Genres

Visitors Review

esale1 2012-05-22 11:25:15

Thought-provoking and sad.

Having been a 50s housewife with children at home and a husband whowanted to be anywhere but there, this movie was familiar territory. Howmany of us in those years simply packed our dreams away for theimmediate necessity of putting food on the table and paying themortgage? Di Caprio is outstanding, as is Winslet, she having to dealwith an American accent along with the tearing emotions. I didn't seethat anyone picked up on the final scene, of Kathy Bates and herhusband, but to me that was the whole moral of the story - here iswhere you will end up if you give in to what you know is not right foryou. Overall, though, well done - except women in the 50s did NOT wearhats to work!!

2012-05-21 16:05:14

A Boring story about Boring people who are Bored with their lives..

I read The Richard Yates novel, and also saw the movie, so my review is a slight mixing of the two. The novel is slightly elevated from the movie, but this is usually the case and not saying very much for either. Richard Yates apparently believes anyone that we dare say is "happy" in their "Americana" lifestyle HE portrays is simple minded. We are all liars going through the motions of life, unless of course we move to Europe, smoke alot while sitting at a corner cafe with a French beret on. Sheesh!! These people are the authentic real people? This reeks of pure pretention to me, and is somewhat insulting to anyone with any sense of obligation to someone beside themselves.The truth is even the roads LESS traveled can be at times boring and unfullfiling. I have always marched to the beat of my own drum and I am at my happiest when I am creative, so I do "get it" How when we are not working or living a creative life it can be mundane. However; I can also see the joy that may come from actually having a family, children etc. Why does Yates potray this in an either/ or way? Why is there no mending of the two? Why is everything in Yate's story so black and white? If you are not ALWAYS, 100% in sync with everything YOU want, even the risk of death would be better! April is one of thee most unlikable characters ever written/ or potrayed in film. Her need to be free is not for any noble reasons, just purely selfish. April would be unhappy no matter what the scenario; living in the suburbs ( the bad, bad suburbs) or in Paris ( her ideal utopia.) Basically, she is a spoiled brat of mediocare talent who is delusional and childish. There is no motivation other than one's own selfish consuming wants in almost every character. I can enjoy a book/movie who's views do not align with my own but could not enjoy this book/ movie for the reasons mentioned. Spoiled and bratty with no redeeming qualities or the slight chance to evoke sympathy does not a good story make. They are merely caricatures to insure Yate'e gets his message across. Very tiresome and not the least bit realistic.We get it!! Paris, wine, cigs, expressing your mediocare talent ( Good, Good Good!) and having a family, children while living in the USA ( bad, bad,very bad!)

Mike McGranaghan 2012-05-17 17:32:45

Revolutionary Road is a very well-made film indeed, and if it stings a little, that is only a testament to how strong a work it is.

Allan Hunter 2012-05-17 12:56:42

Sam Mendes has created an intelligent, thoroughly engrossing, beautifully acted adaptation of a classic novel that depicts the tragic underside of America's sunniest decade.

2012-05-14 16:25:57

School of Hard Knoxx

Obviously a labor of love for all concerned, Revolutionary Road comes to us after many decades of trying to bring it to the big screen by a long list of many of Hollywood's most talented creators. All of them have run ashoal on the insurmountable problem odf the novel's structure. Sam Mendes, the talented British director, thought he had it licked. He didn't see the trouble coming from the opposite direction: while he was making this show, US television was delivering MAD MEN, a Revolutionary Road knockoff that manages to outdo the original in every direction. Uh-oh, what a disaster, not in execution but just in comparison to the TV version, the Mendes picture just seems like a mighty waste of talent.Others have listed the similarities, so I won't bother, but I will say that MAD MEN has made this picture not only superfluous but actually an object of curiosity. Watching Kate and Leo in what seems like a dutiful recreation of the American 50s, I began feeling restless wondering why even bother putting it back in the 50s? Wouldn't it have been more honest, less glamorous, if the filmmakers had made it happen today? What would possibly have made the least amount of difference? The Wheelers would have the same ennui at living unfulfilled lives. April would still have been an awful actress (this was a holdover from the Yates original, one of the many ways in which we know that Yates hated women). Her despair at being ten weeks pregnant, the way Frank uses this as a bargaining chip to make her stay home. Everything could have taken place in 2008 and you wouldn't have a picture dripping with all that Kodachrome quaintness that ultimately ruins the picture. These types of movies are made to make audiences feel better, as if to say, look how awful people had it back then, nothing like this could possibly happen today.As the office mope who sleeps with friendly Frank, Zoe Kazan tries, but the writing just doesn't give her anything to work with. Think of the various girls Don Draper has it on with, and the contrast is just humiliating to Mendes. I love Richard Yates, always have, but we've come to a point when others do him better than he did himself (except for EASTER PARADE and A GOOD SCHOOL).

Chris Hewitt (St. Paul) 2012-05-14 00:06:46

Sam Mendes, still better known for his theater work than as a movie director, has put a decidedly theatrical spin on Richard Yates' 1961 novel.

silmaril-6 2012-05-13 04:46:42

Something's missing

I really admire Winslet and DiCaprio as actors. They're both fabulousin every their role and they had wonderful chemistry in Titanic (whichmy friend literally forced me to watch:-) They were great then and theyare even greater now, but something's missing. I don't know what –storyline is good, Sam Mendes is great director (although I doubt he'llever make better movie than American beauty), Kate and Leo werespectacular, but... I wasn't fully satisfied with the final result. Idon't mind it's slow and I don't think it's boring like most of thepeople with negative reviews. Let me say that I've watched TakingChance the same day (and this is the definition of slow paced movie andmost people comment that it's boring because nothing happens from thebeginning to the end), but this one grabbed my attention and my heart,although I can hardly (if ever) relate to it's subject. RR has asubject I can relate (although not from personal experience) but Ididn't felt sucked in... Kate 10, Leo 10, Mendes 9, Revolutionary road6,5

James Hitchcock 2012-05-12 11:42:19

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence

In the cinema certain historical periods seem to become associated witha particular set of ideas. Thus a 1960s setting is often used (as inthe recent "Doubt") as shorthand for "clash between traditionalconservative values and progressive modern ones". The 1950s, bycontrast, are often seen (as in "Far from Heaven") as a period ofstifling social conformity when conservative values went unchallengedby progressive ones, particularly in proverbially conformist suburbia."Revolutionary Road" set in a Connecticut suburb in 1955, is not aremake with a period setting of "American Beauty", Sam Mendes' earlierfilm about suburban life. That film is, among other things, a satiricalblack comedy, combining satire with a character study of the leadingcharacters and a philosophical exploration of the meaning of happiness.It contains surreal or supernatural elements, being, for example,narrated by the ghost of a dead man. "Revolutionary Road", by contrast,is more realistic and tells the story of the tragic disintegration of afailing marriage, treating its characters as rounded individuals ratherthan simply as objects of satire.The two films, however, do have something in common. Like LesterBurnham in "American Beauty", Frank Wheeler seems, superficially, to beliving the American dream as a fully paid-up member of the middleclass. He has a career in marketing, a charming house, an attractivewife and two young children. Beneath this façade, however, Frank andhis wife April are deeply unhappy. April is dissatisfied with her lifeas a housewife, and Frank dislikes his job.Two things happen on Frank's thirtieth birthday. He begins an affairwith a secretary from his office, less through sexual desire (she isless attractive than April) than through boredom. When he arrives home,however, April makes a surprising proposal, namely that they move toParis, with April working as a secretary to support the family so thatFrank can discover what he truly wants to do in life. After initialreluctance, Frank is won round to this idea, but then two furtherevents cause him to have second thoughts. Frank's talents are noticedby a senior executive in his firm, who offers him a promotion to abetter-paid position. April becomes pregnant with their third child,and Frank informs her that in the circumstances it will be better ofthe family remain in America.Lester is in many ways a flawed individual, but I suspect that mostviewers of "American Beauty" will sympathise with him rather than withhis cold, snobbish and neurotic wife Carolyn. With "Revolutionary Road"I suspect that their sympathies will be more evenly divided. Mendesavoids the standard clichés of portraying April as a free spirit andher husband as a complacent bourgeois conformist, or of arguing thatthe only life worth living is the bohemian one. Frank is dissatisfiedwith life not because the suburbs are intrinsically dull or because heis temperamentally unsuited to life as a businessman but because histalents are not recognised at work. When he receives his suddenpromotion, he realises that he is doing a worthwhile job which willenable him not only to support his family but also make a widercontribution to society. His main fault is that he has failed torealise just how unhappy his wife has become.April is not a bad person, and has genuine causes of unhappiness,rooted in the social codes of the period which frowned upon marriedwomen, especially married women with children, from working outside thehome. Nevertheless, she is portrayed as having faults of her own,rooted in intellectual snobbery and what might be called the "grass isalways greener" mentality. She believes that she and Frank are uniqueand special, too good for the life of the suburbs. She sees theproposed move to Paris as the solution to all the family's problemswithout considering whether this is what Frank really wants. After thismove falls through she too has an affair, with their neighbour ShepCampbell, even though he is precisely the sort of suburbanite shenormally despises; his main attraction for April is that he is notFrank.The film reunites Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet for the first timesince "Titanic". Although I never really liked DiCaprio in hisheart-throb phase in the nineties, "Revolutionary Road" confirms themessage of "Catch Me if You Can" and "The Aviator", that he has maturedinto a fine actor. As for Winslet, her husband clearly knows how to getthe best out of her; she really deserved the Oscar for this film, notfor her technically proficient but soulless performance in the veryoverrated "The Reader". Frank and April are, despite their faults, bothsuch vibrant, likable people that we find ourselves desperately wishingin our hearts that a happy ending will be possible for them, eventhough we know in our heads that the differences in their personalitiesmake that unlikely.The title is deliberately ironic; "Revolutionary Road" is the name ofthe street where Frank and April live, but there is littlerevolutionary about their lifestyle or that of their neighbours.Nevertheless, the film is not really a satire on suburban life; Mendeswas no doubt aware that when the cinema indulges itself inanti-suburban satire the result can look uncomfortably like snobbishhumour at the expense of those little people unfortunate enough not tohave the telephone number salaries enjoyed by Hollywood moguls andstars. It should rather be seen as a moving human drama. DiCapriohimself said of it that "There's rarely a movie nowadays about peopleand their normal struggles to find happiness in their life". He is, ofcourse, right about the rarity of such movies, and good ones on thistheme are still rarer, but 2008 produced at least two excellentexamples, "Revolutionary Road" and Clint Eastwood's "Gran Torino". Apity that Mendes and Eastwood did not receive more recognition from theAcademy. 8/10

Andy-Denotti 2012-05-10 18:29:05

Totally enthralling and painfully realistic drama

This drama is so well made and both Leonardo di Caprio and Kate Winsletare so exceptionally good in their dramatic interpretation that I oftenforgot I was watching a movie. Leonardo di Caprio really excels and youcannot avoid empathizing with his character. The director of American beauty does another brilliant job at depictingthe frustration of leading an ordinary existence and the devastatingconsequences that a desperate need to find a way out might lead to.This time though with an emphasis on drama and tragedy; there is nocomic relief here to help you hide from the pain. Revolutionary road isa movie that explores the inner struggle of trying to reconcile thedream of doing something extraordinary with our lives with theperspective of inevitably conforming to what everyone else does. In thesecond part of the story all the way to the ending an ominousthriller-type atmosphere bleeds into the drama and by then you aretotally enveloped in the character's lives, anxiously waiting to findout how they will end up.This part might contain spoilers:After the inebriation of finding each other, getting married and havingchildren, husband and wife find themselves becoming the ordinary peoplethey had promised themselves never to become. Leonardo di Caprio'scharacter is an intelligent and imaginative man who has a job he hatesand Kate Winslet's character is an actress turned housewife,suffocating at the idea that their dreams may have been lost forever intheir middle class existence. In an attempt to escape the hopelessemptiness they feel closing in on them, she suggests a drastic change.They decide to throw caution to the wind and take off to start a newlife in Paris, where people "really live". Their plan injects newenergy into their relationship and into their dreams but the euphoriais short-lived, as life takes a series of twists that will change theirfuture for ever.

Michael DeZubiria 2012-05-10 04:31:20

No wonder no one says "swell" anymore!

My grandparents still consider the 1950's to be the golden age of pure,unblemished Americanism. A time when teenagers were respectful, parentswere bright, smiling examples of friendly authority, sex waspost-marital and marriage was a time of apple pies and cheerful strollsdown the charming neighborhood lane. I don't know at the moment if mygrandparents have seen Revolutionary Road, but rarely do movies comealong when the opinions of our elders would almost surely prove to beenormously valuable and insightful.The movie is based on the novel by Richard Yates, which attacked thevery normality and pleasant conformity of the 1950's that forms thebasis of so much of the modern nostalgia about it today. There has beena lot of expectation about the movie that would bring Leonardo DiCaprioand Kate Winslet together again for the first time in more than adecade, but the romance that they share in Revolutionary Road could notpossibly be more different from the one they developed on the Titanic.They are Frank and April Wheeler, an outwardly charming husband andwife who live in a beautiful dream house on Revolutionary Road. Theyradiate an atmosphere of perfection and happiness and are loved by theneighbors. We meet them just after they've made what they promised eachother was only a temporary move from Manhattan to the sprawlingsuburbs. The movie begins with April in an unsuccessful play, and welearn very quickly about their relationship in the car on the way homeas Frank thoughtfully assures her that it's okay that she didn't becomean actress, it's not her fault that the play was lousy, and then in thefight that ensues, Frank tells her that she acts "sick" when she getsmad like this.It seems that the most important thing that Frank and April embodyabout the traditional 1950s couple was the routine sacrificing ofdreams upon the altar of conformity and fulfilling expectations. Aprildreams of a romantic life in Paris, and Frank has artistic ambitions aswell. But he is stuck in a job that he hates despite a good salary,they have two kids already and a third accidentally on the way, andadultery's going on left and right.April suggests that they drop everything and move to Paris where, withmoney that she could make working combined with whatever they could getfor the house, they could live comfortably until he could get on hisfeet artistically and they could both live the lives they have alwaysdreamed of. They are doing what is expected of them already, butthey're both deeply unhappy and they see no improvement ahead. It is one of the movie's more successful tragic moments in the way thateveryone Frank and April know react to the news that they are moving.Responses range from friendly disbelief to outward remarks ofirresponsibility and suggestions that such a move would be"irresponsible." It's hard to watch Frank and April let go of theirdreams when it was right in their grasp.It's not unrealistic, ladies and gentlemen. It's uncommon andunexpected, but unrealistic? Irresponsible? I should hope not! It'scommonly believed to be irresponsible and unrealistic, but it's not,trust me. I'm doing it myself. I left a job in Los Angeles two yearsago that paid well but that I didn't like, and I've been living inChina (decidedly less romantic than Paris, I admit) ever since. I nowhave a job that pays less than I made in LA, but my lifestyle is muchmore comfortable and I work 10 hours a week, which leaves me time topursue my artistic endeavors. See how that works?Granted, I don't have any kids, but I also didn't have a house to sellto put together some money to support myself while I found work. "Ijust think people are better off doing some kind of work that theyactually like," Frank complains. I tend to agree.But ultimately life gets in the way, as they say. A gossipy real estateagent, played perfectly by Kathy Bates, makes friends with April andnervously asks if she might bring over her son John, who has been in amental institution and who she thinks might benefit from meeting ahappy couple like April and Frank. April agrees, but when John comesover, it seems that his only mental problem is an inability to adhereto accepted models of conformity, which manifests itself mostly in theform of cutting through other peoples' facades like warm butter andlaying bare the sad, bitter reality of their lives. When he does thiswith April and Frank, the results are not pretty, but they are some ofthe best movie moments of 2008.Kate and Leo both approach perfection in their performances. Both ofthem have appeared in other brilliant films in 2008 (Kate in The Readerand Leo in Body of Lies), but in Revolutionary Road their performancesreach such a level of pitch and depth that, when combined, theyreverberate against each other and turn into something entirelydifferent. If there were an Oscar for the best combination of twoperformances, there would be no need for any other nominees.Revolutionary Road is not the most uplifting film of the year (althoughit's also not nearly as depressing as, say, Rachel Getting Married),but it is definitely among the most important. It's not so much thatthe movie attacks conformity, but that it attacks that little voiceinside us that prevents us from doing what we really want in lifebecause it goes against the accepted norm. Watching the movie kind oftakes a bite out of you, but it takes a bite of that part of you thatgets in the way of your dreams.

r0cko723 2012-05-03 05:12:37

Good (but not original) premise devolves into melodrama

I was with this one through a good third of the film or so -- maybeeven half. I'm a sucker for existential stories -- you know, stories inwhich one or more characters take a time-out from the sequence ofevents that inform and rule our daily lives and stop to consider theend game. Mendes was gold with "American Beauty." Well, I think he wentto the well a few too many times with "Revolutionary Road." Yeah, it'sanother road. "Road to Perdition" was a road, too. Having gone down theroad to perdition, did I need to take a re-run with another unhappystory in another time and setting? Not sure. Maybe. I appreciate Sam'smove to bring it home (or at least a little closer) to something theaverage suburbanite could relate to. But the themes in RevolutionaryRoad have already been run through the grinder, and much moreeloquently and effectively, by a writer named John Cheever. Sure, heworked in a different medium -- fiction on the page vs. cellulose --but he got it right on the suburban malaise meter. He could have acrazy man come to an Episcopal church to crucify a rebellious teenagerfor the sins of the father: namely, conformity to prepackaged standardsand adherence to values that seem obviously pointless. But still, whenI watched the last half hour of " . . . Road," I just wasn't buying it.The flick asks us to buy into the proposition that everyone deep downknows the sick deal we've all been dealt and everyone is really, reallytorn up about it but almost everyone represses that understanding orwhatever -- and that the unfortunate courageous few, very few, who takea look at the parameters of the human condition head-on are boundeither to cower down and put on the plastic mask or are doomed to freakthe heck out. Sorry, but that's ridiculous. You can take a trip to yourlocal poor part of town (like where I've lived most of my life) and, ifyou have a few minutes to chat with the locals and don't get yourasterisk kicked in the process, you'll find that our world is full ofpeople who understand that the bill of goods we've been sold from dayone is a piece of fecal matter. They don't go around freaking out.Newsflash -- existential despair isn't a novelty. Plenty of us have it.We don't go daydreaming about running off to Paris because of it.

donorth 2012-05-02 19:59:05

Must see, this could change your life!

This is a difficult movie to watch because I think that the manymessages will resonate with any and everyone. It's important to liveour lives for ourselves, not for our parents, not for our spouses andnot to let life pass us by. Once we stop we stop dreaming, we stopliving. I know that sounds extreme, but this movie has made me reflecton all of the time I've wasted, who I've lived my life for and whetherI've left things too long to change. It's far too easy to accept ourlot in life and just run out the string in our mediocre and less thansatisfying existence until we die. The Wheeler family, April (KateWinslet) and Frank (Leonardo DiCaprio) are a couple that has moved toan "idyllic" small town to live out the "dream" but in reality, no oneseems to be able to be true to themselves or to communicate and thedream is shown for what it really is, a nightmare.

j-ward 2012-04-30 15:32:54

Intense psychological drama

This movie is incredible. It is much a cross between Labute's "In theCompany of Men" and Mamet's "Oleana". If you are a fan of either ofthese movies you will likely love this movie. However, if, like mostothers, you haven't seen either of them then ask yourself if your ideaof a good time is watching two intelligent people in a state ofexistential dread over the meaninglessness and routine nature of liferip either other apart verbally in the fashion of "Who's Afraid ofVirginia Wolfe". If not, avoid this film.Like DiCaprio's early work with DeNiro in "This Boy's Life" this filmis all about an intellectuals struggle to find his voice to carve out alife, to follow his dreams, or to give up and accept the forces that,Mendes' so vividly relates, tend to move us to obscurity andmediocrity. Namely waking up to a life in a job you hate, with 2.3 kidsand living in suburbia filled with routine drudgery and your typical50's June Cleaver types as neighbors. It is depressing. It is painfulto watch. Yet it says so much about the daily grind that so many of usgo through. We run the rat race, move up the ladder... but for what??To one day find out that all our childhood dreams are only that...dreams that have faded away with the new day.Without giving away details about this movie, let me just say it islike a couple on the brink of divorce going to see a world renowntherapist. Once in the office, the man relates an intricate story tothe therapist detailing all his wife's failings. The therapist nods andagrees and the man feels validated. Then the wife takes the floordetailing all the ways her husband has let her down. Again thetherapist nods and agrees with all her points. At this the man jumps inand says... "You said I was right... Now you are saying my wife isright. We can't both be right." Again the therapist nods and agrees.Similarly, this movie is all about the delicate nature of truth. Someof us devote our live's to it. Other's dummy ourselves down in order tolive in peace with those close to us. We tell little white lies toprotect those we love... but lies build and soon we are lying toourselves and have lost our moral compass. Some of us are so devoted toour version of the truth that we seem crazy and are committed to amental hospital... but truly there is a thin line between genius andinsanity and this movie all takes place along that line.

syb 2012-04-29 22:14:29

Well Acted but kind of dull and predictable.

I thought I'd love this movie. Just my type of psychodrama period movie--repression in suburbia ala American Beauty.The acting across the board was fine, and sometimes inspired. But I think the screenplay just killed it. The dialogue was stilted the trajectory of the story was choppy and uninvolving. We see this couple meet, and the next thing you know they've got a couple of kids and the wife is disillusioned about her dream. We have no idea how they got to this resentful place in their marriage or even if they were ever happy. The kids disappear and reappear conveniently and the situations that are supposed to explain the emotions and motivations of the couple are contrived.The movie is beautiful to look at, and the supporting cast is wonderful. In fact it is a huge relief when we see DiCaprio's work colleagues, or the neighbors or Kathy Bates's family come back on the screen to provide some break from the Wheelers' relentless angst.

2012-04-28 14:13:20

Killed by social convention

April and Frank and seemingly happy, handsome and successful suburban couple living in the well off suburbia during 1950s. Their lives however, seem to be gloom: we see Frank following hordes of people to the train station that takes him to his miserable job in NYC where he sits in dreadful cubical. April is stay at home wife, surrounded by every day mundane work and endless care for their two young children. Their quiet disatisafction culminates with Frank's 30th birthday when he has an affair with the secretary from his firm and April's own desire to reconnect with her own youth and her unfulfilled dreams.On the whim, they decide to start new life in Europe. They want to break with all social conventions of the time and reconnect with each other and find their own dreams in the process. But as life never goes according to the plan, neither does their pact to go to Europe. Outside world and social conventions continue to interfere, until it all falls apart. Irrevocably.Cast in the film is amazing. Winslet and DiCaprio make great couple on the screen together and it is wonderful to see them together after their initial match in "Titanic". Both are a little bit older and a whole lot better as actors. Their supporting cast is out of this world too. All of them.

wdlee 2012-04-28 01:26:47

An Excuse For 'Acting'

I have to admit, I went into this with a little trepidation. Thetrailers implied a film with little-to-no plot, and two people shoutingand arguing a lot. Unfortunately, I wasn't proved wrong.There's nothing wrong with the idea of an interesting drama documentingthe break down of a marriage and/or abortion issues, but RevolutionaryRoad has no subtlety or progression in dealing with these. Essentially,the marriage is already broken at the start of the film. They start todream of a new life that will give them a fresh start and fail. Themarriage then descends into collapse and the unintentional death of acharacter.Of course there's all sorts of 'meaningful' messages here. The realquestion, is whether they're told in an interesting and effectivemanner. With the exception of the 'slight' hopefulness of the two leadsmoving to Paris, the film is utterly one-tone. The characters are neverreally established with back-story or through any other narrativemethod. In essence, all we ever learn about them, is: "This is asuburban couple in the 50s. They shout at each other a lot and areapparently unsatisfied with their lives" They even have a couple ofchildren that appear briefly in one or two scenes as plot devices, butotherwise seem not to exist. It's as though they have been shoe-hornedin after 90% of the film has been completed, to be causes for more ofthe 'dramatic' scenes between the leads. Obviously this is not thecase, but the way it is filmed and told, it may as well have been.Any messages this film may have had, are lost in the contrived plot andbarely even two-dimensional characters. Yes, the basic 'facts' of thestory are as realistic or unrealistic as you want them to be, but theyare all bound up in a false and extremely forced package. A sign ofgood characterisation is the ability to think "If (random event)happened to the character, how would they react?" and being able toformulate some idea of your own, based on what you have seen and heard.The two leads in Revolutionary Road had no consistency of character atany point. They were just hollow shells for DeCaprio and Winslet to'act' with.The whole film comes over as a contrived mess. One of those movies thatmake the old mistake of thinking "Lots of dramatic shouting, crying,and vacant long looks, equals good acting and drama." Yet perhaps thatwas their main point. To give Winslet and DeCaprio a vehicle in whichto indulge in melodramatic over-the-top acting, without lumbering anyof the 'acting' scenes with the problems that can be encountered whenyou establish characters, or give them real reason to behave the waythey do. The 'plot' was simply a device by which to have 'emotionalacting' scenes for the actors to enjoy getting their teeth into.The highlights of the film, and some of the few moments it comes alive,are when the somewhat disturbed character of 'John Givings' (Played byMichael Shannon) pops up to deliver some 'home truths' so-to-speak.Sure, he's a blatant device used to hammer home the film's plotpoints/messages in case we missed them while watching, butnevertheless, he easily becomes the most interesting character in thewhole mess. Inadvertently (Especially in his final scene) his charactertruly sums up the utter banality and pointlessness of the whole story,and how shallow and empty the characters are. Another highlight, is thevery final moment of the film when the character's father turns off hishearing-aid in order to blank out the inane ramblings of his shallowwife. Which again, sum up the entire film perfectly.Perhaps Revolutionary Road is best summed up as the acting equivalentof a bland, plot less summer blockbuster with lots of special effects.Except in this case the 'effects' are Winslet and DeCaprio's 'acting'for the sake of acting, and once you get past that, there's not a lotleft that's Revolutionary.

Sukhdev Sandhu 2012-04-24 22:33:09

It feels removed from the messy energies and doomy turbulence it depicts, filtering them through an aesthetic sensibility so tasteful, controlled and ultimately second-hand, that it can impress but never truly move us.

Turfseer 2012-04-24 11:08:51

Grim put-down of 50s Suburbia

Instead of blaming Hollywood for their self-congratulatory tales ofsuburban angst, why not blame a gullible public? For it's the publicthat laps up these specious and false tales. Why was 'The Graduate'such a success? Because it gave the average person the right to feelthat 'I'm better than you'. It's easy to sneer at a Mrs. Robinson, anadult woman who manipulates the emotions of Dustin Hoffman's 'innocent'college student, Benjamin. She's willing to not only ruin his life butalso that of her daughter's. Her narcissism knows no bounds. In anutshell, she's a character who's easy to hate. Hollywood has theformula down pat: give us an innocent rebel who 'doesn't fit in' andhave him/her pitted against the 'monster'—the hissing mustachioedvillain of 19th century melodrama has evolved into the 'conformist'post-war suburbanite.In Revolutionary Road there is nary a laugh to be heard throughout theentire 118 minutes of the film. No one seems to like themselves at all.At the film's beginning, the suburbanites' community theater productionis a complete failure. And the worst performance in the play is givenby our protagonist, Kate Winslett's April Wheeler. Heaven forbid peoplecan have fun performing in a community theater production or even laughat themselves if the production is a little off. No, the point is madefrom the outset that our community of post-war suburbanites is one of'hopelessness' and 'emptiness'. This is the profound 'epiphany' thatthe makers of Revolutionary Road want us to experience and they aregoing to reveal these 'profound insights' to us. But the truth is,there is no such thing as suburban 'angst'—back then and now the vastmajority of people have egos—in short, they like themselves! Those who have written negative things about Revolutionary Road seem toagree that there is little character development when it comes to AprilWheeler. When Helen Givings (Kathy Bates) tells April that she alwaysfelt she was someone 'special', the camera comes in close and we seethe blank expression on her face. April is not to be blamed for herdepression—society has made her into what she is. It's a trite ideathat people are not responsible for their own lives but that's whatRevolutionary Road serves up here. April is a Bohemian, a free spiritwhose main goal is to move to Paris. For half the movie, her plan ofliberation is about the only thing we find out about her. Certainly wefind out nothing about her personality vis-à-vis her children—they arebarely seen in this film and can be best thought of as a set of propsin this overblown passion play.Additional 'props' can be found in the characters of the Wheelers'neighbors, Shep and Millie Campbell. When April and Frank tell them oftheir plans to move to Paris, they later castigate them in the comfortof their own bedroom as "immature". The film's scenarists wish us toidentify the Campbells as being arrogant and part of the overallsuburban 'emptiness'. Shep loses further points when he beds April justbefore her final breakdown.One wonders why Frank is so easily convinced by April to chuck hishouse and job and run off to Paris with her and the kids. After all, hescreams at her for her illusions of becoming a great actress in theopening scene. But somehow she appeals to his earlier idealisticdesires to be free and independent before the kids came along. In theblink of an eye, the empty and uncaring suburbanite who has nocompunctions about bedding the new pretty office worker suddenly istransformed into a caring, self-actualized mensch who will go alongwith his wife's bold plan to go where no other suburban couple has gonebefore.Don't despair, Frank returns to his vile ways quite soon enough. With ajob promotion hanging over his head and the news that April ispregnant, he decides to 'sell out'. Aha, we've finally found out whothe antagonist is in this film! Fortunately there is one bright note inRevolutionary Road and that is Michael Shannon's electroshock victim,John Givings. John is basically an ally of April since they both don'tfit into society and are labeled as deviant (note that at one point,Frank recommends that April see a shrink!). Before Frank 'sells out',he and April have a nice 'heart-to-heart' talk in the woods with Johnwho echoes the film's theme: people in suburbia might 'get' emptinessbut April and (pre-sell-out) Frank 'feel' hopelessness. Thenon-conformist blesses the free-spirit couple for their 'bravery'. Butonce Frank takes the new job and decides not to go to Paris, he is therecipient of John's full wrath. A real person would have parried John'sblows with perhaps a sense of humor, but since Frank is merely astand-in for all the ills of suburbia (and hence American society), hecomes off as arrogant, defensive and with a severe anger managementproblem.The only truly enjoyable moment in Revolutionary Road is when Johnturns on April for a millisecond. After berating Frank, he whispers inHER ear and tells her in effect that maybe she's no great shakeseither! The suggestion that maybe April is not an angel is short-lived.Before you know it, April has done herself in by means of aself-induced abortion. Our beloved bohemian is now enshrined assacrificial lamb.Ironically, Revolutionary Road is well-acted and directed. What's morethe art design of the film, with its attention to period detail, is awork to behold. The score, while repetitious, is also haunting. Butsomehow the histrionics of the principal characters do not impresssince people are not like that in real life. Stories about peopleliving 'lives of quiet desperation' is not only a myth but 'old hat'.The 'Road' is more empty than the mythic society it creates andattempts to tear down.

bobm5508 2012-04-22 12:40:02

Well performed downer! Insightful...........?

This movie has elicited many "10s" and lots of "2s" from our trustyIMDb readers. That is always interesting to me. A performance is called"bad community theater" stuff by one viewer, others hail the movie'sperformances as "great".I'm guessing that the depressing nature of watching a suburban couplebemoan their seemingly OK life, and the internal strife of thatconflict, is insightful for most, painful for some and irritating for afew.I generally watch movies to be enlightened, entertained or educated.I'd be hard pressed to say this movie did any of those. But, I wasenthralled by the performances, which I considered to be as good asthey get. A scene of the corporate "clones" departing the 'burbs fortheir corporate jobs was sensationally filmed, stunning in is scope andset the tone for the "robotic" view of suburban life theauthor/director chose to hang their story on. But this point of view isnot enlightening. Kate and Leo, as the struggling suburban couple,argue with the intent to injure, but after reflection, seem to stillhave the core of affection that originally brought them together. Theyfight hard, re-group, create a plan to break away and then deteriorateagain as the plan slips away.It's not much of a plan. Quit their present life and head to Paris.She'll work, he'll find himself! Other than they are not the "special"people Kate envisioned they would be, there isn't much to escape from.Is Leo droning out a living? Sure, who didn't! It was post-war USA. Butthen he's offered a promotion that seems a bit exciting to him, somaybe things are looking up. Kate can't even verbalize what makes them"special" and why they should escape their "trapped" life, other thanthey just should.I felt the movies' "big cheat", was the role of Kathy Bates' son. Anaccomplished mathematician, he is deemed different, institutionalizedand apparently brutalized. He has had 64 shock treatments for acondition that doesn't appear to warrant such drastic treatment. But,that's life in the 50's. Offbeat is insane. But, he is presented as theperson with the real insight! Is it the author's point that 64 shocktreatments help see life more clearly. The character gives us the keyinsightful line in the movie when he proclaims that many admit to theemptiness of suburban life, but that "it takes real guts to see thehopelessness." In his only other scene he makes a proclamation to Katethat seals the movie's final fate. Perhaps his unfiltered take on lifemakes the character viable, but I thought it was too extreme, tooconvenient. And the use of ex-marital activity by both was intriguing.In both cases it was to feel something, anything! But, I'm babbling. The movie was a well performed downer. We watch apainful slice of life. In fact, if you get the DVD make sure to watchthe deleted scenes. The director may have left an Academy Awardnomination for DeCaprio on the cutting floor. He has two incredible(i.e. -- not "community player") scenes that were left out.

dfrbrowne 2012-04-21 16:49:29

Brilliant Film - Anyone in a long term relationship can relate to

All I can say is that anyone giving this film a bad review, may be toyoung to understand the relationship on screen or fails to understandthat the film portrays a very real insight into a lot of marriages.Anyone who has been married for a few years with kids or been through adivorce will relate to the Wheelers. Its a painful watch and aninsight. I am sure that an awful lot of married couples came away fromthis film thinking "its not just us" fights and arguments are aconsequence of any long term commitment, its how we deal with them thatmatters. A superb film and I found the two hours to be over too soon.What do we get at the very end when we see the old couple - a perfectconclusion! If you've been married that long its just easier to cope ifyou switch off.