REVOLUTIONARY ROAD review

Reader Comments

1. James Hadfield 01/09/2009 @ 12:21am

   Interesting review. I honestly didn’t get the impression that Revolutionary Road had been all that widely praised, though. (It’s got a score of 66% on Rotten Tomatoes at the moment, which is only 1% higher than Quantum of Solace.) Seemed more of a case of a film whose positive buzz dissipated as soon as people actually got a chance to see it.

2. pochiW 01/09/2009 @ 2:22am

   i have to thank this film for renewing my my respect for all those burton/taylor vehicles, esp Virginia Woolf.

3. IEDParty 01/09/2009 @ 6:02am

   Maybe, Sam Mendes should stick with action stuff like ’ Road To Perdition ‘.  Seems like a better fit.
   With him having apparently drained himself of all dynamism to that extent, he could probably only go gangbusters in that ’ Preacher ’ flick ( that he’s supposedly attached in ). We’ll see….

4. thecrimsoncurse 01/09/2009 @ 8:10am

   maybe it’s just me, but i think you’re completely wrong. this was one of the best movies of last year. perfect? no, but a much much better film than american beauty. revolutionary road was devastating.

   i read way too much bias in your review…mendes, titanic, leo. titanic never crossed my mind, it was 12 years ago for christ sake, and these actors have done some great work since then.

   if you have ever been in a relationship like the one portrayed, i think you will find this movie hard hitting.

   you are right about the mentally disturbed character - he was completely unnecessary, though i think he was actually ill, and not just “insane” for speaking unpleasantries.

5. Daverat 01/09/2009 @ 1:00pm

   From the perespective of a married couple struggling in this current economy we found the couple in the film to be wholly unsympathetic. We didn’t feel sorry for them, we didn’t like them and we didn’t understand their unhappiness. For example:

   He has a well-paying job with terrific benefits, so much so that she can stay home and be a full-time mommy in their very large connecticut home with a large yard and beautiful woods in the back. They have so much materially that couples today can only dream about and still, it’s not enough. No, they resent all that they have and want to flit off to Paris to lead some indeterminate fantasy life based on some bookds they read once. Uh, yeah. Most people we know would be thrilled with just the job let alone the house.

   When he gets offered a huge raise and promotion, instead of seeing it as blessing for their children’s future, she sees it as the worst thing that could happen to them and so she creates all kinds of ridiculoius drama. Right. At this point Frank and April need to be thinking about their children’s future and providing them with all the love, support and opportunities that they never had.

   I don’t know - I think existential angst is a selfish luxury. It doesn’t play well today and we certainly couldn’t relate to them at all. If we kmew a couple like that today, we’d want nothing to do with them and we’d certainly not feel sorry for them in all their indulgent self-pitying ways.

6. methosb 01/09/2009 @ 4:52pm

   When I watched it I was thinking the whole time “Yes, we get it… move along please” I think I actually said that at the screen in the last 15mins. I felt like this movie really didn’t have that much to say and could probably have been covered with the exact same impact in a 20min short film because it never goes into any real emotional or thematic depth.

   Daverat is right, I really had no sympathy for those characters they were acting like spoilt children throughout the whole movie.

7. thecrimsoncurse 01/09/2009 @ 5:46pm

   “From the perespective of a married couple struggling in this current economy we found the couple in the film to be wholly unsympathetic.”

   - why would you even show up for this film?

   and this movie is about a lot more than marriage, just as the yates novel it adapted.

   “existential angst is a selfish luxury”

   - you are such a martyr. your opinion reeks of core value, conservatism. i completely understand why you hate this movie.

   does it ever strike you that when watching film as art, that characters need not be wholly sympathetic? these characters are flawed just as all humans are flawed. and unless you buy into some absolute truth such as religion, then yes we are all faced with existential crises. these characters were not sympathetic, but were engaging none the less. you need someone to root for? in a year that gave us wall-e, slumdog millionaire, and benjamin button; is it really so awful to have a movie that isn’t just all fluff?

   it’s like people are terrified of anything that might make them reflect on themselves or feel bad. i just don’t understand that one bit.

8. Daverat 01/09/2009 @ 8:13pm

   “- why would you even show up for this film?”

   We didn’t. We watched a screener DVD.

   “- you are such a martyr.

   No, I don’t worry about “finding myself” and neither do I look down on everyone around me because “I’m superior.”  Nor do I dream about running away to Paris or have affairs because I’m bored with my wife & contemptuous about my job.

   “your opinion reeks of core value, conservatism. i completely understand why you hate this movie.”

   If there is such a thing as being a left wing conservative, maybe.  Most people I know today are worried about keeping their job, paying their bills on time, getting or staying out of debt, not loosing their house & their car.

   In school people who didn’t have a major were called “exploratory.” They were fun to hang out with at first cause all they did was take easy classes & party. And if they didn’t decide what they wanted to do with their life they would usually drop out or flunk out. They were losers.

   And Frank is a stupid ass. Any man whose been married for as long as he has and still has not yet learned when to shut up (I’m referring to the car scene when April repeats 4 or 5 times “I don’t want to talk about it” but Frank keeps talking about it) deserves all of the shit he gets from when she explodes.

   ” button; is it really so awful to have a movie that isn’t just all fluff?
   it’s like people are terrified of anything that might make them reflect on themselves or feel bad. i just don’t understand that one bit.”

   Actually I thought Benjamin Button was almost as bad as this movie. These were my some of the movies I like quite a bit:

   Frost/Nixon, Slumdog Millionare, The Wrestler, Gran Torino, Changeling, Doubt, Mongol, Religulous,  The Wackness, Let The Right One In, Martyrs, Pontypool, Shiver, Cold Prey 2, Embodiment of Evil, Wanted, Hellboy 2, The Dark Night.

   I haven’t watched The Reader yet but probably will this weekend along with Pineapple Express.

   “it’s like people are terrified of anything that might make them reflect on themselves or feel bad. i just don’t understand that one bit.”

   I’m not “terrified” of a reflective movie that may make me feel bad. This is simply a bad movie. And the one thing I did like about the movie the above review hated and that was Michael Shannon. He was the only thing I liked about the movie.

9. Daverat 01/09/2009 @ 8:19pm

   And I LOVE Bergman movies too!

10. thecrimsoncurse 01/10/2009 @ 1:21am

    look daverat, i think you have good taste in movies unlike jim who wrote this review.

    maybe i misdirected some of my aggravation with him towards you. anyone who has seen let the right one in or martyrs and enjoyed it, is a-ok in my book. which makes me really conflicted with what i’m about to write.

    because i still don’t understand nor will i ever understand your dislike for this film. i’d even go so far as to call it irrational. you seem to have a personal grudge against these fictitious characters. your only complaint about the movie is what they are feeling. it’s not the acting, or the direction, or the dialogue; its the motivations and choices of the characters that you so despise. i find that odd. this movie is not beyond criticism and honestly i don’t know why i’m trying to defend it. i think it just has to do with the reasoning jim and you seem to be applying to it.

    you make a point to be very personal about this movie. you talk about your own position in life, those of others at university. you talk about finding yourself. you say you don’t look down on others and in the same breath criticize “exploratory” students for not being sure what they wanted. they were losers if they didn’t graduate. you seem so sure of everything you believe.

    yates was saying to the culture of the 50’s - why stay in a loveless marriage? get that divorce, and have that abortion if you think it’s best. damn society and culture and it’s rigid format. why have kids in the first place? to make you so passionate against the film, i can only assume it succeeded on some level. i mean your applying your own personal financial situation to a film set in the 50’s. why?

    if i were married i couldn’t imagine watching this with my wife. i really mean that too.

    but let me ask you, why does this movie affect you so personally? surely the character from the wrestler is a much worse person. much less sympathetic than a man who doesn’t want to give in to his wife’s malcontent notions of running off to paris, who wants his wife to keep her pregnancy. i mean the ram has a failed marriage and his daughter doesn’t even know him. he constantly hurts her. he turns his back on someone who cares about him so that he can risk his life for selfish glory one last time. why by your reasoning is the wrestler a better movie? (and let me be clear, the wrestler is a far better movie.) or how about the characters from let the right one in…thats a very twisted ending, morally speaking. why apply the litmus test of your real life to revolutionary road and not other films? i believe it’s because this movie affected you. i know it affected me - some of the fights in this movie were too real. too close to my own life. i think that is a testament to how good this movie really was. it asks hard questions and makes devastating statements.

    i’m not trying to convince you that revolutionary road is a good movie. i’m just trying to point out that i don’t think you have been fair to it.

11. Jim 01/10/2009 @ 8:03am

    Hey thecrimsoncurse, I don’t get your beef with me here.  I have bad taste in movies?  Because I didn’t like THIS?  Bwah hah hah, hah hah!

    Think whatever you want of people’s ideological underpinnings, conservative bents, close-mindedness, or whatever label you want to call it.  Emptiness for the sake of emptiness is nothing but posturing.  I think that’s what Daverat is reacting to.  His reactions are completely valid, and he’s stated his case well. 

    There are plenty of great movies that explore emptiness in meaningful ways.  I don’t think this film did so.  There are plenty of absolutely undesirable characters in other, better films that are worth watching, compelling, and worth pondering.  These characters aren’t to that level. 

    I know I’m in the minority among critics about “Revolutionary Road”, and quite frankly, I expected more hostility than this.  Any notion of moral absolutism seems to repel you.  That is where you’re coming from.  Me, I’ve lived such a life that has led me to feel differently about that.  Do I still get to be a film reviewer?

12. thecrimsoncurse 01/10/2009 @ 3:53pm

    mr tudor, i do indeed have a problem with you as a critical voice. i’ve been reading twitch for a long time now, and your articles always seem to rub me the wrong way.

    first off, you never seem to watch very many movies, and secondly, your year end list are always, always suspect.

    you fall head over heals for anything comic book, star wars, or kevin smith related. “manchild” isn’t the right word, but it’s the first to come to mind. i find a total philosophical and artistic immaturity in you.

    the whole review, while well written, i feel is biased like i stated earlier. you act like titanic left a stain on your soul, you talk about what “adult films” should and shouldn’t be compared to children films. like no one creates heart warming optimistic adult films. what? maybe if you had seen more movies this year you would think differently. you keep acting like you are going against the grain on this one like there is going to be some backlash against you. this film was very divisive, i’d say it split critics fairly evenly.

    “emptiness for the sake of emptiness is nothing but posturing.” - really is that what yates novel is, emptiness for emptiness sake? because then you would really be in the minority.

    i’m not a critic, i’m not even a decent writer, but i saw many more movies than you. my favorite of the last year were:

    wendy and lucy
    let the right one in
    milk
    the wrestler
    timecrimes
    the chaser
    revolutionary road
    funny games u.s.
    vicky christina barcelona
    the good, the bad, the weird

    you claim to have seen 24 movies and your favorite were

    dark knight
    ironman
    benjamin button

    why do you deserve a critical voice? what qualifies you?

    “To all my fellow critics out there, and anyone who’s felt the need to prop this film up – come on people, is this movie really that great??”

13. Jim 01/10/2009 @ 4:31pm

    What qualifies me is, I worked my way up to legitimate film critic status by reviewing my butt off starting back in 2003 when I reviewed a ton of stuff for Dave Canfield’s old site.  I reviewed comic books and movies regularly.  With a lack of steady employment, I had time to indulge my writing bug and hone my critical skills.  (I’m sure Canfield would verify the fact that there were times when I overwhelmed him with material.)  The stuff was good, and the local agencies thought so, enough to start inviting me to the local press screenings.  Back then, I would go to any screening.  In 2004, I think I saw 96 movies in the theater.

    Times changed for me - I had two kids, and my two paying careers, both in the film industry, have taken off to the point where I haven’t been able to see as many films I’d like.  (Check my imdb page if you don’t believe me.)  It’s simply hard to find the time for volunteer reviewing when my first priorities are being a dad and earning a living in a very competitive and exhausting field.  I try to post reviews here whenever I can, trying to keep my writing skills somewhat sharp.  I admit they’re not currently 2004-level sharp, but I try.

    Am I supposed to be embarrassed that I loved “Dark Knight” and “Iron Man”?  No way, I don’t buy it.  I reject the notion of high art and low art.  Pure snobbery.  (And for the record, check out my “Zack & Miri Make a Porno” review.  Thumbs down, baby!)

    thecrimsoncurse, I very much appreciate you reading my stuff, and will try to continue to put out decently written stuff whenever I can, as long as Todd will have me.

    I hope that clarifies a few things.

14. rustyjames 01/10/2009 @ 8:32pm

    This is a really interesting debate, and I feel compelled to throw in my two cents, because I completely agree with everything thecrimsoncurse has said and feel thankful that someone else shares my opinion and has defended it in a thoughtful and concise manner.  I’m sorry Jim, but you’re review of Revolutionary Road was very poor, full of blustery language but without any substantive argument to back it up.  You’re attempts to relate the film to Christmas on Mars, Wall-E, and Kung-fu Panda are tangential and inconclusive, and as thecrimsoncurse stated, you do not qualify your opinion of RR with any critique of the film’s percieved formal/dramatic shortcomings, instead you spend your time childishly disagreeing with what you see as the film’s unworthy or unoriginal subject matter. If you think the film is “a flat road that faces into the past, in a contrived, award-baiting manner” (whatever that means…) it’s not enough to just state that.  Tell us why, back up your opinion with legitimate examples from the film.  Come on, this is film criticism 101 stuff.
    In my opinion Crimsoncurse’s larger call-out on your general credentials as a critic is also well deserved and completely accurate.  I too am a long time reader of twitch, and must say that the quality of the postings and contributors has gone far down as of late (if it makes you feel any better, you aren’t the only lackluster writer on the roster, or the worst).  I used to read Twitch because it had more consistent quality writing than other niche film news blogs, but unfortunately that is no longer the case.  This is unfortunate, but understandable as the site has expanded to a much larger form over the years.
    Anyways, you seem like a nice enough guy, but you may be better off sticking to reviewing your niche genres (comic book movies, etc).  And your life story is fine and certainly understandable, but when you write something that is going out there into the public, you are implicitly acknowledging that it should be valid, defensible, and informed enough to warrant a reader’s time.  I know this is *just* a film blog and not the New Yorker or something, but I feel you have broken that professional code, and are now floundering to justify why we should all understand why your writing is sub-standard.  Remember, you are critiquing other people’s work, a film (as you well know) is a lot more difficult to create than a review, and it’s not like Sam Mendes, or any filmmaker, can give you a litany of personal excuses for the quality of their work.  If you are going to be a critic, at least give the work, whether you admire it or not, the respect it deserves by writing a well-informed, articulate review.  If you aren’t capable of that, I’m sorry but no, you should not “get to be a film reviewer” (though admittedly these days on sites like Twitch, the qualifications are much more lax, so by those standards, sure).  My apologies if that seems harsh, but writing like this is why online/blog film criticism will never be viewed as nearly as legit as print criticism.

15. wintermuted 01/10/2009 @ 8:51pm

    And this is perhaps what gives films like RR their value, the ability to instigate debate on not only the merits and lack thereof of a certain product. Sometimes it really is only more about what we bring to the film rather than the film itself. And perhaps this can all be considered positive in the long term.

    Even if the film doesn’t speak to us in ways we wished it could, the sparks that may fly can always be seen as the birthing points for greater & more articulate thoughts.

    Like the inexplicable reaction to films like last year’s Speed Racer, it is less a question of quality, and more about the current cultural attitudes & feelings. What RR sounds to me is more like another victim of inconvenient timing.

16. Jim 01/10/2009 @ 10:49pm

    rustyjames - Harsh, dude.  Until I hear otherwise, I will continue to review films as I am able, be it here or elsewhere.  My more mainstream sensibilities may not be the best fit around Twitch - but they never have been, and that’s never been an issue.  For my money, Todd and the regular contributors do a consistently great job running this site.  But honestly, I’m haven’t been here often enough to take the blame for any perceived plunge in quality.  (Remember, only 24 movies last year, many of which I didn’t get the chance to write about!)  I’m certainly not going to apologize for my supposed part in the lack of acceptance of internet film criticism.  I think you’re wrong about Twitch going downhill, though. 

    Thanks for the detailed critique of my criticism.  Believe it or not, it is nice to know people are looking at this stuff, even if this is what I get from it.  Sorry you didn’t approve this one, but to paraphrase Burton’s Ed Wood, my next one will be better!

    Now seriously, enough about me.  Has anyone actually seen “Christmas on Mars” around here?

17. fannyslacks 01/12/2009 @ 4:38pm

    this review represents one man’s opinion.  that’s all any review is.

    in my opinion, revolutionary road was a very powerful and important film.

    i think RR examined the paradigm of suburban american family life in a masterful way.  i also think that the “mentally ill” character was not at all too heavy handed.  this is a movie with leonardo dicaprio and kate winslet.  it is going to be seen by my millions of people.  millions of people that have bought into the same lifestyle that this movie is attempting to dissect and examine.  a large segment of the audience is going to miss some important thematic elements without having that strong voice verbalizing those ideas.  in addition i thought that character was funny and provided some much needed comic relief.

    i also believe that the director/writer made two masterful choices that really elevated the movie above many others on the subject.

    1.  they almost never show the kate and leo’s children.  this was such an amazing choice.  through all their fights and hardships the movie never cuts away to that generic shot of the children sitting in their beds or standing in the hallway with tears in their eyes.  this movie is about this couple.  it is about their hopes, their dreams, their selfishness, and their children barely factor into their decisions so we don’t get to see them.

    2. the movie begins at the end of the relationship.  aside from very few flashbacks, the movie begins as the marriage is failing.  this is so refreshing.  we don’t have to sit through a half an hour of learning how this couple fell in love only to watch things unravel.  by this point in a failing marriage, the way in which people met is irrelevant. 

    in addition i also would like to say that the cinematography by roger deakins is fantastic.  that final breakfast scene and the way in which kate moves in and out of darkness at the end of it was heartbreaking.

    again, just one man’s opinion.  and for the record, i am a single 20 something who has consciously rejected the institution of marriage and suburban life for many of the reasons explored in this film.  i would be curious to find out if many of the people who disliked revolutionary road are married/suburban/parents?

18. Daverat 01/12/2009 @ 5:36pm

    To: thecrimsoncurse

    “maybe i misdirected some of my aggravation with him towards you.” - Funny thing, I was thinking the same thing right before I came back and read your comments.

    “anyone who has seen let the right one in or martyrs and enjoyed it, is a-ok in my book. which makes me really conflicted with what i’m about to write.” - Don’t worry it’s our very similar and radically different tastes that keep these kind of discussions interesting.

    
    “Yates was saying to the culture of the 50’s - why stay in a loveless marriage? get that divorce, and have that abortion if you think it’s best. ” - except abortion was illegal & highly dangerous as April found out too late.

    “damn society and culture and it’s rigid format. why have kids in the first place? to make you so passionate against the film, i can only assume it succeeded on some level.” - I think the worst thing a movie can do is leave me indifferent. So to instigate so much hatred for it, it did do something right.

    “I mean your applying your own personal financial situation to a film set in the 50’s. why?” - As a married person who has usually had a pretty good idea of what he wants, a job within the industry of my own choosing, and in a marriage that has had no affairs and no children, it was about the only thing about them & their their situation that my wife & I could relate to.

    “if i were married i couldn’t imagine watching this with my wife. i really mean that too.” - My wife & I had absolutely no desire to see this movie. Even when I came home with the screener she had no desire to watch it and I certainly was not in a hurry to either. But then she went to bed early and I popped it in. About 15 minutes later she came out, unable to sleep, and ended up watching the whole movie.

    “but let me ask you, why does this movie affect you so personally?” - Maybe because it’s attacking something that I know quite well but with two characters I can’t really relate to at all.

    “why by your reasoning is the wrestler a better movie? (and let me be clear, the wrestler is a far better movie.) or how about the characters from let the right one in…thats a very twisted ending, morally speaking. why apply the litmus test of your real life to revolutionary road and not other films?” Maybe because wrestling & vampires, in my “real” world are so alien to me where as problems in a marriage are as natural as breathing. And what Frank & April’s problems were and how they handled them or failed to handle them informed me that they were nothing but delusional idiots who had some how blinded themselves to believe that they were better than everyone else.

    “I believe it’s because this movie affected you. i know it affected me - some of the fights in this movie were too real. too close to my own life.” - The only way it affected me was it bored me to death. I was generally predictable. I watched it cold without ever reading the book or reviews. And not once during the movie did I ever think that it wouldn’t end very badly for both of them. As soon as he started sleeping with his secretary I knew he’d go home to a wife who passionately wanted him. When he pulled that stunt at work I knew he would be getting a promotion for it. When the “nut” came over to visit I knew he would say inappropriate things that pointed out the truth about them. Though Michael Shannon was the only thing I did like about the movie. As soon as she started talking about an abortion I knew what her outcome would be.

    “i’m not trying to convince you that revolutionary road is a good movie. i’m just trying to point out that i don’t think you have been fair to it.” - Why should I be fair to a boring & predictable movie while people keep heaping on the praises for it mainly because of the immense talent and craftsmanship that went into such an ultimately mediocre film.

    And I liked Benjamin Button only a tad more.

19. Tenacious 01/14/2009 @ 7:17am

    I saw this movie last night at a free screening.  I was left asking myself and others “What was this movie about?  Did I miss something?”  Don’t think so.  Everyone I spoke with after the screening was wondering the same thing so I was not alone. I was bored to death waiting for this movie to say something profound other than playing out as though these people were victims.  I am glad I didn’t spend $10 to see it and I would not recommend it.  Perhaps you may want to see it on cable if you have nothing better to do.  I won’t be wasting my time watching it again.

20. James Dennis 01/24/2009 @ 9:31am

    I agree this film has been grossly overated and I think the major flaws lie with Mendes. He has a background as a theatre director and consequently his films feel overtly staged and mannered. It’s as though he’s just trying to film a play - why not just do it as a play. The novel’s dialogue just doesn’t work so well on screen and the whole concept of oppressive 1950s suburbia is a well worn path - a path to which he didn’t bring anything new, either stylistically or in content. Kate and Leo were both great. And I really like Titanic for the crass, OTT, ambitious, spectacular behemoth it was. Mendes’ choice of score is dreadful and added very little every time it cropped up, seemingly unmoderated between scenes - hey, it’s an emontional scene, crank up that same score. And Jim, I’m with you on Michael Shannon. When Kate Winlset comments about him being the only one who understands, it’s a truly cringe-inducing moment that insults audience intelligence.

Post Your Comments

• Next Entry
• Previous Entry