As I Lay Dying (2013) User Reviews (35)

An interesting take on a strange tale

[eddie_baggins · 6/10 · 5 January 2014]

James Franco has seemingly set out to be the busiest man in Hollywood. Franco unfulfilled by just acting in recent times has taken on art, writing and adapting so called un-filmable novels with the forthcoming McCarthy adaptation Child of God premiering recently and this faithful and very intriguing adaptation of William Faulkner's revered 1930 book As I Lay Dying which had its premiere at the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year.

It's clear that Franco filmed this atmospheric tale on a limited budget yet was able to recruit some serious acting talent to join him on screen as the Bundren family. Stand outs in the acting stakes are Tim Blake Nelson as toothless family head Anse and Marshall-Green as half cast and grizzled Jewel. All cast members acquit themselves well to difficult material, even Franco's real life buddy and funny man Danny McBride does well in a small cameo like roll. Franco's fine direction of fellow actors is commendable but his artistic decision not so much.

A strange choice by Franco is to put screen juxtaposition in a two frame format for roughly half of the films running time. This two pane structure comes off as merely annoying and takes away from the full screen beauty of much of the films images and natural landscape which are wonderfully captured by cinematographer Christina Voros. This technique was employed from an outsiders knowledge to portray the novels various voices and themes yet really is in no way integral to the films telling and as a finished product seems a tad on the pretentious side of things.

If you can overcome As I Lay Dying's almost tortuous opening 30 minutes where I found myself more than tempted to stop the film in its tracks there is much to admire in the film and by the last 20 minutes you will find yourself enthralled in this strange and depressing tale of a family lost in more ways than one. As I Lay Dying gives one hope that Franco will do justice to Child of God and perhaps one day his dream project of Blood Meridian.

3 concrete casts out of 5

For more movie reviews and opinions check out -

www.jordanandeddie.wordpress.com

Doesn't work; if you haven't read the book, it'll probably seem incomprehensible

[zetes · 5/10 · 8 December 2013]

I remember, when this debuted at Cannes, a tweet from some critic which basically said "I can't wait to read the book so I can figure out what the Hell it was I just watched!" Now, I have read the book (around 13 years ago), but, man, does this ever seem absolutely impenetrable to anyone who hasn't. That doesn't necessarily effect me any as a viewer, but it should be noted. Unfortunately, even as a big fan of the book, this film really doesn't work very well. It's a valiant attempt, I think, but a failure nonetheless. Franco, clearly an amateur (though not without talent), utilizes split screens to tell his story. I can understand why, but it's just too busy. Tim Blake Nelson, who plays Anse, the patriarch of the Bundren clan, is incomprehensible. Again, I can understand why (the text clearly states that he is toothless), but he didn't need to be so impossible to understand (again, someone who is unfamiliar with the book will be utterly lost). Nelson really was a great choice to play Anse, so it's really unfortunate his performance goes down the toilet like this. The casting of the rest of the Bundrens isn't that great, either. Franco is easily the standout as Darl, but Jim Parrack and Logan Marshall-Green as Cash and Jewel respectively pretty much get lost because of their bland performances. Brady Permenter as Vardaman is a poor child actor. Ahna O'Reilly is not a bad actress, but she's 10 years older than the character of Dewey Dell, which is incredibly noticeable. Finally, there's Beth Grant (who still doubts your commitment to Sparkle Motion) as Addie. She's quite good, but, of course, dead for most of the movie. Franco also seems to miss the semi-comic tone of the novel, making it almost fully a tragedy. I mean, that final bit is kind of hilarious, but Franco doesn't play it as such. It just comes off as weird.

directing choices

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 8 January 2015]

Addie Bundren (Beth Grant) is dying. Her son Darl (James Franco) takes his brother Jewel (Logan Marshall-Green) on a delivery. It's $3 after all despite Jewel's need to be by her side. Their wagon gets stuck while she dies. Her wish is to be buried in home town of Jefferson. The whole family struggles to bring her body to her final resting place.

There are great actors in this movie. Tim Blake Nelson and Logan are terrific. Beth Grant is also great. In general, everybody is doing good work. The question is how did James Franco do as a director. I am not impressed. The most obvious technique is the split screen. The best thing I can ascribed to the technique is that it hides his amateurish directing style. When Beth Grant screams, the other half is trained on Jim Parrack. That's the only split-screen scene that really works. The movie struggles to gain authenticity and the split screen doesn't help at all. It looks like a modern film school technique in direct conflict with the rural backwoods feel of the family. Franco should be striving for authentic poverty. He fails as he throws various things on the wall. None of it really sticks. The actors are able to keep the audience's interest but they do it despite Franco. The river crossing shows some promise that Franco is functional as a director. Maybe he's over thinking this and tries too hard with the split screen and the actors talking at the camera. Thankfully the last 15 minutes don't have the split screen. It's some of the most compelling scenes in the movie.

Waaaaaay too shaky

[gitsomepiggies · 2/10 · 22 October 2013]

Time Blake Nelson and Logan Marshall-Green were the saving graces for this shaky flop. Hey James, please use a tripod next time, or maybe some rails. The camera movements (did you even use a steadicam?) almost made me sick a couple of times. My lasting impression of this movie is that Franco proves that if you're the director then you get to put your face on the poster and do lots of closeups of yourself -- even if there is no good reason to. Franco's vanity did not do anything to enhance the cinematic experience. Faulkner was a genius. If you don't know the history of the story, do yourself a favor and read about it on Wikipedia before you watch the movie. And don't eat before you watch it or you'll be sorry. The cuts from one perspective to another seemed forced at times. The kid, Brady Permenter, was quite good to be so young. It's a shame that his one good monologue was put in the wrong spot. The mixture of drama and comedy (watch for those closeups of Franco's eyes) was clunky. If you want to make a good movie with a decent split-screen experience, then study Ang Lee. I wish Franco had. Last comment -- the naked man detracted from the experience; he was an unwelcome addition to Faulkner's masterpiece.

Contemplative Mortal Ruminations

[3xHCCH · 7/10 · 27 November 2013]

"As I Lay Dying" is not an easy sell as a commercial film. The title already intimates that it will be a depressing story about Death. It is based on the novel of an author, who, while being a Nobel Laureate, is not really known for being very easy to read -- William Faulkner. Hence, we can expect a film that is similarly hard to watch. Upon giving it a go, I am not wrong on both counts.

This film is about the Bundrens, a poor but proud rural family from the boondocks of Mississippi. The mother Addie (Beth Grant) dies at the beginning of the film. Her husband Anse and their five children bring her coffin a long distance to Addie's hometown to be buried, in order to fulfill a dying wish. Along their long trip, we will get to know each character better as each one has his own little story to tell.

This is one very slow film which will strain the patience of the most moviegoers. The contemplative script is full of deep monologues as each character tells his version of life. It certainly reflects the style that Faulkner is famous for -- his stream of consciousness writing style as well as the multiple narrators.

This is the directorial debut of hard-working star James Franco, who has certainly gone a long way from when we first knew him as Harry Osborne in "Spider Man." He bravely tackles a difficult novel and he actually succeeds to visually interpret it very well. Once you get the drift of this languid storytelling style, and his attention-grabbing split screen technique, you will be mesmerized and drawn in. The imagery used is compelling as the grand country vistas contrast with intimate personal moments.

Easily the best performer in the cast is Tim Blake Nelson as the stubborn and irascible patriarch of the brood, Anse. He has most realistic portrayal with that hot-potato drawl of his, uttering the most maddening of pronouncements. There is actually humor in his unpleasantness.

The five Bundren children and the actors who play them, namely Cash (Jim Parrack), Darl (James Franco), Jewel (Logan Marshall-Green), Dewey Dell (Ahna O'Reilly) and little Vardaman (Brady Permenter), all have their moments. While Darl seemed to be the most centered of all the characters, ironically, it was James Franco who seemed to lack something in his portrayal. Maybe it is because we expect the most from him.

This film is not for everyone because of its glacial pace and dark brooding subject matter. But with the proper attitude and frame of mind, you may actually find this a fascinating rumination about life and mortality, as you immerse yourself in this grim slice of rural American life in the 1920s. 7/10.

Dull and Doesn't Offer Much

[Floated2 · 3/10 · 25 March 2015]

As I Lay Dying an be seen as an ensemble piece within one larger film as a whole. The weakest link in the ensemble, disappointingly, is Franco himself, who retains a smirky remove even during Darl Bundren's most emotionally bare scenes -- though he does at least give himself the best close-ups. You might say that remove characterizes Franco's direction, too: sporadically clever as his treatment is, he never seems all that invested in the novel except as a particularly challenging exercise for his ongoing artistic self-invention. Challenge passed, then. But the task of creating a film even obliquely equal to the rageful literary brazenness of Faulkner remains a hopeless task that Franco, with nothing to lose. Overall, the film differs on another level of severe boredom.

The year's widely under-noticed and under-appreciated.

[Reno-Rangan · 7/10 · 9 June 2014]

I always wondered why James Franco was never vastly recognised as a film director than an actor. If you ask me, I say he was always at his best who mostly pick biographies and dramas. This movie is one of the year's widely undernoticed and under-appreciated. As always, that leads me to hate critics who divert the movie fans from this movie a watch.

This was one of the best dramas I had seen that set in the rural of the early 1900s. About the family of brothers and sister who lost their mother. As being in a remote village they struggle to travel nearby burial ground that is days away to reach. So theirs quest starts to take twists and turns among siblings and the mother nature. Each of them has individual hidden secrets that not related to their mother's death, but as a character. One after another letting us know theirs another face till the adventures ends in peace.

I really liked this movie. The tone of the setting of that era was so perfect. Feels like they all went for a century back to the original time to make the movie so accurately. It was based on the novel by the same name. Might be a fictional work, though, depicts the true lifestyle and transporting system of those times. No fights, no guns, a purely family based drama which might be a little brutal in parts, but kind of realistic according to that era. Don't miss this movie, a movie based on the old era is not frequent nowadays. Movies like this now and then really give a good opportunity to the modern people to know the forgotten culture. Hope you all realise what I am saying about the movie and its material.

Not all actors can direct.

[anthonyjlangford · 4/10 · 28 November 2013]

This film is flawed from the very first shot. It's so ironical as Franco the director, puts his choices above that of the actors. In a piece like this, character should come first. He places his horrendous split screen first. I'm curious to know whether this was the intended manner or whether the original edit was so lackluster he tried to beef it up with split screen. I'm not against that method per se, but in a period piece like this, especially given the story, you have to be able to relate to one character at least. He jumps in without bothering to connect us emotionally to anyone.

It feels, and is amateurish. Its surprising, given his depth of performances over a long period in all types of films, yet here he makes mistakes from the most inexperienced of first time directors. With his record, it's hard to imagine how he could have stuffed it up so badly. Perhaps he wasn't taking enough notice on set. It's actually boring and that is the worst sin a director can commit.

His choice of subject matter is commendable, but it belongs in the hands of a much more experienced director, something he will come to regret if he hasn't done so already.

There are a few decent shots but the editing wounds it. (Much to the horror of the cinematographer). The split screen comes in for the final kill. Alternatively, the same intrusive method also takes your attention away from what is poorly executed scenes, complete with bad acting. Unfortunate for the other actors who try. Franco has to take the fall for all of it. It really is poorly directed. However, he is famous enough to survive it. For now. Other actors have tried directing and failed and continued on with successful acting careers. It's like they need to try it on for once, to appease their egos. Directing is not something someone can simply adopt. It's a very specific skill set. If James is to be a director then he really needs to go back to the beginning and start learning the craft, like for example, Ben Affleck. Ben was never a great actor, but at least he took his time coming to directing and chose the right subject matter. You start simply and work your way up. Tarantino didn't start with Kill Bill or Inglorious Bastards. He began simply.

Franco has expressed an interest in tackling Bukowski's Ham on Rye. The man clearly appreciates good literature (and writes also) but if he's going to make films out of such important work then he better be able to do a much better job than he's done here. I like the man, but Francly (intentional), I was embarrassed for him.

Impressed

[amassistants · 7/10 · 15 October 2015]

I was thoroughly impressed with Franco's work. It has been so many years since I've read that book but, unlike many reviewers that said you'll be lost and confused.....not at all! I got this movie from the get go. It was fantastic and I enjoyed all of it. If you pay close attention, you can see one character in particular and his decent into madness. Frankly, how could you not after everything they go through?

These actors really played their parts well. Like many of Franco's movies, he wants you to really connect with each person and their individual stories, pain, feelings, etc. I def connected with these.

A good watch. Well done!

Not even if you're bored to tears.

[Dfilson1004 · 1/10 · 21 July 2018]

My secret Santa threw in a few movies (she'd picked up at a video store going out of business) to go along with my new HULU whatever they call it. I said c'mon over tomorrow and we'll watch one or two. She brought along her sister and a great pizza. I asked who paid for the pizza and told her she had the honor of choosing the movie. She picked "As I Lay Dying". Well, what can I say? We laughed, we cried, we contemplated the meaning of the universe. We had plenty of time on our hands because we voted to stop the movie at 19 minutes and 33 seconds into it. We decided she had no choice but to put herself out of her misery. Or is that what Faulkner really had in mind???

Remember, if you happen to see this movie in the bargain bin at your local 7Eleven, are you willing to pass up a Super Slurpee to prove me wrong?

Challenging source makes for an interesting film

[farron34 · 8/10 · 16 October 2013]

I don't think I've ever seen a film quite like this. It was definitely one of the most faithful adaptations I've ever seen, not only in the story but the way in which it was done. The novel (written by William Faulkner) features 15 different narrators recounting the events, the film (implementing split screen) was able to show different perspectives of the same events simultaneously.

Cinematically, most (if not all) of the camera work was hand-held, and much of the lighting seemed natural. I thought the acting was great overall, and I thought it was well directed. The music was intense, almost too much at times. The novel has never been adapted to the screen previously, (I'm sure partly) due to the fact that the narrative structure is so complex. Overall, I thought it was interesting, and like I said – I've never seen a more true adaptation, as Franco employs all aspects of filmmaking to sync to the novel.

Totally enjoyed

[jjscalesjj-92754 · 7/10 · 4 March 2019]

I was mesmerized by this movie. The acting was strong. The story line is deep. The filming was intense. The entire movie is about a poor family who is taking their mother far away to be buried even though it will cause great hardship upon the entire family. During their trip tragedy befalls each and every character. At first I had a difficult time looking at Anse , the father, (his teeth are rotten to the core). Once I became used to his character I couldn't look away. It was like looking at a car crash even though you know you will be sickened by what you see you cant help but look. The family dynamics were very well portrayed by all actors. Although the pace was slow I found myself not wanting the movie to end.

as i lay laffing

[cekadah · 1/10 · 19 March 2014]

Beware - spoilers below!!

in this movie you will see - 1. maw laying in her death bed babbling on about how she hates her sons (and other stuff) 2. one son is outside the window to the room his maw is in sawing wood in a rain storm to make a coffin to put her in - she's still alive at this point! 3. they put her dead body upside down in the coffin - (head where feet should be) 4. they drop the coffin while taking it to the wagon 5. they cross a creek swollen with ragging water and the bridge is out - maw's coffin floats away down stream and a fallen tree smacks into one of the sons and smashes his leg. 6. they put the injured son on top of maws coffin (after retrieving it from the creek) 7. its summer and maws wet rotting carcass begins to stink and the buzzards follow them 8. they spend the night at somebodies house and burn the barn down (i never did understand why because at this point in the movie i'm laffing way too much). 9. every little town they go to the daughter (i think she's a daughter) ask for an abortion (her brother is father) 10. the rotting corpus stinks so much they get chased out of town 11. the broken leg guy is all infected so they put cement on the leg!! (the leg gets sawed off later) 12. throughout this entire story the half-wit rotted teeth paw is constantly yelling at his kids to 'respect yo' maw'! 13. they finally reach the cemetery where maw wanted to be buried and they toss the coffin into a hole they dig with borrowed spades. 14. the pregnant daughter gets banged by a pharmacist (his treatment for the abortion) 15. and paw goes somewhere in town and finds himself a new wife and everybody piles back into the wagon and heads back home.

This is such a bad movie i have had more fun telling people about it and how funny it is if you can sit through it - a good mixed drink helps!

Save Yourself

[countryshack · 2/10 · 26 November 2013]

Having a Root Canal would be more enjoyable than watching this movie. At least you could have medication and some gas. Save yourself some pain and avoid this garbage no matter how much your curiosity tries to persuade you to watch it because of the list of actors that it touts. If it weren't for a concession stand and comfortable seats there would have been no way for me to keep waiting for the movie to finally take off. It never did, by the way. Hell, it didn't even taxi to the runway. Tim Blake Nelson, as usual, does a fantastic job but even great acting doesn't save a boring dull script. Now don't get me wrong. If you are one of those artsie, something a little loose in the attic, kinds of people; I'm sure that you will just get a tingle out of...........Only God knows what. For the rest of you...just pass this excuse up.

The Good Old Days They Were Not

[rioplaydrum · 6/10 · 15 December 2015]

I never read Faulkner's classic by the same title, and from what I understand, I probably wouldn't have the patience for it anyway.

My personal reading habits have a wide range of interests, from Westerns to Sci-Fi, but if any book is over 350 pages (and I don't care what it is) Oprah can go fawn over it.

But I digress.

'As I Lay Dying' brings to life many of the same near-primal struggles of day to day life that my grandfather used to occasionally tell stories about. The rough-hewn tone of the movie completely suspended my disbelief as all the cast mastered their roles in physical looks and attitudes.

Particularly striking was Tim Nelson's portrayal of "Anse", the aging slack-jawed, bent over and backward minded Patriarch. Nelson, in fact, nails it so precisely he is barely recognizable from his many previous roles.

Master make-up artist Kimberly Amacker and her crew very convincingly aged Nelson a good 30 years and 'removed' his teeth. It was an amazing transformation to behold.

Ahna O'Reilly's "Dewey Dell" unfolds the age-old tale of probably the worst situation a young country girl of that era can be in: Pregnant and no husband. And no husband on the horizon, either.

As the clan struggles through almost every disaster there is while transporting their dead mother's body, Dewey steals herself to the local pharmacies along the way every chance she gets in search of an unidentified drug that will abort her early pregnancy.

We absolutely feel for and appreciate the extremely difficult time she has as an uneducated country girl trying to transmit in simple and cryptic language the nature of her problem. Her eyes absolutely plead for some compassion and sympathy, but she receives none.

Evidently any kind of medical professional could expect to sentenced to life in prison for performing or assisting in abortions. Not to mention young girls facing banishment from their own families.

Instead, poor Dewey is chided and debased further, only to resort to the most humiliating conditions available in order to purchase the drug.

Considering the times, such a drug probably would have killed her as well, if not seriously compromised her health.

The good old days they were not.

So why only a rating of six? As with several other reviewers, the ubiquitous split screen ruined it for me. I found it extremely distracting. It effectively cut-down on the full views of such potentially beautiful panoramas and scenery reducing them to mostly head-shots of character's facial reactions. I cringed every time it appeared.

Aside from that, a great story.

Perhaps we can look forward to a re-work of a more traditional presentation in the future.

Made It Almost 5 Minutes

[robbylholtsberry · 1/10 · 5 January 2014]

Being a Faulkner fan, I was looking forward to this movie. Unfortunately, the director thought a double frame was artistic. I found it profoundly annoying. He was obviously trying to temp the same fate as Faulkner did describing a sports coat over five pages. It didn't work. One thing a director never ought to try is to outdo the subject's artistry. He failed. I really don't have anything else to say, but IMDb requires 10 lines. So let's sing together. Oh bah dee oh bah dah life goes on, ohhhh baby life goes on. Or...I think it's really stupid I have to be so wordy. I had my say now let me go on my way. I'm standing here naked. It's really cold. I don't look like much of a man right now. Damn.

A terrible mess

[Gordon-11 · 1 December 2013]

This film tells the story of a family who travels to get their mother buried.

Honestly, I don't even know how to begin to tell the world how terrible this film is. I watched it for almost an hour before I begin to know the film is about their journey to bury their mother. The story telling is appalling, and made worse by the pretentious use of split screen that sites incongruous messages. For example, in a scene where a man's taking, the left side of the screen sites his face motionless while the right side of the screen sites him talking.It's as if there is an alternate universe within the film. The plot is ultra boring as well. just do but watch this mess.

THE REASON FOR LIVING

[nogodnomasters · 6/10 · 11 April 2019]

When Addie (Beth Grant), the family matriarch dies, her husband Anse (Tim Blake Nelson) vows to keep his promise to her and return her to Jefferson City for burial, something that will require a few days travel. The family packs up and takes off. Anse believes that God will find a way for them to complete their task. As it turns out, it was the worse possible decision.

The film, like the book utilizes excessive narration. It was annoying as was the split screen effect. The split screen was overdone. It was used to show the two angles of the same event; two simultaneous events; the same event past and present; an event with narration; plus dead people talking. Faulkner captures the struggles of uneducated folk during the Great Depression, almost in a Monty Pythonesque dark comedy fashion. Tim Blake Nelson gave us an Oscar worthy performance in a sea of great performances. Not since "Winter Bone" have I witnessed such great country portrayals.

This was a difficult film to stay the course. I almost ejected the disc on two occasions. However, to say I didn't like it, wouldn't be correct either. I think the adaptation stayed too close to the annoying features book. A more creative screen play, "inspired" by the book might have made a better film. Anse has no teeth, chews tobacco, is uneducated, and speaks with a thick accent. About 10 minutes into the film I turned on the English subscripts.

This film is not for everyone. I can't imagine watching it again.

Parental Guide: No f-bombs. Sex. Brief male nudity.

Hard to get into! 3/10

[leonblackwood · 3/10 · 28 June 2014]

Review: I really really struggled to get into this movie. I found the pace, pretty slow and I couldn't understand what the hell the characters were saying because of there Deep South accents. The only part of the plot that I could understand was the fact that the family was on a journey to bury there mother, but apart from that, I lost the plot. The performances seemed quite good, and the storyline, which is adapted from a book, seemed OK, but I just couldn't relate to it. In some ways, it's a road movie because of the families journey, but each character is pretty complex which is translated through narration which was even more complicating. Anyway, the families bad luck really does take its toil on the there journey which makes the movie, is you can follow it. Average!

Round-Up: James Franco has really shown that he has a deep side with the way that he directed this movie. After starring in so many comedies, this movie really does show that he doesn't want to be type casted as an actor and director. Personally, after watching Child Of God which was also directed by Franco, I have found it hard to get into his films because of the tempo and the concepts which he is drawn to. Tim Blake Nelson, who was great in O' Brother, Where Art Thou, was a good choice as the father in this movie because he naturally seems like he is from the Deep South which was needed for his role. I obviously wasn't the only person who struggled to find this movie interesting because of the box office takings, but after watching the extras on the DVD, Franco was pleased with the outcome and the cast were also pleased that he stayed true to the book.

Budget: N/A Worldwide Gross: $17,000 (Terrible!)

I recommend this movie to people who are into there Deep South movies about a family with really bad luck, who travel to bury there mother. 3/10

Intimate feeling

[din-nova · 6/10 · 3 November 2013]

I have not read the novel that was originally written by William Faulkner but I feel like the film is done in story telling as a novel more than as a typical movie because of its realistic creation. On the same time its done in a experimental way, its like poetry. It also feels very intimate which is what makes the movie original in how it gives me the viewer a particular feeling. I prefer how the movie is done in its artistically way rather more than how I enjoy it as a movie in its wholeness. This is because I found it hard to sometimes follow the story as I was interrupted by the cinema photography and the very dramatic music/sound. Possibly this is because it's done to show the details in a story rather than as a simple summary of the novel. I therefore perceive that it is done in honorary way to the novel.

What for me destroys it is the most is how the characters are too intimate, this make it for me to not strike it as completely genuine… Or maybe it is because it is to real for me the viewer to handle.

Hey if you read the book, and had nothing else to watch this might be a choice.

[face-819-933726 · 5/10 · 19 January 2014]

I really did not enjoy one minute of this film. I am sorry, I know it is supposed to be this masterpiece, but piece of eh? The cutaways, and the way peoples mouths aren't always moving when they are clearly talking, in fact having actual conversations, but you suddenly change perspective, and the person talking's lips are not moving, and the other person's might be, or they may just both be sitting in chairs, or walking around poking things with sticks. I did Not think Franco's choices of the cast were all that original, it was all boilerplate, and he used the same actors you would have seen play the same types of rolls only with better material, and probably less exaggerated direction. I would not recommend this movie to anyone really. If you have to read the book for school, just read the book, or get the Cole's (or whatever they call them in your country) notes, but this movie will not help you better understand the story, this movie may just crack your logic chip.

Excellent adaptation.

[RJR99SS · 10/10 · 30 November 2013]

I was almost shocked when i heard that they would be making a movie out of my favorite book, and the fact that James Franco and Danny McBride would be in it did not leave me with a good feeling. I was blown away, however, at what a great adaptation it is.

In fact, i'm not sure i'd even call it an adaptation. It IS the book. I cant think of any other movie that was truer to the source material. Obviously the book is much more long winded, and is filled with long, and often puzzling monologues from all the main characters. It's more dream like, and ponderous. But i cant think of anything that the movie left out, or missed, or put it's particular "spin" on, it was all dead on.

That said, the book is a difficult read. The movie is equally difficult. You could read the entire book, and have little idea what it's about. Similarly, you could easily watch this entire movie and be completely puzzled by it. There's a lot of important plot points that gets covered, and you barely even have time to realize exactly what it is the characters are saying. Once again though, the book is the same. Questions like: why is Varadamin's mom a fish? Why is Jewel's mom a horse? Why doesn't Darl have a mom? These are sort of answered, just like in the book, but they also seem completely absurd to even ask. It's a story more about the people involved in it, and not so much about the events that take place, or even the truthfulness of anything or anyone.

I would imagine most viewers will struggle to even understand what it is that the characters are saying, as they all have thick southern accents, Anse being almost unintelligible. Adding to the confusing is the fact that most everything they say is highly complex, poetry like prose that doesn't particularly care if you're following closely or not, they're still going to say it. Once again, pretty much how the book is.

So it's a difficult to understand book, and it's a difficult to understand movie. I certainly loved it, but i suspect most viewers will hate it.

Disappointed

[jmberkland · 3/10 · 27 November 2013]

When I saw another James Franco - Danny Mcbride collaboration was in store I almost wet the bet with excitement! The problem is, when I watch a movie I expect to be entertained. This movie didn't get close to entertaining me so that's where the low rating comes from. Sorry, but this movie was slow, boring, and borderline irritating. If you want an exciting movie featuring Franco and Mcbride check out Pineapple Express. S***, if we're lucky we'll get a Pineapple Express 2. Kind of like they teased us with in This Is The End. I will forever low James Franco. And I will forever love Danny Mcbride. But this movie just didn't get it done for me.

A Pretty Good Movie

[Sam Sloan · 9/10 · 20 June 2014]

Because of the low rating of 5.5 I nearly decided not to watch this movie. I would have missed a good movie had I paid too much attention to ratings and not given this movie a chance. It reminded me of the part in Lonesome Dove where one of the characters in that movie honors his promise to carry and deliver Gus's body in a wooden coffin a thousand miles to be buried back in his home in Texas. In this movie, we have a wife and mother who lived out her life to die naturally and the ordeal that a poor Mississippi family endures in getting her body back to where it is supposed to be buried. I found the actors to be well cast in their roles and I highly recommend this movie.

Probably doesn't do the source material justice but it's still an extremely interesting film going experience!

[Hellmant · 8/10 · 5 November 2013]

'AS I LAY DYING': Four Stars (Out of Five)

James Franco undertook the ambitious creative effort of trying to adapt author William Faulkner's classic 1930 book (of the same name) and partially succeeded. Franco directed the film and wrote it's screenplay. He also co-stars in the movie with a bunch of his friends; like Danny McBride, Tim Blake Nelson and Jim Parrack (he co-stars with Nelson and Parrack in another film he co-wrote and directed this year, based on a book by Cormac McCarthy, called 'CHILD OF GOD'). The film, if nothing else, is very interesting and it's great to see Franco continuously trying new and different things.

The story begins with the death of Addie Bundren (Beth Grant). She left behind her husband Anse (Nelson), daughter Dewey Dell (Ahna O'Reilly) and four sons (Franco, Parrack, Logan Marshall-Green and Brady Permenter). It then focuses on the family's efforts to transport Addie's body to the town of Jefferson, to be buried (as she wished). Each family member has their own troubles and drama. It's set in the fictional Yoknapatawpha County, Mississippi (based on Faulkner's home Lafayette County).

I never read the book so I didn't know the story at all prior to seeing the movie. So for me it was really bizarre and interesting. I know a lot of fans of the book are unhappy with Franco's adaptation but there are some that think it's a good enough summary of a near impossible novel to adapt (into a movie). I liked all of the performances (I especially was fascinated by Nelson and Marshall-Green) and found all the characters to be really interesting. I really liked Franco's directing as well and think he shows a lot of promise with this film. Maybe he shouldn't try to adapt such popular and classic works of modern literature but he definitely has talent as a filmmaker. There's a lot to marvel at in the movie, for sure. It probably doesn't do the source material justice but it's still an extremely interesting film going experience.

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQkUJbRVsoM