around. I was very happy that I saw this in the theaters. Some of the images felt iconic in the making. Leo is taking on some amazing roles in the past few years and agents and studios are now noticing him as a Paul newman type of actor, using his star power from his earlier teen years to make films that really have some substance.

picolas · January 25, 2009, 03:34:31 AM

Quote from: SiliasRuby on January 24, 2009, 05:58:03 PMusing his star power from his earlier teen years to make films that really have some substance.

people have been saying that for years dude.

plenty of the films from his teens also had 'substance' though. this boy's life, basketball diaries, r + j, titanic, etc.

Pas · January 25, 2009, 07:51:57 PM

That there is no love for this in the Oscars is beyond me. This movie is as powerful and hard as it gets. I turned my head away at the end it was too much for me.

I'd like to say that I found that Frank was not a bad guy and this movie really is interesting in staying away from the ''50s man'' stereotype. I thought that April was seriously mentally ill from the first scene of the movie to the last. She needed a mother's little helper in a bottle of plastic. And she blamed Frank for many things that he is not responsible for (which he accuses her of many times in the movie). So yeah those were good characters.

I think the scenes where they fight are the most realistic hollywood has ever done. I remembered hearing my parents as a kid during these scenes and it was very powerful.

Quote from: picolas on January 25, 2009, 03:34:31 AM
Quote from: SiliasRuby on January 24, 2009, 05:58:03 PMusing his star power from his earlier teen years to make films that really have some substance.
people have been saying that for years dude.

plenty of the films from his teens also had 'substance' though. this boy's life, basketball diaries, r + j, titanic, etc.

Yes I don't either buy into the whole Leo DiCaprio as an actor for kids. He was always a serious actor and his good looks were often overstated because of the quality of the movies he's been in.

Alexandro · February 04, 2009, 11:59:40 PM

Quote from: Gamblour. on January 13, 2009, 07:59:50 AM
and that's why it's not this urban vs. suburban. It's about passion vs. decay.

Exactly. And that is timeless. And I don't get at all these criticisms about the film being irrelevant or something that doesn't "work for the present". I'm sorry but you guys are wrong. The crossroads these characters encounter are pretty much spot on for I would say most people today that have to make up their minds on wether to follow a dream or be "responsible" for a house, a family, whatever. It has nothing to do with the 50's really, and it has all to do with the decisions people make regarding their destiny.

The filmmaking is fantastic. I tried hard but couldn't find any of the "perfection" some people are talking about. Deakins is a fine, I would say one of the two or three finest cinematographers in the world, and he usually guarantees beautiful imaginary, wether in a Coen Brothers film or with M. Night Shyamalan or whoever he is working with. Mendes obviously wanted a more raw approach. I can't help but think some people haven't "forgiven" him for winning an oscar the year Magnolia came out. Because he gets some bad shit sometimes, and here's a director who can take awesome comedic and dramatic performances from actors, has a strong visual sense and great instincts. American Beauty isn't perfect but it's great for what it is.

Some of the scenes are incredible, particularly the sequence right after Michael Shannon's second appearence. Both of the main performances are equally a joy and a heartbreak to watch. I think those two got the better out of each other. And Michael Shannon totally steals every second he's onscreen.

The fact that Brad Pitt is up for an Oscar instead of Di Caprio just confirms again what a bunch of crap the whole thing is. This was a tremendous achievement.

Convael · February 09, 2009, 07:56:02 AM

My school is having a screening of this this week with a Q&A after with Michael Shannon. I haven't seen this film and don't know much about Michael Shannon so I was wondering if you guys had any recommendations for a question I should ask...

Gamblour. · February 09, 2009, 09:13:49 AM

Well he portrays a person with a mental illness in the 50s and is often just dismissed with a "He's crazy." Actually, it would be the biggest favor ever if you could ask him what he did to research and learn about mental illness and stigma in the 50s and how he approached his character with what he learned. I would hope he didn't just try to play crazy to play crazy, because his character's power is built around stigma, so I hope he would have a conscientious approach.

But anyway, if you are able to ask him that and get an answer, that would be incredible.

Convael · February 12, 2009, 09:49:27 PM

I thought that the movie was great. I was able to ask him Gamblour's question and he said that he went out and bought a ton of math books because the character's a mathematician and read up about electroshock therapy, but that he mainly just went to the book whenever he had a question. He didn't really comment too much on the stigma of his illness in the '50s so I guess maybe he just went from the book and from his general knowledge? Because I'm a fucking fanboy I went up to him after and asked him if he liked the work of any directors and really wanted to work with any, and then asked him if he'd want to work with PT Anderson, and he said that he actually auditioned for the part of Henry in TWBB and still really wants to work with him.

Someone asked him if he was nervous about competing against Heath Ledger because of the all the buzz surrounding Ledger, and he gave some strange response about how Ledger shouldn't be a role model and if Ledger wins that he doesn't know what that would mean. I believe his exact quote was along the lines of, "If he wins, does that mean people should go out and take a bunch of pills or something? I don't know." I felt like he kind of missed the question.

Stefen · February 12, 2009, 09:54:53 PM

Awesome. Thanks for the recap. I love when this type of stuff happens.

That's crazy what he said about Ledger.

Gamblour. · February 12, 2009, 10:34:57 PM

Dude, that is really awesome of you. Thanks for asking. Yeah, I guess it doesn't make much sense for him to read up on stigma, considering that's really everyone else's job to judge him.

Pas · February 13, 2009, 08:59:43 AM

Wow thanks for that man !

Pozer · February 13, 2009, 02:02:58 PM

Quote from: Convael on February 12, 2009, 09:49:27 PM
Someone asked him if he was nervous about competing against Heath Ledger because of the all the buzz surrounding Ledger, and he gave some strange response about how Ledger shouldn't be a role model and if Ledger wins that he doesn't know what that would mean. I believe his exact quote was along the lines of, "If he wins, does that mean people should go out and take a bunch of pills or something? I don't know." I felt like he kind of missed the question.

that's pretty horrible. he's a pretty superb actor tho. even more than that. first noticed him in Before the Devil i believe. just saw Bug for the first time on cable, another performance from him that couldn't be matched or bettered. and he would have been great as Henry by the way.

his minute role added so much to this film. so much there in his expression. he's so good at taming his performance of the psychotic character where most actors would fall into hamming it up territory.