Lumos Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 (edited) Anyone who has seen Revolutionary Road would agree with me when I say that this is easily one of the best acted films of all time! Why the academy decided to recognize Winslet for the Reader and not this film, is beyond my understanding (atleast she won a golden globe). And Dicaprio was more than worthy of a best actor nomination. The amount of conviction and emotion they put into their characters elevated this film a great deal - but performances by Kathy Bates and Michael Shannon should not go unnoticed either.I know Revolutionary Road wasn't completely overlooked - it did manage to get 3 nominations at the academy awards...but its box office gross is just appalling. This isn't the type of film to pull in blockbuster numbers, but 22M should have been its OW, not its DOM lifetime gross. And a 7.4 on IMDB and 68% on RT shows that a lot of people were not able to fully appreciate this film. Edited August 28, 2012 by Mr Potter 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Community Manager Water Bottle Posted August 28, 2012 Community Manager Share Posted August 28, 2012 And a 7.4 on IMDB and 68% on RT shows that a lot of people were not able to fully appreciate this film.So clearly not everyone who saw the film agrees with your opening statement of:Anyone who has seen Revolutionary Road would agree with me when I say that this is easily one of the best acted films of all time!I myself haven't seen the film. Just wanted to note the contradiction in your post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Revolutionary Roads is a phenomenal film. The acting is astounding from everyone involved (DiCaprio's best work by far). Kate Winslet also gave a terrific performance in The Reader, although the film itself was quite bad. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumos Posted August 28, 2012 Author Share Posted August 28, 2012 So clearly not everyone who saw the film agrees with your opening statement of:I myself haven't seen the film. Just wanted to note the contradiction in your post.There is no contradiction in my post. The acting in the film is amazing...no one can deny that. The quality of the film is what a lot of people were not able to appreciate, and trust me there's a lot more to a film than the ability of its cast to act well. Also, i'm not surprised you haven't seen this film. It barley has an audience....but if you get the chance you should give it a try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Nevada Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I'm not seeing this anytime soon, my dad (who has seen hundreds of movies, including horrible,sad ones) said he cried wathcing this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I'm not seeing this anytime soon, my dad (who has seen hundreds of movies, including horrible,sad ones) said he cried wathcing this.Uh, so a film that evoked such strong emotion from your dad makes you LESS excited to see it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Nevada Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 (edited) Uh, so a film that evoked such strong emotion from your dad makes you LESS excited to see it? I'm not really into very sad movies. I can handle them, but I'd rather not watch them. Edited August 28, 2012 by Jack Nevada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I'm not really into very sad movies. I can handle them, but I'd rather not watch them.It's definitely not a film to make you cry, IMO. Maybe the issues in the film hit close to home for him?Anyway, watch it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Nevada Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Anyway, watch it. Sure, I'll watch it some day, if just for the great acting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I completely agree with Mr. Potter and Noctis. RR is an outstanding film and it does have two of the finest performances of that year. I too agree with Noctis that the Reader is a terrible film but Winslet is brilliant in that and RR. I don't understand why Leo was overlooked either. It actually really bothered me that year that he was. But Winslet's acceptance speech at the Globes when she singled him out and told him how brilliant he was was one of the highlights of the night. I have this on BR and will be watching it soon. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4815162342 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 It's a strong movie that got overshadowed by Winslet's average performance in a crap movie that had more baity appeal to old white Oscar voters and critics. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatebox Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 (edited) I haven't seen it but I'm surprised that, if nothing else, the reunion of Titanic's leads generated so little buzz. Perhaps fans of that movie didn't want to see the depressing alternative reality Jack and Rose could have had if they had made it to America after all. Edited August 28, 2012 by Hatebox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webslinger Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 (edited) At the box office, the answer is simple: even though this was the onscreen reunion of DiCaprio and Winslet, it was still a depressing drama about a marriage that is crumbling at the beginning of the movie and gets worse over the next two hours. And unlike in their romance in Titanic, there's not a whole lot of sweet or endearing material to balance out the tragedy at the end. That's never an easy sell, even with Oscar buzz, which evaporated from the film after the first few major precursor groups left it out.As for the critical reception: I loved the film, but it's hardly subtle about its themes, which rubbed some reviewers (and paying viewers) the wrong way. Edited August 28, 2012 by Webslinger 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackO Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 It's good film but the book is so so so so much better. I am guessing it got ignored because it wasn't a very fun movie to sit through. I own it and I think I've watched it once or twice since I bought it. While the acting is great, the cuts from the book made the characters somewhat generic. It is a lot like any other standard relationship in trouble film just with a 1950s backdrop. Mendes dropped the ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 (edited) Kate Winslet will be this generation's Meryl Streep. Edited August 28, 2012 by The Futurist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acsc1312 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I really loved this movie, and still am baffled as to why it was so overlooked. Both should've gotten Oscar noms (and probably won). Mendes' direction was fantastic, as was Newman's score. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 It's better than The Reader but I wouldn't call it a good movie. Leo and Kate both overact and the movie doesn't have anything interesting to say (didn't Mendes cover this ground in American Beauty?). Shannon's great, though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordmandeep Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Its a sad depressing movie and Kate is not likeable at all in this film.I did not empathize with Kate in the film and I think it is what a lot of people felt.If you make a tragic love story you need both characters to be likeable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumos Posted August 28, 2012 Author Share Posted August 28, 2012 (edited) Its a sad depressing movie and Kate is not likeable at all in this film.I did not empathize with Kate in the film and I think it is what a lot of people felt.If you make a tragic love story you need both characters to be likeableIt’s not that black and white. Both characters were multifaceted and the sympathy switches from each character to the next. I think suburbia and conformity was what destroyed April. She was a desperate woman looking for a way out. All she wants is possibility in life and something to hope for and there’s her husband having this affair with a young secretary and she can’t even see it. Winslet even said that she viewed April as a stronger character than Frank because of her “desperation” for change. Edited August 28, 2012 by Mr Potter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolioD1 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I agree that it's an amazing movie. And I've always said that Winslet 100% deserved the Oscar she got that year, she just got it for the wrong movie. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
