According to the marketing campaign, the movie is a "searing portrait of the human spirit being crushed by the mediocrity of day-to-day experiences". If I understand the reviews correctly, the film "dares to reveal the dark side of The American Dream." It "skillfully and deftly handles the unmentionable anguish of living in the 20th Century." They even gave Kate a trophy at The Golden Globes for it. And she might win an Oscar.
REVOLUTIONARY ROAD sucked. It sucked long, and it sucked hard. Watching Leo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet try to play a 30something couple mired in the dull, lifeless futility of suburban 'bliss' circa 1959 was like watching a high school drama club attempt to capture the world-weariness and bile-soaked venom of WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF. The dialogue was written by a person who has never heard dialogue spoken by an actor in any kind of production. It is delivered by people who were told to act more angry with their lot in life than they could possibly conceive of actually experiencing. The plot was predictable to the point of being a parody of itself. The fact that they felt it necessary to include scenes where a mental patient spells out the misery that our protagonists are mired in was laughably insulting. Nobody delivered a single line that sounded genuine. REVOLUTIONARY ROAD sucked.
I have a longstanding issue with movies that are hyped by the production company and sold to the American Public as being "avant-garde" and "a new and exciting look" at the way stories are told. Particularly when what we are actually seeing is packaged as a vehicle for the stars who are involved in it. REVOLUTIONARY ROAD thinks it is something bigger than it is, and I wouldn't mind so much if it wasn't as predictable and worn-out. Questions for those who have seen it and feel that they have seen something incredible:
1- Could you have gotten the same message from this film without Michael Shannon's character ever appearing in it?
2- Did you think for even a moment that Leo "Babyface" DiCaprio ever came across as a man in his late 20's/early 30's? Or that he delivered a SINGLE LINE of dialogue that sounded convincing or was in any way a piece of non-exposition?
3- Was there any doubt in anyone's mind that any affairs would NOT occur? That the ending would NOT play out that way? Was ANYTHING that happened a surprise? And if so, HAVE YOU WATCHED A MOVIE BEFORE IN YOUR LIFE?
4- Could they make Kate Winslet look ANY more haggard or fuck-faced? I understand that they wanted her to be stressed... to look "fallen" to a degree. But she looks like a fucking MAN in this movie. She looks more manly than DiCaprio. Christ.
I felt insulted and angry at the end of this movie. I felt like I had been spoon-fed something that might have been more complex and rich if it had taken the time to be subtle. I burst out laughing when the blood hit the carpet.
The movie sucks. If you enjoyed it then good for you, but I'd like to know why you didn't feel like you were being pandered to. And I would like to know why you have never read or seen WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF, THE WILD PARTY, THE LOST WEEKEND, MAD MEN, AMERICAN BEAUTY (proof the filmmaker IS capable of doing this stuff correctly the first time), or any other piece of work written between 1955 and the present that deals with couples who want to be more than what they are.
What a mess. REVOLUTIONARY ROAD sucked.
No comments:
Post a Comment