User reviews

The voting system on IMDb rarely get's it wrong by more than a star, usually. However I think this movie is being propped up by fans of the book because 7.5 stars is way off.

All I can say is thank god I haven't read the book because the film is bad enough. I was expecting a 28 days later style film but instead got a movie that felt like it's was 7hrs long yet nothing really happened.

The storyline had so much potential to be good with a father and his son having to survive in a desolated word where nothing has survived apart from a handful of other humans that have mostly turned to Cannibalism.

But instead you get a storyline focused around a wimpy kid and his over protective father dragged out for far too long.

A movie this boring I would normally turn off half way through except I didn't due to the high rating, so i painfully sat through the second half hoping for a twist or a thought provoking ending. Unfortunately you don't get anything like this.

I wish I had read some of the poor reviews before I waisted my afternoon off watching this dull, boring uninspiring movie!

For those of you who did not read "The Road" and are not familiar with the work of Cormac McCarthy this must be tedious, pointless and boring film. You will be robbed of McCarthy's magnificent vocabulary and mastery of dialog - film does not communicate any of these qualities. Aside from these (and I am not trying to diminish them), the book is also pointless. The book expounds on McCarthy's fatherly love of his son, John Francis, to whom the book was dedicated, who he begot in his late sixties. His privacy and direct involvement with his son required that he would destroy the entire humanity to isolate his involvement with the child, so that he can personally influence and instruct him the way he believes it should be done. He even kills (in the plot, through suicide) his wife to achieve this ultimate control. This is an act of 'emotional cannibalism' - the cannibalism which McCarthy abhors as an ultimate evil. He's like oblivious vampire stages circumstances to suck out his son's unconditional love, effectively leaving him no alternative person to interact with but himself, as the only man alive, who does not want to kill him.

If you read horrifying "Child of God", the naive cowboy retro "All The Pretty Horses" or "No Country for Old Men" you may feel that the "The Road" is a logical progression. McCarthy is not comfortable with 21st century, neither with the second part of 20th, but having nothing to offer in a way of social change, he simply states: no country, anywhere on Earth, for guys with the old mentality like his. Now, having this young boy, he's painfully aware of his inability to be a good parent, while not trusting anyone else to come in contact with the child. Ultimately he kills himself, perhaps for his lack of faith, more likely for his failure as a parent, and lets another 'good and god fearing' family, which carries a fire inside, the notion he never explains, to care for his son.

These are some of the critique of the book - film has much less merit. Please understand, I enjoy McCarthy's work as a master of English letters, but as a philosopher and moralist, in my opinion, he's as inchoate as a child. His Texan chivalric notions of self-reliance, uprightness, horses, guns, etc. belong to 19th-early 20th century. However, the man is a master writer and this is what we should celebrate. His work is poetic, his dialog is simple and direct, he invents vocabulary which feels natural, his punctuation simple and unapologetic. His poetry is its own microcosm which I do not dare to define, musical and precise.

Hollywood is on the constant prowl for the Pulitzer Prize winners, as an insurance policy that, at least, secure them a return on their original investment, riding the title-wave of the academic acclaim and mass media status already achieved - this alone costs very dearly. Select famous actors, beat advertisement drums so that everyone goes deaf from the noise - the formula have been proved economically viable. We are conditioned to be 'positive' - just count how many 'useful' responses gets positive review of a mediocre film and compare to the number of 'read-but-found-not-useful' gets a critical response. The bleating herd of 'positive' thinkers enable art to become profit-driven, mass-media conditioned, repetitive and boring.

In the film "The Road" you will find neither entertainment, nor deep philosophy, nor inspiration, nor lessons for your life. You will neither laugh, nor cry. Neither you will feel the power of McCarthy's written word. My recommendation: read the book to enjoy McCarthy's style and eloquence, avoid the film.

I gave this film an embarrassing 3 - in my opinion it is not even good enough to get an angry 1.

Stay away from The Road at all costs. Boring, pretentious, plot less mishmash of pasted together bleak and desolate and "the horror, the horror" pastiches.

There's no thought given to what survival would entail in a movie that revolves around survival or how a world would end up in the it's presented as in the film, or how people who've survived at least ten years in this world would act, etcetera...

The whole movie is an exercise in cluelessness, stupidity, and utter jaw-dropping and yet still boringly mind-numbing stupidity. Fans of the book praise this film for it's faithfulness to it's source material which is a very good indication that the book should be avoided as well.

In the future the world is destroyed and is a waste land, but a few survivors remain living in a zombie environment. Two of these people still alive:a man and his young son. They walk up and down a road and have various depressing adventures. In flashbacks we see that the man had a wife at one time and we learn a little about her. All the actors in the film are unpleasant or fake and not for one moment can I have any sympathy or empathy with any of them, especially the lead characters.

The man looks like a junkie and a tramp. The son is whiny as is what we see of the wife who is also a moody cow. Most of the film is preposterous and laughable and the only reason I have given the picture above the lowest possible vote is that the scenery and outside photography is not bad albeit designed for manic depressives.

3/10.

...I for one could not wait for this film to be over... Booooorring!! I give it a 3 because of the stark way in which it was filmed. The cinematography and locations were good. The acting, direction, story, and dialog was not.

Despite the big names attached to this movie, it really goes no where. I think the only reason this book and movie were 'successful' is because Oprah for some reason called it one of her favorite books. Once that happened the Sheeple lined up to get this movie made. Too bad too, because I had really high hopes.

There were some hints at themes like desperation, starvation, cannibalism, but no real action. There wasn't enough substance to raise the pulse, nor make me feel any tension, the way a post apocalyptic film should.

For those of you who have read this marvelous book and are fans of Cormac McCarthy, the answer to your question is YES, Hollywood DID IT AGAIN. They did what they do to great books, they made it completely accessible to the American IDOL crowd who only read books found on the grocery store checkout aisle.

Those who keep talking about this movie as "intellectual" clearly aren't themselves. Plain and simple. The problem here is that this movie wasn't "boring" or "slow" ENOUGH. There's never a real moment of sincere tension fraught with a feeling of hopelessness and the dark void within. Instead, it's just choppy moments and explosions.

With all that manipulative music and distracting melodrama in every moment of cloying acting, this one feels like a soap opera made by Roland Emmerich. Ironic that 2012 has also just come out with a similar story... Frankly, I continually felt Emmerich's hand in this one throughout.

That they would give such an important and beloved novel to a relative novice filmmaker is beyond me and probably will be beyond you too after watching about five minutes of this made-for-TV trash. And no kudos even for the effects and background panoramas that were just as unrealistic as the tepid bond between the two main characters.

What made the book--and most of McCarthy's oeuvre--so astounding and gripping is the very sparse and simple, nearly nihilistic approach the author takes in his prose. This was translated perfectly into NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (an example of what happens when the urtext is put in the hands of professionals). That movie is as deftly stark--even in the moments of great humor--as the book on which it is based. THE ROAD is, again, simply less-than-mediocre prime time television.

The true shame is that a movie as "simple" and as earnest as the book COULD have easily been made and still would have been "accessible" and buzz-worthy even for the Academy Award crazed masses. Look at David Lynch's THE STRAIGHT STORY, for example.

Or, for that matter, if you're truly interested in seeing what would happen if THE ROAD were adapted WELL to the big screen, check out Michael Haneke's epochal and beautifully funereal TIME OF THE WOLF (in fact, while reading THE ROAD originally, all I could think about was this fantastic movie from a true artist).

Again, TIME OF THE WOLF.

Forget wasting your money and time on THE ROAD. Hit the video store or your NetFlix cue tonight for Haneke instead!!

What I mean by that is that after the catastrophe, it's every man for himself. I can hear some snarky voices saying that it's already the case, sans apocalypse. The thing is, I don't believe that that country is that bad, so devoid of solidarity, decency, humanity and whatnot that the FBI is all that keep its population from cooking and devouring each other.

Yet another idiot comes along with his message of life being a competition, ignoring the fact that he, and I, and most of you are alive. In his world, societies do not arise naturally to form governments. People will not group and associate to improve their lives. They won't even talk. I wonder which planet the author of The Road comes from; a shitty hole for sure, as Larry Niven wouldn't call it.

Even according to his pathetic stinky twisted vision of the world, the author couldn't do it right:

* Anthropophagy is not sustainable an agriculture.

* More obviously, the last place where people starve is the countryside. Villages of civilised rednecks would be preyed upon by starving, cannibalistic and solitary urbanites. Not the opposite.

* The father is so incompetent at survival that he wouldn't last 5 minutes in a serious movie. Yes, a serious movie, which The Road is absolutely not, preventing us from feeling anything (except boredom) for anyone.

* Nobody washes, probably because hygiene is bad for health and survival. Or perhaps because the author sees water as a 20th century invention that only a sophisticate elite would know how to use properly.

* And here I am wasting time at enumerating stupidities once again. I must like doing this. Shall I give 1 more star to The Road for its entertainment value in the review pages of IMDb ? Nah... It's not only too stupid to care, it's also dull, ugly, and quite boring to follow.

Do not pay money to see this film. It is one of the worst, most boring and pointless films I have ever seen. In fact I am thinking about turning it off and not watching through to the end. I may have no choice because it is sending me to sleep. The characters are two dimensional and the acting is atrocious. The result of which is that I couldn't care less whether the characters live or die. There's no explanation as to what has gone wrong with the world and I kept watching initially with the assumption that it would be revealed. According to the other reviews here we're not going to find out but I couldn't care less about that either now. My flatmate and I have turned it off because it's way too boring. Other reviewers have somehow given this movie 8, 9 an 10 stars! I think they must have fallen asleep and dreamed a good movie - which wouldn't be hard after watching this absolute shocker. I REPEAT - DO NOT SPEND MONEY ON THIS MOVIE BECAUSE IT IS ONE OF THE WORST MOVIES IN HISTORY. I have three words to describe it - boring, boring, boring. You have been warned...

Boring, illogical, and the most part, unbelievable. It's exactly the movie that some snob love to call good, because it's overly dramatic. The problem is it lacks the real depth and explanation. I don't mean the back-story, we know, something happened, and the world died. Okay, it doesn't need an explanation. On the other hand, there are several things that would. I mean, okay, there are cannibals, who eat people, because basically nothing else left. But where do the cannibals get the people to eat? In the movie we see about twice as many cannibals as non-cannibals, and it's might be an understatement. I wonder how much meat a human, who nearly starved to death can provide. I'm sure not too much. Not nearly enough to feed the cannibals for this long. The characters constantly lack proper clothing, while most of the humanity extinct. Why? I mean there are malls, there are people's houses, from they could get clothes, yet every character looks like they lived the last few years in one set of clothing. Why are they walking? Are bikes extinct too? Again, you go to a mall, get a bike with what you can go twice as fast and can carry twice as much stuff. Why do the father and his son wander on the ROAD, while it's obvious that all the cannibals hunt there? I don't think it would be that hard to avoid roads and took the woods (what's left of them). Why do they set campfires all the time in visible areas. When there are no other light sources, a campfire is visible from kilometers far, yet the father and his son, who supposed to hide from the cannibals, light campfires every night. The whole movie uses illogical choices on the characters' part, just to increase the drama. I understand that they tried to show a situation, where nothing else left than the survival itself, and there is nothing else to live for. It's a desperate situation, but still everything in this movie is overly dramatic. Unfortunately people do live in situation that close to what we see in this movie, and they still able to survive. People live in constant war from the day they are born, people live in places where basically no food, yet they still able to find something to live for, without constant crying. They don't stop to bitch about life, or moral choices, because they are busy with trying to not die. Aside from the kid, the acting is good, but you don't expect less from a movie with Vigo Mortensen, Charlize Theron, Guy Pearce, and Robert Duvall in it. Unfortunately even they can't make this a decent film. This is a very pretentious movie. Not in a Michael Bay way of course. It does everything to make you depressed, and to be honest, if you can set aside of ALL the illogical things that happen in it, you will feel what the creators wanted you to. Deep depression. But in the moment you start to think about why certain things happen in the movie, you will feel these two things: boredom (because of the pace), and/or anger (because of the half-baked things).

What a horrible movie! I was way too generous in giving this movie three stars. This kind of movie has been made many times before and always much better. The Mad Max trilogy (especially Road Warrior) did the 'future apocalyptic world' right. Other movies like 'I Am Legend' and the older 'The Omega Man' also handled this genre with great skill. 'The Road' does not fare so well. It is boring, dismal, and totally unrealistic. Upon watching this movie you get the sense that whoever wrote this book or screenplay doesn't have a clue when it comes to human nature and man's indomitable spirit when it comes to survival. This movie is motoring with four flat tires.

The movie starts out with 'the father' narrating about how all the animals had died out. I'm sorry but mankind would become extinct a long time before all of the other animal species ever would.

I can't criticize this movie without revealing what little there is to know about it. Needless to say, it was an extreme disappointment. Not recommended.

This film is a dull disappointment at best. I have not read the book nor plan to. It astounds me how many people are impressed with this unbalanced, relatively lacklustre film. The dismal scenery wouldn't be so much the problem had the material itself been worthwhile.

I'm not one to be afraid of bleak material. A work of art should never have to explain itself but there has to be structure, variety of themes, ideas, coherence and plausibility. The Road is a plausible story but tailored to an audience without a sense of humour, people who happen to revel in pessimism and continually find the much abused 'redemption' theme somehow original in an industry saturated with Holocaust films and romantic comedies. (If it isn't the rush to the airport scenario/make-up scenes, its the release of a prisoner.) The human character is far more complex than this film would you lead to believe. The acting is good, acceptable but at times it would be nice to see a smile, let alone a nuance as opposed to the three blasting emotional tenors of fear, anguish and sorrow. Imagine listening to a song with only minor chords and you'll understand that there is virtually no spectrum here, let alone a hint of subtlety in the performances. Viggo is good but one gets the impression he could have 'mailed' it in (to borrow a much-used cliché).

One thing I continually find difficult is that for a man who is determined to get somewhere like Viggo's character, wouldn't he have greater emotional tools as well as survival skills to get to his goal? We understand he has endured a great deal and a man can only take so much but wouldn't there be evidence of his deeper will in his coping? Watching the film I only saw physical reactions to the hostile environment and never human, below the surface ones.

The viewer has to ask his or herself - is watching this film an exercise in spiritual let alone intellectual masochism? Without any character development, without a sympathetic lead, the audience is only trudging along miserably with our two supposed 'heroes' and for a discerning viewer, one should eventually feel cheated with this film's reliance on the visceral to provide sustenance instead of a story. There is nothing really at stake in this movie beyond survival. The post-apocalyptic world of The Road is empty, colourless and seemingly devoid of relationships. Sure the father loves his son and there are some tender moments but the unconditional love for the child by the father cannot carry a story.

But somehow I get the impression that the politics of Oscar will somehow keep this film on the clunky pop-cultural radar. For me, it is a case of the Emperor's New Clothes and I'm tired of seeing Viggo's ass.

I am sure, we all appreciate Viggo's talent. Charleze's. Frank's. Guy's. What I am not sure, however, is why would such greats waste their time on this plot less catalogue of very basic human traits. Its like making a movie based on the played out notion that "Children can be cruel some times". Or "you have to remain human no matter what". Or "If you have nothing to say - just smile and act mysterious". What was it about? What was it for? Who was it for? Why was it at all? All reasonable questions that you can't answer simply through a thousand yard stare, or a tear in the eye, or a pause, or a scream or even an arrow in your ass. Give me more!

I CANNOT believe this movie; it is soo dark and sad unbelievable ! !

i mean somebody lighten something for those guys over there making the movie... it is so unbelievably sad i personally couldn't wait till it was over.. yes that's what i thought about it...

Hugo Mortiniez usually picks his roles carefully i was surprised to see him in such a role... i mean what was he thinking

and the director is so slow and dull that it puts you to sleep in the middle of the movie...

am not an optimistic guy but the writers were so gloom here and left no room for the sunshine

First a disclaimer - I don't have any kids, which I've been told is the reason why I find 'The Road' (both the book and now the movie) horrifically boring. I went to the movie really hoping that I'd missed something in the book. I really wanted to like it. But, guess what? The Emperor still has no clothes. Really. Fine, the performances are good and Charlize, as always, is an inspiration, but man oh man, give me some story...give me some drama...give me something to latch on to. If you were able to get through the book not once having second thoughts about putting it down and finding something else to read, you'll probably enjoy the movie version. But if you're like me and found the book as torturous as a root canal, stay away. If you're looking for a story between father and son, where in the middle of hopelessness we find hope, rent "Life is Beautiful" again. I know Benigni has fallen from grace lately, but at least in that film you get some major laughs.

I GUESS MOST IF NOT ALL THE NONSENSICAL HIGH RATINGS FOR THIS MOVIE ARE FAKE! I'M GENUINE! UNLIKE MANY OTHER REVIEWERS,I HAVE WATCHED THE ENTIRE MOVIE "THE ROAD" I STILL DON'T GET THE HIGH RATINGS!?! THE PACING,FLOW OF THE MOVIE LACKS...VERY SLOW,VERY TEDIOUS,VERY BORING. I WOULDN'T COMPARE THIS GARBAGE TOO,LETS SAY THE BOOK OF ELI. FOR ME,THERE IS NO COMPARISON! THIS MOVIE LACKS A DECENT AND CREATIVE MIND OF A DIRECTOR,WITH TALENT! JOHN HILLCOAT IS FAR FROM TALENT AS A DIRECTOR! HIS MOVIES GENERALLY SPEAKING,LACK A FAIR BIT. THIS MOVIE WASN'T ENTERTAINING. IT WASN'T ENGAGING. IT WASN'T ENJOYABLE. IT WAS JUST,BORING! ALL YOU WANKERS OUT THERE,THINKING TO YOURE SMALL MINDS THAT THIS MOVIE IS SIMILAR TO THE GAME THE LAST OF US,WAKEUP PRICKS!! IVE PLAYED THE GAME ALSO. ITS AVERAGE AT BEST! HUMANS ALWAYS ASTOUND ME,IN HOW STUPID AND NAIVE THEY CAN BE! THESE HIGH RATINGS FOR THIS MOVIE,PROVES MY POINT

I never thought that I'd give this excellent movie only three stars but this is what I must do now. This film is so strong and it hits you so hard and hits deep. Like in my childhood "one flew over..." this is the same. Excellent movie overall but you never wanna watch it again.

Another apocalyptic movie, this time based on a book by "Cormac McCarthy" who previously (about two years ago) adapted his previous novel, "No Land for Old Men", made by the Coen brothers, which also received the Oscar for the best film of the year. Did "Cormac McCarthy", a 77-year-old writer who is known in today's literary world for his dark and bitter thoughts about the current American society, also now in the novel "The Road" like many other Western and American writers and filmmakers in the current Western thinking today has reached the apocalypse. McCarthy's heroes, who were often described as suffering from blind hatred and rage, and who took refuge in dry deserts without water and grass, now, in order to save humanity, escape from the apocalyptic savagery, so-called throwing themselves into water and fire and in In the deadly place of famine, hunger and death, they speak of hope, humanity and family. Previously, the story "No Land for Old Men" which was published in 2003, was highly appreciated, and of course, the Coen brothers' adaptation of it was considered one of the most faithful literary interpretations of this filmmaker couple.