As I Lay Dying (2013)

Sadly Over-hyped

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Addie Bundren lay dying in rural Mississippi circa 1930. Darl and Jewel go on an errand, and promise to be back before sundown. Their cart gets stuck in a rut in the pouring rain, and they do not keep that promise. Cash keeps working on Addie's coffin within sight of Addie's sick bed. Cash continues to work on it after she is gone, in the rain, no less.Cash finishes the coffin, Darl and Jewel get the cart unstuck. Addie has made Anse promise that she will be buried in the town of Jefferson. This proves to be more than a bit complicated.There is a lot of talking and angst and back-biting as Darl, Jewel, Cash, Dewey Dell, Vardaman and Anse head to Jefferson to fulfill the promise. They encounter a number of challenges, such as weakened bridges across streams, dodgy fords, broken carts, lost animals, lost tools, lost coffin. Aside from that, Cash gets a compound fracture, which the local vet sets. To get a new team, Anse trades away just about everything the family had, including Jewel's beloved horse.The corpse continues to rot, and the smell increases. Whenever they are near or in a town, they are not welcome. Cash's leg does not get better, and they set it with cement. Jewel gives up his horse.The journey does not get any easier. Will the family accomplish its mission? -------Scores--------Cinematography: 9/10 Mostly excellent, but has a bit of camera shake to it.Sound: 9/10 Again, mostly excellent. However, I would have been lost without the subtitles on Netflix. The century-old Southern accents were thick to say the least.Acting: 8/10 Fine, by and large.Screenplay: 8/10 Difficult story, well told.

I remember, when this debuted at Cannes, a tweet from some critic which basically said "I can't wait to read the book so I can figure out what the Hell it was I just watched!" Now, I have read the book (around 13 years ago), but, man, does this ever seem absolutely impenetrable to anyone who hasn't. That doesn't necessarily effect me any as a viewer, but it should be noted. Unfortunately, even as a big fan of the book, this film really doesn't work very well. It's a valiant attempt, I think, but a failure nonetheless. Franco, clearly an amateur (though not without talent), utilizes split screens to tell his story. I can understand why, but it's just too busy. Tim Blake Nelson, who plays Anse, the patriarch of the Bundren clan, is incomprehensible. Again, I can understand why (the text clearly states that he is toothless), but he didn't need to be so impossible to understand (again, someone who is unfamiliar with the book will be utterly lost). Nelson really was a great choice to play Anse, so it's really unfortunate his performance goes down the toilet like this. The casting of the rest of the Bundrens isn't that great, either. Franco is easily the standout as Darl, but Jim Parrack and Logan Marshall-Green as Cash and Jewel respectively pretty much get lost because of their bland performances. Brady Permenter as Vardaman is a poor child actor. Ahna O'Reilly is not a bad actress, but she's 10 years older than the character of Dewey Dell, which is incredibly noticeable. Finally, there's Beth Grant (who still doubts your commitment to Sparkle Motion) as Addie. She's quite good, but, of course, dead for most of the movie. Franco also seems to miss the semi-comic tone of the novel, making it almost fully a tragedy. I mean, that final bit is kind of hilarious, but Franco doesn't play it as such. It just comes off as weird.

I was almost shocked when i heard that they would be making a movie out of my favorite book, and the fact that James Franco and Danny McBride would be in it did not leave me with a good feeling. I was blown away, however, at what a great adaptation it is. In fact, i'm not sure i'd even call it an adaptation. It IS the book. I cant think of any other movie that was truer to the source material. Obviously the book is much more long winded, and is filled with long, and often puzzling monologues from all the main characters. It's more dream like, and ponderous. But i cant think of anything that the movie left out, or missed, or put it's particular "spin" on, it was all dead on. That said, the book is a difficult read. The movie is equally difficult. You could read the entire book, and have little idea what it's about. Similarly, you could easily watch this entire movie and be completely puzzled by it. There's a lot of important plot points that gets covered, and you barely even have time to realize exactly what it is the characters are saying. Once again though, the book is the same. Questions like: why is Varadamin's mom a fish? Why is Jewel's mom a horse? Why doesn't Darl have a mom? These are sort of answered, just like in the book, but they also seem completely absurd to even ask. It's a story more about the people involved in it, and not so much about the events that take place, or even the truthfulness of anything or anyone. I would imagine most viewers will struggle to even understand what it is that the characters are saying, as they all have thick southern accents, Anse being almost unintelligible. Adding to the confusing is the fact that most everything they say is highly complex, poetry like prose that doesn't particularly care if you're following closely or not, they're still going to say it. Once again, pretty much how the book is. So it's a difficult to understand book, and it's a difficult to understand movie. I certainly loved it, but i suspect most viewers will hate it.

"As I Lay Dying" is not an easy sell as a commercial film. The title already intimates that it will be a depressing story about Death. It is based on the novel of an author, who, while being a Nobel Laureate, is not really known for being very easy to read -- William Faulkner. Hence, we can expect a film that is similarly hard to watch. Upon giving it a go, I am not wrong on both counts.This film is about the Bundrens, a poor but proud rural family from the boondocks of Mississippi. The mother Addie (Beth Grant) dies at the beginning of the film. Her husband Anse and their five children bring her coffin a long distance to Addie's hometown to be buried, in order to fulfill a dying wish. Along their long trip, we will get to know each character better as each one has his own little story to tell.This is one very slow film which will strain the patience of the most moviegoers. The contemplative script is full of deep monologues as each character tells his version of life. It certainly reflects the style that Faulkner is famous for -- his stream of consciousness writing style as well as the multiple narrators. This is the directorial debut of hard-working star James Franco, who has certainly gone a long way from when we first knew him as Harry Osborne in "Spider Man." He bravely tackles a difficult novel and he actually succeeds to visually interpret it very well. Once you get the drift of this languid storytelling style, and his attention-grabbing split screen technique, you will be mesmerized and drawn in. The imagery used is compelling as the grand country vistas contrast with intimate personal moments. Easily the best performer in the cast is Tim Blake Nelson as the stubborn and irascible patriarch of the brood, Anse. He has most realistic portrayal with that hot-potato drawl of his, uttering the most maddening of pronouncements. There is actually humor in his unpleasantness.The five Bundren children and the actors who play them, namely Cash (Jim Parrack), Darl (James Franco), Jewel (Logan Marshall-Green), Dewey Dell (Ahna O'Reilly) and little Vardaman (Brady Permenter), all have their moments. While Darl seemed to be the most centered of all the characters, ironically, it was James Franco who seemed to lack something in his portrayal. Maybe it is because we expect the most from him.This film is not for everyone because of its glacial pace and dark brooding subject matter. But with the proper attitude and frame of mind, you may actually find this a fascinating rumination about life and mortality, as you immerse yourself in this grim slice of rural American life in the 1920s. 7/10.