Critic Watch: Revolutionary Road

The movie Revolutionary Road is a literary adaptation of the 1961 novel by Richard Yates. The story is about a married couple who are very unhappy with the stereotypical lifestyle they have fallen into instead of living an authentic lifestyle. The couple pretends to have a perfect life, but it is just a cover-up of the disappointment they feel everyday and their failing marriage. The film takes place in 1950's America and is directed by Sam Mendes. The movie had a good overall rating of 69 with critics giving the movie a wide range of ratings from 38 to a perfect 100. 

Michael Sragow from the Baltimore Sun gave the film its lowest rating. He thought the movie could be considered a complete failure outside of the great acting of Leonardo Dicaprio and Kate Winslet. The movie is such a terrible adaptation of Richard Yates' legendary book that it leaves you with absolutely no desire to ever read the novel. The film does not draw you in and the director is unable to present the complex emotions and secrets of the characters of which the book is based on.

Manohla Dargis, of the New York Times, gives the movie a 50, saying that the movie gives no justice to the book. This movie is a great example of how Hollywood tends to ruin books in which most of the story takes place in the minds of the characters. The movie is anything but short on talent, the problem is that this type of story is very difficult to tell on the screen. There are a few directors that really could have done the great novel justice, but Mendes was not one of them instead he fell short of expectations.

Ty Burr of the Boston Globe gave the movie a 63, which is best rating so far. Agreeing with all the other critics, he feels that the emotions and thoughts of the characters were not displayed in the film as they should have been. It seems as though the director is aware of his shortcomings and tries to cover them up with beautiful costumes, pristine cinematography, and a great score. Burr feels that Kate Winslet is truly the movie's saving grace. She was able to bring great emotion and depth to her character, something Dicaprio was unable to do. 

Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune thought the movie to be more desirable than most other critics when he gave the film a 75. He did feel that the movie did not portray the depth and emotion of the book, but had its high points. The acting in the film is fantastic. Kate Winslet's performance is phenomenal and Dicaprio does an excellent job of portraying Frank exactly how his wife sees him. The cinematography is excellent as well. What the film is really missing is another dimension; emotion and depth. 

Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times, thought the movie was "so good it was devastating." Saying that, it is obvious that he gave the movie a perfect score. What may no be so obvious is why. Ebert focuses on the direction, cinematography, and great acting. He sees this as an actual representation of a couple from the 1950's, rather than the couple from Yates' novel. The acting on the screen is amazing and the characters and setting remind him what it was really like to grow up in the 1950's. Roger Ebert sees the movie as a great film with talent just pouring from it. 

Ultimately, the movie is well-made and has a great cast. When compared to the book of which the idea originated, it does a poor job of expressing the emotion and depth of the characters. The wide range of reviews was due to the wide range of focus. Those that gave the movie exceptional ratings were focused on the great acting and directing; the critics who gave the movie low ratings were focused on the lack of depth from the characters compared to how the book portrays them.