The book was seriously brutal. The scene where when they're leaving the cannibal place they see new Borns on spit roasts. Or how boys are kept as sexual objects. It was messed up and of course they kept them out of the movie
@@MasterJimenez they use a different word for it, and I only remember because I had to look up what it meant. In the novel it says they kept "catamites"
@krazykittymatt John Hillcoat did shoot the controversial scene from the book involving a baby on a spit being roasted over a campfire, but ultimately decided to cut it, because he felt it was simply too much.
I appreciate your commentary here, it's very objective. I agree with what you say about the soundtrack, I don't think I've read a book at all more "music-less" than The Road. I think even a little bit which would probably accentuate parts of other bleak films would be misplaced here. When I read the book it felt like everything was smothered under a thick, grimy blanket, the sky, the air and the sound especially. McCarthy's lack of speech marks made me immediately feel like the man and the boy whispered every word to each other, even when they explicitly weren't. I don't know, I think it's a very difficult book to put to film. Definitely subscribing to you :)
I liked both the book and the film, but both had the following, which I didn't like: 1. Man and boy, exhausted and starving, abandon their warm, well-supplied bunker because they heard a noise 2. Boy seems unfamiliar with canned food, even though nearly all the food he would be eating would come from cans 3. Boy constantly calls his father "Papa" as if it's the 18th century and not the 20th (book) or 21st (film) 4. Ridiculous happy ending. Pure-hearted family swoops in at the perfect moment to love and care for Boy. No problems taking on another mouth to feed. And they even have a dog, who also somehow gets fed.
I don't think Charlize Theron's "mean line" about the bullets was mean to villainize her. It was a realistic portrayal of a woman who is completely at the end of her rope mentally who is lashing out.
You’re totally right! And the book demonstrates her total exhaustion in a much less aggressive way, so the film was just kind of jarring to me in comparison. It’s a very subjective nitpick of mine!
The movie is, so to speak, judgmental towards her to the point of almost making her a flat stereotypical antagonist. To me that robs her last scene from its potential for existential pondering. Imho, a calculated move to "appease" the conscience of the book people, while feeding them whith their own old prejudices.
My main gripe with the movie is the relationship between the man and the boy. In the movie the man almost seems annoyed with the boy. Someone he saddled with. In the book it's clear how much the man loves him and would do anything to protect him. He's patient with him almost to a fault. The boy in the book acts much younger and is constantly whining about how scared he is. Being on the road for that long, I don't think that the boy would still be constantly voicing it. I agree, the sickness is downplayed.
Seriously seriously thank you for this. I chose this book as the main topic in my English A Levels and this was so so helpful! Literally everything you‘ve said is what I thought too while comparing the movie and the book. Thank you for this! That was great for revising the plot a little bit! :)
Something important to touch on. In the book, the woman and the man really have gone at great lengths debating their fates, life and death. In the end the woman can't do it anymore knowing that it'll only end with them murdered and r@ped. He knows he can't convince her anymore and in the end just asks that she waits a bit more and say goodbye to their son. She can't go do it and kills herself. Later, the boy asks about his mom and the man tells her she's gone.
Also I like that in the book it seems like she points out that her fate will likely be worse because she’s female. That’s something we also saw in Mad Max, the exploitation of women under apocalyptic scenarios has more potential for horror than males inherently because of how reproduction can also be exploited
I'm planning on reading the book, but I heard that the book hints that in the ending the boy walks off with potential cannibals vs. the movie which basically makes it clear that the people taking the boy in are good people. Is this true?
It’s been a while since I read or watched, but as far as I remember it’s not super obvious in either version. It might be more optimistic in the film but I feel like I remember it being ambiguous in both.
I found it to be the complete opposite tbh. The movie cuts to black as soon as the boy agrees to go with them so it’s quite ambiguous what happens afterwards. In the book however, it’s stated that the women sometimes speaks about god to the boy, but the boy prefers to pray to his father instead, so it can be assumed that they travel together for a good while at least. It also implies the family are religious, which could prevent them from engaging in cannibalism (i.e. their own parallel to the boy’s ‘carrying the fire’ myth).
If I remember correctly I think any suspicion that the family are cannibals is laid to rest by the fact that they have kept the dog for as long as they have. The implication being that if they were feral like the other people, they would have killed and eaten the dog a long time ago, but they still respect the sacred bond between dog and owner, so we assume they are also "carrying the fire".
I would say not based on interviews with McCarthy about his work. Ultimately it’s about the power of fatherly love, and that message would kind of be tainted if the boy just gets eaten. I personally don’t like the ending, but with the author’s intention in mind, I think we can conclusively say he wanted it to be a good ending and the people are good
I can’t help but see the book as “the original” so I love it when a film artfully captures that. I understand that all content can’t be represented for a multitude of reasons and condensation must occur. No County for Old Men is a good example of film honoring the book very well. It’s what I love to see. I will say that I have enjoyed many films made from books and put aside the creative differences. Most often I will read a book before watching the film as the “original” is always my standard.
You talking about the movie? Because the book actually has an amazing pay-off to the whole ‘papa’ thing near the end that the movie just omits entirely.
I have not read the book or have seen the movie, however, this sounds like i need to. Ive watched a couple clips, Viggo is always great, the landscape looks incredibly well. I guess one could say when civilization is lost, man's need to be civil is lost as well. To be living in a bleak existence and constantly in a state of survival mode would be incredibly difficult to maintain any hope.
Thank you for your review, I enjoyed your laid back style. I am obsessed with both the book and the movie, and feel they are equally good. I think you might have missed the point of the wife being mean to the husband when she said she should have shot herself a long time ago. That part bothered you, I think partly bc of your age and you might have missed why she said that. She was mad at him for having such a polyanna outlook that all would work out and now they are down to only two bullets forcing her to forfeit hers, that's why she was mad and why she left, it was her sacrifice for both her son and husband when if he hadn't been so unrealistic, she could have died an easy death. Lastly, as far as it being saccharinely sweet, it is, but that makes it so good bc the love they have for each other is the only good thing available in their world. I thought it was appropriate. Also, if you're a good parent , you generally feel that depth of love for your child and you will literally die for them. The father's death scene when the son is begging him to take him with him and the father says I know I said I would, but I can't, loved it so well acted, made me cry.
I think the movie did the job of telling the story well, while I would have preferred more length I think we are lucky. It could have been a lot worse,
I've started watching this on prime today I'm enjoying it so far I can't imagine walking around starving and there's no food I'd honestly choose cannibalism if it became impossible even though I'd be throwing up whilst doing it haha 😅😂 but I will definitely read the book I've heard a lot about it I love the handmaid's tale so this will be another favourite of mine 😄😁
I'd be making jerky from anyone I had to take out to defend myself from day 1 if it looked like the food supply wasn't going to recover. I wouldn't eat it until I absolutely had to, but I'm not letting good meat go to waste.😂
Here I am commenting 3 years after upload, but I gotta say I disagree with with your thoughts about the score. I thought it was some of the most moving music possible for the story. I couldn't imagine a better set of tracks for the movie. Especially "The Mother." It is heart wrenching and brutal.
Honestly good movie, but disagree with you heavily about Nick Cave and Warren Ellis soundtrack, in fact I played it while re-reading the book, I felt like it added to it
Been years since I read them, But “The Maze Runner” and “The Scorch Trials” were the first books I ever read where I read the books first and then watched the movies I remember noticing all the little differences and thinking, “wow, that didn’t happen like that” But in terms of everything, I think books and movies can coexist too. In fact, I feel as though they are almost never comparable. They’re two complete different experiences The only thing I can think of is that I don’t think I’d enjoy a catcher in the rye movie, even though I loved the book
The book was seriously brutal. The scene where when they're leaving the cannibal place they see new Borns on spit roasts. Or how boys are kept as sexual objects. It was messed up and of course they kept them out of the movie
Where is it mentioned in the book that boys are kept as sexual objects?
I’m sure it’s in there, I just personally don’t remember it
@@MasterJimenez they use a different word for it, and I only remember because I had to look up what it meant. In the novel it says they kept "catamites"
@krazykittymatt John Hillcoat did shoot the controversial scene from the book involving a baby on a spit being roasted over a campfire, but ultimately decided to cut it, because he felt it was simply too much.
I appreciate your commentary here, it's very objective. I agree with what you say about the soundtrack, I don't think I've read a book at all more "music-less" than The Road. I think even a little bit which would probably accentuate parts of other bleak films would be misplaced here. When I read the book it felt like everything was smothered under a thick, grimy blanket, the sky, the air and the sound especially. McCarthy's lack of speech marks made me immediately feel like the man and the boy whispered every word to each other, even when they explicitly weren't. I don't know, I think it's a very difficult book to put to film. Definitely subscribing to you :)
I liked both the book and the film, but both had the following, which I didn't like:
1. Man and boy, exhausted and starving, abandon their warm, well-supplied bunker because they heard a noise
2. Boy seems unfamiliar with canned food, even though nearly all the food he would be eating would come from cans
3. Boy constantly calls his father "Papa" as if it's the 18th century and not the 20th (book) or 21st (film)
4. Ridiculous happy ending. Pure-hearted family swoops in at the perfect moment to love and care for Boy. No problems taking on another mouth to feed. And they even have a dog, who also somehow gets fed.
Thanks for this. Love your point about not having to be absolutely behind the movie vs. book or vice versa.
I don't think Charlize Theron's "mean line" about the bullets was mean to villainize her. It was a realistic portrayal of a woman who is completely at the end of her rope mentally who is lashing out.
You’re totally right! And the book demonstrates her total exhaustion in a much less aggressive way, so the film was just kind of jarring to me in comparison. It’s a very subjective nitpick of mine!
The movie is, so to speak, judgmental towards her to the point of almost making her a flat stereotypical antagonist. To me that robs her last scene from its potential for existential pondering. Imho, a calculated move to "appease" the conscience of the book people, while feeding them whith their own old prejudices.
@@huatou7520What prejudices?
My main gripe with the movie is the relationship between the man and the boy. In the movie the man almost seems annoyed with the boy. Someone he saddled with. In the book it's clear how much the man loves him and would do anything to protect him. He's patient with him almost to a fault. The boy in the book acts much younger and is constantly whining about how scared he is. Being on the road for that long, I don't think that the boy would still be constantly voicing it. I agree, the sickness is downplayed.
Seriously seriously thank you for this. I chose this book as the main topic in my English A Levels and this was so so helpful! Literally everything you‘ve said is what I thought too while comparing the movie and the book. Thank you for this! That was great for revising the plot a little bit! :)
The waterfall scene was in the book. The music was good and Nick Cave is a well known musician/singer (Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds).
I was gonna say this
Something important to touch on. In the book, the woman and the man really have gone at great lengths debating their fates, life and death. In the end the woman can't do it anymore knowing that it'll only end with them murdered and r@ped. He knows he can't convince her anymore and in the end just asks that she waits a bit more and say goodbye to their son. She can't go do it and kills herself. Later, the boy asks about his mom and the man tells her she's gone.
Also I like that in the book it seems like she points out that her fate will likely be worse because she’s female. That’s something we also saw in Mad Max, the exploitation of women under apocalyptic scenarios has more potential for horror than males inherently because of how reproduction can also be exploited
I'm planning on reading the book, but I heard that the book hints that in the ending the boy walks off with potential cannibals vs. the movie which basically makes it clear that the people taking the boy in are good people. Is this true?
It’s been a while since I read or watched, but as far as I remember it’s not super obvious in either version. It might be more optimistic in the film but I feel like I remember it being ambiguous in both.
in the film you see the kids and the dog so that helps, but in the book also the man helps the kid with his dad so I'll say the feeling is similar
I found it to be the complete opposite tbh. The movie cuts to black as soon as the boy agrees to go with them so it’s quite ambiguous what happens afterwards. In the book however, it’s stated that the women sometimes speaks about god to the boy, but the boy prefers to pray to his father instead, so it can be assumed that they travel together for a good while at least. It also implies the family are religious, which could prevent them from engaging in cannibalism (i.e. their own parallel to the boy’s ‘carrying the fire’ myth).
If I remember correctly I think any suspicion that the family are cannibals is laid to rest by the fact that they have kept the dog for as long as they have. The implication being that if they were feral like the other people, they would have killed and eaten the dog a long time ago, but they still respect the sacred bond between dog and owner, so we assume they are also "carrying the fire".
I would say not based on interviews with McCarthy about his work. Ultimately it’s about the power of fatherly love, and that message would kind of be tainted if the boy just gets eaten. I personally don’t like the ending, but with the author’s intention in mind, I think we can conclusively say he wanted it to be a good ending and the people are good
good video, my man
Ahh thanks!
Aloe Vera needs lots of sunlight, cheers from Arizona
I can’t help but see the book as “the original” so I love it when a film artfully captures that. I understand that all content can’t be represented for a multitude of reasons and condensation must occur. No County for Old Men is a good example of film honoring the book very well. It’s what I love to see. I will say that I have enjoyed many films made from books and put aside the creative differences. Most often I will read a book before watching the film as the “original” is always my standard.
The ending was open ended though right?
I like the road because its how the apocalypse will really look, its not going to be like mad max like a lot of people seem to think
The kid saying "Papa!!" repetitively at nauseum.....ugg.
You talking about the movie? Because the book actually has an amazing pay-off to the whole ‘papa’ thing near the end that the movie just omits entirely.
@ferghalicious1480 what do you mean?
Just remember, human meat taste like pork and the best is babies(Snowpiercer).
I have not read the book or have seen the movie, however, this sounds like i need to. Ive watched a couple clips, Viggo is always great, the landscape looks incredibly well. I guess one could say when civilization is lost, man's need to be civil is lost as well. To be living in a bleak existence and constantly in a state of survival mode would be incredibly difficult to maintain any hope.
Good notes, although I think the movie is incredible. Incredibly bleak, but incredible.
I thought the Dad died due to infection from being shot in the leg with an arrow
it increased his time of death but he was already dying
Thank you for your review, I enjoyed your laid back style. I am obsessed with both the book and the movie, and feel they are equally good. I think you might have missed the point of the wife being mean to the husband when she said she should have shot herself a long time ago. That part bothered you, I think partly bc of your age and you might have missed why she said that. She was mad at him for having such a polyanna outlook that all would work out and now they are down to only two bullets forcing her to forfeit hers, that's why she was mad and why she left, it was her sacrifice for both her son and husband when if he hadn't been so unrealistic, she could have died an easy death. Lastly, as far as it being saccharinely sweet, it is, but that makes it so good bc the love they have for each other is the only good thing available in their world. I thought it was appropriate. Also, if you're a good parent , you generally feel that depth of love for your child and you will literally die for them. The father's death scene when the son is begging him to take him with him and the father says I know I said I would, but I can't, loved it so well acted, made me cry.
I recall a waterfall in the book.
The rainbow wasn't in the book.
You should read With the old breed by eugene sledge. it's a real good memoir.
I’ll look into it!!
The kid got to me when his dad got shot in the leg then he goes all “paapaa!”Mode like cmon kid there killing your dad! 😂
I think the movie did the job of telling the story well, while I would have preferred more length I think we are lucky. It could have been a lot worse,
Waterfall is in the book bro.
I've started watching this on prime today I'm enjoying it so far I can't imagine walking around starving and there's no food I'd honestly choose cannibalism if it became impossible even though I'd be throwing up whilst doing it haha 😅😂 but I will definitely read the book I've heard a lot about it I love the handmaid's tale so this will be another favourite of mine 😄😁
I'd be making jerky from anyone I had to take out to defend myself from day 1 if it looked like the food supply wasn't going to recover. I wouldn't eat it until I absolutely had to, but I'm not letting good meat go to waste.😂
Got an exam about this tomorrow, thank you Alex!
Yooooo good luck!!!
@@notesbyalex thank youuu!!
Here I am commenting 3 years after upload, but I gotta say I disagree with with your thoughts about the score. I thought it was some of the most moving music possible for the story. I couldn't imagine a better set of tracks for the movie. Especially "The Mother." It is heart wrenching and brutal.
Loved your review but the soundtrack statement threw me off. It was one of my favorite parts of the movie. Nick Cave is amazing. Just my opinion....
Honestly good movie, but disagree with you heavily about Nick Cave and Warren Ellis soundtrack, in fact I played it while re-reading the book, I felt like it added to it
I always thought that Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter were excellent movie adaptations.
The bomb shelter scene bothered me too.
the uplifting music in the movie ruins it a bit
Been years since I read them, But “The Maze Runner” and “The Scorch Trials” were the first books I ever read where I read the books first and then watched the movies
I remember noticing all the little differences and thinking, “wow, that didn’t happen like that”
But in terms of everything, I think books and movies can coexist too. In fact, I feel as though they are almost never comparable. They’re two complete different experiences
The only thing I can think of is that I don’t think I’d enjoy a catcher in the rye movie, even though I loved the book
100% agree, eragon was THE WORST adaptation. Also this is the 2nd review of the road book vs movie and still no mention of the thumbless men.
Have you never heard of Nick Cave? Do you live under a rock?