This film is based on the 2006 novel by American writer Cormac McCarthy. It is a post-apocalyptic tale of a journey of a father and his young son over a period of several months, across the country decimated by an unspecified cataclysm that has destroyed most of civilization and, in the intervening years, almost all life on Earth. Most everything has perished, no animals, no crops, trees are dead and only a moderate number of humans are around. The novel was awarded the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction and the James Tait Black Memorial Prize for Fiction in 2006. The book was adapted to a film of the same name in 2009, directed by John Hillcoat.The tale is of survival, the methodology behind the film is the fire we carry inside as human beings, AND the lengths they will go to survive. Viggo Mortenson's character slips us back in narration through the film. The story is bleak, the characters lost souls searching for the triumph of survival. Desolate, cringe worthy scenery and strong direction. The film may move rather slowly but it keeps you entertained by thought and visual cinematography. 9/10

The Road 2009, the director John Hillcoat, screenplay Joe Penhall, and costume design Margot Wilson. This movie was from the book The Road written by Cormac McCarthy and won the Pulitzer prize for fiction in 2007 when the book was published. Viggo Mortensen who played the man was the main character in the film. Mortensen also took a part in the Lord of the Rings in 1999. America is very gray after a catastrophe. A man and his young son wander through this post-apocalyptic world, trying to keep the dream of civilization alive. They journey toward the sea, surviving as best they can on what they can scavenge, and try to avoid roving gangs of savage humans who will turn them into slaves, or worse. I didn't notice any significant differences from the book to the film. Everything seemed to be how it was portrayed in the book. The filmmaker uses cinematic techniques very effectively. The lighting that the filmmaker used was effective because during the flashbacks it was nice and sunny but when it came back to the setting of the film everything was dark, gray and gloomy. The filmmaker also has a good use of costumes to make the actors look like they are very dirty and are in very poor conditions. I feel like this was a good film because it followed the movie very well and also provided great imagery and setting along with the book. I only recommend this film if you read the book. The only reason that I only recommend it if you read the book is because the film is pretty slow and gray so it gets tiring and boring after a while of watching it and if you haven't read the book you will probably get bored of it. If you read the book though you will want to watch the movie to see the ways that the scenes are presented in the movie opposed to what you were intrepatating in the book.

Congratz! This shitty movie gets the prize named "The Worst Movie Ever"! boring af

I could not connect to this movie because I did not buy the story and the conflicts. There is a great focus on cannibalism and the lack of food, because everything is basically dead. I don't buy that basically everybody is driven to cannibalism. In the real world even in times of great need, the cases of cannibalism is very few. I don't think people give up and end it with suicide that often either. People tend to stick together in groups because that increases the chance of survival. No one in the film seems to be a survival expert in the movie, because I can see food everywhere in the forest.