SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Hayleigh Joseph This is ultimately a movie about the very bad things that can happen when we don't address our unease, when we just try to brush it off, whether that's to fit in or to preserve our self-image.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

C.H Newell I don't think it's always necessary for someone to read a novel before they see the film version, however, with James Franco's As I Lay Dying, an adaptation of William Faulkner's classic novel, I believe it's very necessary for someone to read it. After that, have a look at Franco's film.The reason I say this is because a lot of people don't really understand, or see the point to, why Franco chose to use a lot of split-screen sequences. First of all, if you'd read As I Lay Dying, you might possibly understand it as how Franco chose to present all the point-of- views within the book. The whole novel is divided into chapters, each one labelled by the name of which character we are hearing the story from- this is why I think Franco wanted to use split-screen a lot. Sometimes in the novel, you almost have to flip back and say to yourself, "Okay this is Darl's chapter, this is Addie's chapter (who in the novel sort of speaks 'beyond death' as well)" and so on. It's not easy to read William Faulkner in general; I'm a fan, and I still struggle to make it through a novel of his I'm reading. He was one of the first great American writers who was interested in stream-of-consciousness writing. I think, personally, Franco did a great job at trying to recreate that stream-of-consciousness feel.Second, I love the acting here. Some of you may disagree, but I believe each of the main actors in particular brought some great work to the film here. Tim Blake Nelson as Anse is incredible. In the novel, it's known that Anse is not particularly easy to decipher, nor does he always necessarily make any sense either, and he is not a good man, regardless of him agreeing to bring his wife's body back to Jefferson. Nelson brings the downhome Southern quality to Anse, and I loved every second of the portrayal. Franco was also a good here. In the book, it's not always clear if Darl is mentally unstable, or what his deal is, until you read further and further; I think Franco did a nice job at subtly portraying Darl and his personal journey. Logan Marshall-Green did a perfect job with Jewel. There is a raw intensity about Jewel, here and in the novel, so I think his character was one of the best that came through on film. Marshall-Green is fast becoming a favourite of mine. There are more nice performances here, smaller ones, and they hit some great notes. I really enjoyed how most of the characters translated into film. It may not be the perfect adaptation, but it was great in terms of acting.I certainly give this an 8 out of 10. I don't feel it's perfect, but I do find it close. Franco understands Faulkner, in the way I understand and enjoy him. I'm not saying I'm right about how I view Faulkner's work, or that Franco is right, or that I'm even correct about feeling the same way as he does about the famous author- I just know what I feel. There are great moments here, classic moments, in my mind. The split-screen personally works for me; I felt it really brought to the surface an idea that we were seeing the story through the eyes of the entire Bundren family. That's how the novel worked, and that's why it was so compelling. Faulkner was a master of the craft. I continue to read his work, and hope one day I'll have read it all. His novels, short stories (et cetera), are not for everyone, but they are engaging, and have, for decades, stirred up many debates and critical opinions from one end of the spectrum to the next. I think Franco gets what Faulkner was doing in As I Lay Dying. I hope he'll be able to capture the same understanding with his adaptation of The Sound and the Fury.Highly recommended. Even if you don't enjoy it, don't be one of those people who turns it off after 20 minutes to half an hour. You can't judge any movie that way. Sorry- you just can't. Just like a novel. Sit through until the end, and I suggest reading the novel if you enjoy the story, or want to understand Franco's intentions here.

suite92 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.

RJR99SS 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.

anthonyjlangford This film is flawed from the very first shot. It's so ironical as Franco the director, puts his choices above that of the actors. In a piece like this, character should come first. He places his horrendous split screen first. I'm curious to know whether this was the intended manner or whether the original edit was so lackluster he tried to beef it up with split screen. I'm not against that method per se, but in a period piece like this, especially given the story, you have to be able to relate to one character at least. He jumps in without bothering to connect us emotionally to anyone.It feels, and is amateurish. Its surprising, given his depth of performances over a long period in all types of films, yet here he makes mistakes from the most inexperienced of first time directors. With his record, it's hard to imagine how he could have stuffed it up so badly. Perhaps he wasn't taking enough notice on set. It's actually boring and that is the worst sin a director can commit.His choice of subject matter is commendable, but it belongs in the hands of a much more experienced director, something he will come to regret if he hasn't done so already.There are a few decent shots but the editing wounds it. (Much to the horror of the cinematographer). The split screen comes in for the final kill. Alternatively, the same intrusive method also takes your attention away from what is poorly executed scenes, complete with bad acting. Unfortunate for the other actors who try. Franco has to take the fall for all of it. It really is poorly directed. However, he is famous enough to survive it. For now. Other actors have tried directing and failed and continued on with successful acting careers. It's like they need to try it on for once, to appease their egos. Directing is not something someone can simply adopt. It's a very specific skill set. If James is to be a director then he really needs to go back to the beginning and start learning the craft, like for example, Ben Affleck. Ben was never a great actor, but at least he took his time coming to directing and chose the right subject matter. You start simply and work your way up. Tarantino didn't start with Kill Bill or Inglorious Bastards. He began simply. Franco has expressed an interest in tackling Bukowski's Ham on Rye. The man clearly appreciates good literature (and writes also) but if he's going to make films out of such important work then he better be able to do a much better job than he's done here. I like the man, but Francly (intentional), I was embarrassed for him.