Nice effects though.

It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

By odd coincidence, I found out this movie was in the works as I was reading the book for the first time. Well, actually the second time, since I couldn't decipher a good percentage of the story the first time through and had to re-read it after looking up an on-line analysis of the book. The second time it made a lot more sense.And that's probably the reaction that viewers of this movie who have never read the book will have. The book is "stream of consciousness", with each chapter told from a different character's point of view and the narrative often breaking down into a surreal, dream-like quality. The filmmakers tried to capture that with the use of split-screen and by occasionally having characters talk directly to the camera, so the movie might be more than a little confusing if you come to it "cold".The movie is taken nearly word-for-word from the book. Most of the dialog is the same, and the major plot points were just as I pictured them from the book. When I heard about the film version, I was afraid they'd dumb it down or try to make it more "Hollywood" so a mainstream audience could follow it, but they didn't. So basically, if the tragic tale of a backwoods southern family in the early 1900s trying to get their mother's body back to her home town for burial and meeting all sorts of disasters along the way, all told in an artistic and somewhat confusing way, doesn't sound appealing, you might want to skip this one. But if you're up for the challenge, give it a go.And if you find yourself not understanding the movie at all, I'd recommend finding a good summary of the plot and characters on-line, and then reading the book so you can follow the thick southern accented dialog, then re-watch the movie. It's a well done film, and the fact that it currently has just a 5.5 star average on IMDb is a shame.

As this film demonstrates, Faulkner's books that utilize shifting points of view/interior monologues are not easy, most likely impossible, to suitably translate into screen format. The biggest dilemma is that those who have read the novel, or are at least familiar with Faulkner-in-general, are bound to be a little dissatisfied with this version while most non-Faulknerites will probably raise eyebrows and ask "Huh?" Nevertheless, the makers of this film did about the best job possible of condensing AS I LAY DYING into such a short length. It's expertly filmed, and the personalities of the individual family members come out very well. Specific nuances and key quotes are also effectively captured. Though this AILD may not come close to doing justice to the book, it's still helpful in elucidating Faulkner's novel and should be especially valuable for those teaching it to show to their classes. Yes, it is VERY dark and depressing, but I don't see how you can make the story of a poor 1920s Mississippi farm family transporting their deceased mother 40 miles for burial by rickety wagon anything otherwise. The grosser aspects are not emphasized any more than they have to be, and the vivid cinematography and Faulknerianingly maudlin bits of comic relief help make it palatable.As one who's always found Faulkner's work rewarding though seldom fun to read, I must say that I really enjoyed this film and that it made me eager to reread AILD.

. . . but with twice the suffering, because writer\director\star James Franco uses a split screen for most of AS I LAY DYING's 110-minute running time in order to cram in every dollop of Southern Gothic squalor he can. Dad parades Mom's stinking corpse under the noses of 40 miles worth of Mississippians as a cover story to get dentures and a new bedmate an hour after Mom is planted. So what if his eldest son has a leg sawed off without anesthesia across the town square from the Dentures, Brides & Beyond Shoppe? So what if his only daughter is raped? So what if the toddler son is driven nuts by the vultures constantly pecking at Mom's coffin? So what if the carpenter son's tools are washed away in the river? So what if another son's prized possession--his equine soul mate--is traded to Snopes for a shortened life of hellish mistreatment? So what if all the trauma drives yet another son criminally insane, dooming him to life in the Jackson State pen? So what to all this and more. Mom's five kids need to count their blessings: Dad did not bury them in the same hole with Mom, which would have given him an even mintier fresh start. The American South came up with the "three-fifths rule." Other people cannot even BEGIN to think like us. Bill Faulkner is preaching to the choir here: Yankee, go home!

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.