User reviews

Filming ordinary books is easy; it's the stuff of the film business. Filming one of the greatest English language novels of the 20th century is really hard. Really hard.

The script is a worthy and very creditable effort which makes concessions to film and audience comprehensions; something Faulkner flouted when he forced readers to deal with the opening sixty pages of this remarkable book.

The telling is true enough, it keeps to the thread of the stories; the compromises between book and film are understandable; the portrayals are strong and the director has Faulkner's echo to work with. It is a solid entry to the book and no doubt it will be the thing students use instead of reading it.

The question is whether it works in its own right and that is more problematic because if one comes to the film via the book the comparisons are interminable. If a viewer sees it as is they could quibble with its purpose and narrative, still atypical, especially in these conventional times.

The essential quality of Faulkner's prose is effaced; it has to be as the camera replaces the text, and that is a huge loss for multifarious reasons, in particular the extreme subjectivity which must be diluted through the objective lens.

Even so, the film is admirable for its talent and effort; nor does it waste the viewer's attention.

Although the drama is very intense and the story could be interesting, taken from a famous novel, I didn't like the movie. It has a very low rythm and the plot is confused, not easy to follow. Too much space and importance is given to the character of the boy with a handicap (James Franco), while other characters remain in the shadow. I prefered other Franco's movies as a director.

I might change my mind at some point, but ever since seeing this film I've been asking myself what, if anything, James Franco could have improved with this difficult adaptation of a difficult book, and I haven't thought of anything yet. The real question is whether a film-maker ought to revise the source material to make it easier for the public to understand. Yes, he should, is the answer if all that matters is the commercial viability of the film. No, he shouldn't, if he's creating a work of art, and that what Franco has done here. I didn't think he had it in him. If you've read the book a few times, enough to disentangle the narrative, you'll appreciate what's been done. The book is divided into three parts. Part 1 focuses on Benjy and his experiences. Because Benjy has no grasp of time, past and present are mixed up confusingly. One lovely touch in the film is the way that random thoughts of Benjy are heard in his sister's voice, because he has no voice of his own. Part 2 is the story of his mentally disturbed brother Quentin. In the film, as in the book, it helps to know that there are two Quentins. The other one is Benjy's sister Caddy's daughter. In the book, Quentin's story is interrupted by partially informative streams of consciousness. In the film, the conclusion you reach is that here is a deeply disturbed young man, just about able to pass himself off as 'normal'. Again, the flow of time is as disordered as the man. Part 3 is, finally, a coherent narrative structure, focusing on brother Jason, the man with the worst anger management problem in the world. The film has matched all three parts as well as a film possibly could, and if you hate it, as my partner did, then you'd probably hate the book, and I could understand why. But I have to say that James Franco has created one of the best-made films I've seen recently, and I admire him greatly for doing so. It makes me optimistic about the forthcoming 'In Dubious Battle'.

You could say many things about James Franco and most of them are probably right in their own ways, but one thing I will say about the actor, writer, director, author and whatever other hat he sometimes dons is that the man is certainly determined. Seemingly never taking a break from his many on the boil productions, Franco has once more enlisted the help of his Hollywood friends in his directional adaption of yet another famed novel (following on from As I Lay Dying and Child of God) in the form of William Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury.

With this never far from depressive dramatic telling of the trials and tumults of The Compson family in the south of America in the 1920's, you can see as a positive that Franco is improving as a director. Where his work on Child of God and As I Lay Dying often felt like a slightly better budgeted college movie, The Sound and the Fury does seem more cinematic but no amount of cinematic gloss can help cover the fact that Franco's many varied flaws as both a performer and storyteller are on show worse than ever here with The Sound and the Fury, that acts as a borderline incomprehensible adaptation of Faulkner's no doubt tricky material.

Segregated into three distinct chapters each dedicated to a separate Compson sibling, Franco's opening half hour stanza that focuses almost exclusively on his own portrayal of mentally challenged Benjy is some of the most nigh on unwatchable filmmaking you're likely to see, with a combination of Franco's grunting, bottom biting and dribble fuelled acting (which pays little to no attention to Robert Downey Jr's sound advice to Ben Stiller in Tropic Thunder) and shoddily put together flash forwards and flashbacks mixed in with unnecessary narration, killing the film before it ever even really began. The film does pick up slightly as the focus turns to Benjy's other flawed siblings but never once does Franco and his team win us over to care or be invested in what plights these no hopers are going through.

It's hard to know whether Franco is intentionally churning out so-so, or with the case of this film dire adaptations for the sake of it, to have a laugh at the audiences expense or he to in his own mind show his a real 'filmmaker" but watching The Sound and the Fury makes one question how much longer he can get away with it for and if I were to offer up any advice to the busy auteur, it would be to please go back to cameoing in Seth Rogen stoner comedies as it's a whole lot more tolerable and a lot less embarrassing for all concerned.

1 set of false chompers out of 5

If you enjoy spectrum fits for a couple of hours, be my guest. The story has a hard time presenting itself behind the constant grunts and moans, even after three tries. This movie makes a mockery of Faulkner. Do not waste a moment on this.

Faulkner isn't unfilmable. The story of Temple Drake wasn't bad. The Hamlet with Paul Newman & Orson Welles wasn't ludicrous. But any work is unfilmable if adapted by a talentless mediocre director. In this case, the fault of the film's issues stem completely from James Franco and not with the difficulty in Faulkner's writing. I do hope that after two failed outings the actor will learn to leave Faulkner's masterful works alone. (Although I wouldn't be surprised to see him try his hand at adapting one of the author's works again). There's herein a mild sense of a formerly rich family's fortunes dwindling, economically and emotionally, but the sections don't add up to a whole - something more than the sum of parts. The movie suffers from a paucity. Faulkner's book, an oblique and complex tale of the American South's festering decline, hasn't so much been reworked for cinema as simply dumped on the screen in handfuls, and the result is a swirling mess. The movie is a folly that fails to capture the weird, entrancing, often maddening ambiance of the great writer's elliptical masterpiece, and its surfeit of half-baked film-student flourishes and needless cameos occasionally give it an amateur-hour feel.

This movie is just way too artsy to be watched all the way through. I only got through 20 minutes before wanting to watch something else. James Franco acting mentally handicapped is just too much to handle, and all the child whispering. I read the book in college and was looking forward to getting reminded what the story was about, but the book is artsy, and difficult to read, and a movie about it is never going to be understood. I'm of huge fan of Franco, but, this movie should not have been made.

James Franco was delusional if he thought he could ever adapt the book. He strips all meaningfulness of its format, prose and the such, the beauty and poetry with which Faulkner transforms this simple story into a contender for the Great American Novel, and turns it into a choppy, corny drama with him and his buddies at the front. He doesn't understand why this book was so important, and rather thinks its just the story, and not the language (wether written or audiovisual) that makes it what it is. Frankly insulting, not only to the viewer, who leaves offended and emptied of all grace, but to the concept of art itself.

I've never been able to make it through this Faulkner novel, but anyone who is able to cipher through the notoriously confusing The Sound and the Fury and write a coherent screenplay should be congratulated. I think the only reason this movie was panned was because it was James Franco's baby, and very few of his movies were well-liked by the critics. Had someone else put his name on the film, directed it and starred as the mentally retarded Benji, the film probably would have been touted and given dozens of nominations throughout the awards season. Instead, it was criticized as being a failure and given the terrible insult of "it's hard to fault him for trying."

This heavy, upsetting drama follows a Southern family in the 1920s; crowned by patriarch Tim Blake Nelson, the four siblings have immense problems and struggle to face their existence. Split into four sections, each section is filmed with a different touch and tone. Experimenting with light, framing, and point of view, each segment clearly describes what the different characters are going through and how they look at life. Had anyone else directed this movie, with the same result, I really believe the talent behind the camera would have been praised.

The first section is from James Franco's point of view, so everything is handheld, wild, and confused. One image leads to a memory, which leads to another memory, and when brought back to the present moment, both Franco and the audience are briefly disoriented. Franco's character is mentally retarded, and as simple pleasures calm him down momentarily, the slightest upset can change his mood. He loves his sister, who was the only one to defend him when they were little, but his obsession with finding reminders of her gets him into trouble. He's always assigned a guardian to walk with him and try to manage his moods, but since his "keepers" begrudge the duty and treat him terribly, he absorbs their negative energy. He can hear conversations about sending him away to an asylum, he can tell when people are insulting him, and on some level, he knows he's unable to express himself or communicate better than an animal.

The second section shows Jacob Loeb's troubles as he deals with his immense emotional problems, as well as his incestuous relationship with his sister. It doesn't seem possible for anything to be more disturbing than the first segment, but watching people with mental problems who don't have Franco's excuse is really disturbing. The third section cements the pattern: Ahna O'Reilly has a profound and damaging impact on all three of her brothers' lives. Both Franco and Loeb get into permanent trouble as they seek different versions of her love, and Scott Haze is left to pick up the pieces of her irresponsible mistake. She leaves behind an illegitimate child and Scott has to put his entire life on hold while he raises his niece. He's supposed to be a villain, but as the best villains can make the audience understand them, his frustration is completely relatable. He's left cleaning up everyone else's messes, and he's forced to watch history repeat itself with the next generation. He becomes the new patriarch, patronizing his mother and putting up with his brother, and the young daughter of the family gets into trouble and disrespects propriety and family order. When he loses his temper with Joey King's rebellious behavior, you feel like joining him. Everything gets wrapped up with a brief fourth section following Loretta Devine, a family servant who has known the siblings since childhood. I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing this segment was longer, since Loretta's such a pro and isn't given as much screen time to show her talent, but with the heavy subject matter of the past ninety minutes, it's understandable that the movie took pity on its audience and ended quickly.

The performances in The Sound and the Fury are mind-blowing. You know the feeling you get when you see a stage play with incredible actors who bounce emotions off each other so perfectly there's a tangible hum in the air? You'll get the same feeling when you watch this movie. Each cast member seems so set in his or her role, it'll be nearly impossible to see them in other movies and believe they can play other characters. Not a single emotion of James Franco's wordless performance hints to the audience, "Look how great an actor I am!" He's not pretending to be mentally retarded and completely out of touch with his surroundings; he actually is. If you've never seen in his earlier heartthrob films, you won't really be able to appreciate the depth of his transformation. And if anyone else had given that performance, he probably would have gotten an Oscar nomination out of it. If you can get yourself in the mood for a heavy Southern drama that makes Tennessee Williams's plays seem like screwball comedies, rent James Franco's highly underrated The Sound and the Fury.

DLM Warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie might not be your friend. The entire first section and a couple of scenes in the second section are filmed with a handheld camera, and that will make you sick. In other words, "Don't Look, Mom!"

Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to sexual content, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

I watched this movie today in a blizzard mainly because it was a classic novel and because James Franco was in it. I never read it so I had no idea what I was in for. Right from the beginning I had a feeling of doom looming over this family. While I will admit it was very confusing there was an undercurrent that consistently led me to believe something terrible was about to happen. The score of the film took one even deeper into this morose feeling. When it was over I actually felt ill and had a raging headache. Now I must read this novel. I feel this alone makes this film earn a ten star rating.

I feel Mr Franco was successful in allowing you to peer into the subconscious of the characters and let your mind fill in the fine details. I suppose this is the way it was written. This film took me someplace I did not want to be but I could not turn away. I found it fascinating and am looking forward to reading the book.

I was surprised by the low reviews of this movie by the critics. Once I got into it, I was drawn in by the various characters. This movie is worth watching.

It's true this an almost unfilmable novel. Franco is faithful to the story, the characters and the structure. But this is a film that transposes Faulkner rhythm and poetry, into something intangible and more relatable. We dont need to guess what the characters are thinking, we know, even if you hadn't read the book. I watched Scott Haze in theater a few years back and I was glad to see him perform again. it's not the best movie, but it's definitely worth it if you love films that are more focused on the way the story is felt and told, than on the actual story

I was a huge fan of Franco's earlier Faulkner adaptation, "As I Lay Dying," so I checked this one out even though I wasn't aware of it's existence until just recently.

As with his earlier Faulkner adaptation, it's extremely difficult to understand. This is mainly because Faulkner's original book, The Sound and the Fury, is equally difficult. You can read the book, or watch the movie, and easily have no idea what it's about. This is the nature of the beast with Faulkner, and as I get older I start to wonder if he ever meant these stories to make sense. I'm leaning towards no, but I don't think it really matters as his stories aren't about coherence, they're more about emotion and pondering this strange existence we all seem to be stuck in, not logic or reason as perhaps is hinted at by Mr. Compson's nihilistic boozy monologues.

I don't envy the task of making The Sound and the Fury into a movie, but I think it was done about as perfectly as could be expected when you're talking about one of the most disjointed, out of time, and at times rambling and incoherent stories ever told.

I only have one major complaint, in that the black servants of the Compson family are barely depicted in the film. In the book they're much bigger characters and form a sort of moral, and even hopeful element to the story, as is somewhat hinted by the movie scene of the church choir.

A few other plot points are changed, to no real harm. The final thing that struck me was that Franco's adaptation has a slightly different ending, which doesn't really make any sense. Of course, the original book ending doesn't make any more sense...not that it should. We are, of course, all living a story told by an idiot.

I'm not a big fan of Faulkner and always found his stories to be somewhat overemotional and difficult to understand, but I was captivated by this movie interpretation. There is a lot that is not explained as the action unfolds, and the order of events barely follow a chronological sequence, which can make it difficult for those who expect a more traditional mode of story telling. It almost felt like the images were being laid over each other, like thin paint that is applied and then allowed to dry so the colors and textures can be built up.

The acting is quite phenomenal throughout, and there's a high level of energy maintained as this confusing story circumvents about, serving as nothing more than the memoir of a family and the extreme emotional dependencies they inflict upon one another. The relentless and intense interactions are performed in a nearly senseless fashion, which I believe emulates the family's feelings of futility as they plummet through to their pathetic end.

Often, there was a mysterious musical track that almost sounded like the dull drone of a plane flying overhead, a very good way to bind the action together. If the music were more intense or melodramatic the movie could come across as sappy and ridiculous. As it is, the confusion and disparity could turn off even the most ardent viewer, but I found the experience rewarding on a number of subtle levels one might find in films by the likes of Ingmar Bergman.

I watched this on netflix, expecting it to be ridiculous. It turned out to be a credit to Franco's seriousness and ambition. The tone was right, the pacing was right, the visual language was right, and I thought three of the principle characterizations were fantastic (Jason III, Quentin the son, and Jason IV). Actually I liked the Dalton Ames and Cady and Luster. And the Mother too. Anyway, I accepted from the beginning that a movie adaptation of TSTF is a huge challenge - it's a book I know pretty well, and I imagine anyone who sees this movie without having read TSTF a few times would wonder WTF? So hats off to James Franco. He's such a hottie that I don't think people give him credit for serious work. Here's it's deserved.

I am confused as to why this movie got such an unflattering overall rating. I thought it was very well done. It was entertaining and captured the spirit of Faulkner's writing.

I have read the first review and think that men didn't understand nothing and probably is ready just to see easy action movies. The Sound and The Fury is a complex history, with three narrators (the novel four), whit changes in time... and I think James Franco is excellent actor and director, but the median american public is no ready for good and complex movies. Idem I dude how many have read with attention the Faulkner´s book and undestand it. Like Joyce Ulysses.

This film admirably presents all 3 parts of the original novel by Faulkner. It's the only film I know of that does, in fact. Very well done and highly recommended for all true Faulkner fans. Franco does a great job with his Benji, and O'Reily is also captivating and convincing as the beloved Caddy. The Jason and Quentins also were very convincing in their roles. Deserves better than a "4.3". Modern audiences have little affinity for a version that is faithful in portraying true human experience.

This film tells the story of a family with four children, whose family fortunes steadily decline in the 1800's USA.

I have not read the book, and I am not familiar with the story. Honestly, after watching the film, I really have very little idea what it is about. The first segment is the easiest to understand, as it is about the intellectually challenged son called Benjy. It tells the story of his hidden existence on the ranch, against a backdrop of racial divide. The other two segments made me super confused. Firstly, I thought Quentin was the bespectacled guy, and only in the third segment did I discover my mix up. By then, it was too late to understand the story. I find the pace super slow and snooze inducing. Actually within thirty minutes I find my eyelids very very heavy. I managed to keep myself awake and finished the film, but I cannot say I understood it or enjoyed it.

Very solid, and mostly well cast, with Franco doing good work as both actor and director. I was just surprised that, after staying so faithful to the book in so many ways, the last scene departs from the novel significantly, and not for the better. Basically, it truncates the book's ending and has Jason do something very different and less interesting. Plus, the change didn't even appear needed for budgetary or time purposes, or because it would be difficult to depict on film -- both endings involve the same characters and a wagon.

I also think the Quentin section would have been improved by including a couple more minutes of his interactions with the little Italian girl and others as he tries to bring her home to her family.

Still, definitely worth seeing if you like the novel (I'm not sure what I would have thought if I hadn't read the book).

This movie was a complete waste of time. This movie keeps on repeating itself throughout its entirety. He should whether he believes in god or not pray for forgiveness for this piece of garbage. If I had to hear "She smells like the trees." or some crap like that one last time I would have went full mental just like Franco did in the movie.