I knew the movie was going to be bad from the first minute. And not that I have the gift of foresight or anything like that - not at all.
Just trying to reveal the image of one of the key characters not through acting, scenes, dialogue, but bluntly with the voiceover is a very, very bad sign. Does anyone remember a moment in The Silence of the Lambs talking about what a terrible maniac Hannibal Lecter is? Or did The Dark Knight say something similar about The Joker? Nope. We understood this ourselves soon after they appeared on screens, when we first caught their eyes, heard their first words.
Here we are greeted in the second minute with the following text: When he frowns, the birds fall dead. He's named after a thousand demons. He howls like wolves and sleeps among crows and all that. I’ve read Dolan’s Cadillac many times, and it’s one of my favorite stories from Stephen King. And I don’t remember anything like that: The King of Horrors showed the influence and character of the antagonist in a very different way. And this pompous and far-fetched speech looks more like the homework of an eighth-grader who was asked to write an essay, coming up with a new character for the Twilight franchise. But the director apparently thought it was so cool that he shoved it into the film twice.
And soon there is Dolan himself performed by Christian Slater. And it's almost as awful as the above speech. And it’s not just the actor who spends the first half of the movie walking around with a single facial expression (it’s called ‘Look, I’ve got my mouth open in a crooked grin, which means I’m a bad guy’). The fact is that in an attempt to provoke hatred of the character in us, the filmmakers again went down the path of least resistance, for some reason making him a slave trader who kills anyone at the first opportunity. That's how you worked on the character, nothing to say.
No better than the wife of the main character Elizabeth, played by Emmanuel Vogier. In the story, she was generally dead by the beginning of the events described, appearing only in the memories of the main character. But a fairly small story will not last for an hour and a half, and therefore willy-nilly had to enter Elizabeth as a full-fledged actor. And this actor turned out to be so, sorry, stupid that you wonder how she with a sense of self-preservation, close to zero, generally lived not only to marriage, but at least to adulthood.
A little test: what would you do if you saw a group of criminals in the desert killing people en masse?
(a) Get out of there.
(b) Get out of here as soon as possible.
c) Get out of there as soon as possible and lie down for a long time.
d) You will stand in a very visible place for a minute, and when you are noticed, you will take out your phone and you will be painfully long picking in it, and then I will spend nights scuffling around the city.
The choice that Elizabeth chose, guess for yourself.
What about the main character Robinson performed by Wes Bentley? He looks good on the background of the rest, but he could not pull out the first half of the film, probably, even Al Pacino.
The second half of the tape, in particular, the denouement looks more interesting. Here Slater begins to play, and Bentley does not lag behind, and the action develops quite lively. Alas, at this point you come, being already quite exhausted by all that was before, and therefore to join the atmosphere and seriously empathize with someone does not work. You're just curious how this ends. And yet, the last half hour has been pulling the film out, turning it from bad to just weak. Therefore, the final assessment -
For those who are not familiar with the description of the film “Cadillac Dolan”, I will immediately reveal its main feature that determines its character – this film is an adaptation of the work of the famous writer Stephen King. I think that after that, most viewers will understand the image of the film and its main features.
Well, everything in order; first I will mention the positives.
Visibility
This concept includes high-quality performance of the film (music, the work of the operator), the intensity and fascinating development of the plot, the viewer’s immersion in the conceived atmosphere, the desire to continue watching.
Plot
This is the coverage of the problems of human trafficking, namely, their sale into sexual slavery; the inability or inaction of the authorities; not the indifference of ordinary people to these problems and attempts to contribute to their solution.
Now about the negative aspects of the film, in more detail.
Plot
Despite the above advantages, there is a negative side to the plot - personal revenge or lynching. It is clear that the character of the film is brought to them by circumstances, but whether these ideas are worth spreading in cinema, because they are not committed by a villain, but by a positive character. Therefore, they (revenge, lynching) acquire the same positive connotation.
Suppose the hero catches the criminal and holds him in his hands. Why not bring the latter to justice, or at least finish the punishment with mutilation or quick murder (which is also not ideal). On the contrary, in the film, the triumph of justice is presented in the form of long scenes of revenge and enjoyment of this process.
Scenes of horror
For what purpose are they present in the film? After all, it is clear that for any person with a normal psyche, these scenes will cause disgust, dislike, fear, stress. But they are not shown to the viewer in advance, but to see them. Does the person need it?
Following the same logic, you can invite all viewers to smell a piece of shit - after all, it will also become disgusting and there will be a feeling of disgust. But such an idea will be sharply condemned, and the essence is the same: a person is fed or offered to love something that disgusts him.
If a person calmly perceives horror scenes, perhaps his psyche allows it. Even in this case, it is unclear what positive effect is achieved as a result of this.
If a person savors these scenes, looks at them with sympathy - I venture to assume that he has distorted his psyche and sense of taste, and such a person can be safely called a pervert.
Obviously, such films are created for the commercial success of their creators, as well as all participants in the process, but this has nothing to do with the benefit of the audience.
Foolishness of the plot
For the sake of the above goals and methods of achieving them, a corresponding atmosphere is created in the film, which is unreal: among the vast majority of people, such events will never happen again, and, therefore, there is no need to familiarize themselves with them.
To sum up, Dolan’s Cadillac has a detrimental connotation for viewers and distracts them from more serious topics without providing useful mental food.
"Dolan's Cadillac" is one of my favorite short stories by King. Starting the viewing, of course, remembered the unenviable fate of the vast majority of Mater’s film adaptations, and implicitly tuned in to another disappointment. The thought was comforting that the plot does not require special special effects and other bells and whistles that are mandatory for the horror genre, and therefore the low-budget film can rather serve to its merits, as was the case with Mad Max and many other films. However, the directors managed to ruin such a winning chance.
1. The film should be shot in the style of “retro”, in the traditions of noir (and not “neonoir”) – road work in the province, which is much paid to the Mater (in particular, in the “dead zone” Johnny worked in this area), as well as bosses like Dolan – these are characteristic signs of the 70-80s. Nowadays, the hero does not have such opportunities, and such mafiosi as Dolan are already in the past.
2. Much time and detail has been given to Dolan himself. The story does not say at all what Dolan did - racketeering, drugs, slave trade, etc. It's just not necessary. It's not a gangster movie, it's a story of revenge. All unnecessary details belittle Dolan’s image, his demonicity, and Robinson’s vengeance. By the way, Christian Slater is absolutely not suitable for this role - this is at best a district authority, at worst.
- the leader of a teenage gang of gopniks. The role of Dolan requires actors like Tommy Lee Jones, Tom Berenger or at least Gene Hackman.
3. In my opinion, the key episode of the film is not even the scene of revenge itself, but the roadworks preceding it and the way the hero works in the work brigade. The process of “fracture” of an elderly man, a school teacher in the company of a brutal foreman and hardworking people is completely undisclosed. But he was tempered there not only physically, but also morally. The episode with the great-grandfather’s clock is one of the best in the story.
4. The role of the main character is again an inexcusable miscast. The evolution of personality is not revealed.
5. The image of the wife (there was no ghost in the story, there was only a voice), as well as the tedious details of her participation in the Dolan case - completely unnecessary and unnecessary.
6. The main thing is that they failed to reveal two factors: the hero’s intransigence in his revenge and his invisible mental connection with Dolan, which is so brilliantly described in the story.
Resume - only for the fact of the film adaptation and more or less following the plot:
King was a very good writer before his fatal encounter with a truck in 1998. Seriously. The Shining, Carrie, Pet Cemetery, The Draw, dozens of great stories, one of which is Dolan’s Cadillac – these are really worthwhile things.
Nothing can be said about the films separately. These works are not only filmed and quite successfully.
It is absolutely not uncommon for King’s books to be used by yesterday’s under-educated students to make excellent films for $200. Who, for example, remembers the director of the Pet Cemetery, the Lot or the Children of Corn? Only here with Cadillac was embarrassed and nothing happened.
Much of the story, as far as I can remember, is about how stubbornly GG went to his goal, how he suffered digging a hole, how he was obsessed with revenge, which literally destroyed him from the inside and out. Under the scorching sun, suffering from pain throughout his body, he digs and digs in order to have time. What if he goes the other way? What if he doesn’t go at all? No, no, I'm not talking about movies. In the film, the process of preparing a trap is given two minutes from timekeeping. That's less than the time Christian Slater slaps the asses of illegal Mexican immigrants.
Then, for some reason, the film ends on two-thirds of the story. And what about the panic fear of the main character, who will come to the place of burial and check whether the bad guy got out of the hole? That’s not to mention the subsequent reflections of the revenge that destroyed Dolan, and no less of him.
Anyway, it's bullshit. It didn't work out, I would say. Uncle's bandits blew up his wife, he was bored in the meantime wanted revenge and revenge. He's good. That's the whole movie.
By the way, according to Kinopoisk, the plans are 15 full-length films based on the works of King. Well, well.
In one dark, dark place, there is a black, black Cadillac.
In appearance it is not distinguishable from any passerby. But if he frowns his eyebrows, the birds fall off the wires; under his gaze, the prostate shrinks and the bladder burns; the grass crumbles from his spitting. He's beyond reality. He came from the depths of time. He's named after a thousand demons. He howls like wolves and sleeps among crows. He is the master of nothingness.
This monologue against the background of the roadway and Nevada desert landscapes begins the film “Cadillac Dolana” – the adaptation of the novel by Stephen King of the same name. After hearing such a gothic introduction, do not rush to look into the graph of the genre in search of the words “mystic” and “horror” (if you are an ordinary viewer) or build mind-blowing crossroads with “Confrontation”, “Talisman” and other Dark Towers (if you are a connoisseur and fan of King’s work). Calm down, you will get only what is claimed, namely: thriller and crime. The only thing to warn you about is to lower your expectations lower (especially if it jumps from the above monologue). Lower. Even lower. That's it.
I’m not saying the movie is terrible. This is a good thriller with a criminal bias. And not even the worst adaptation of Uncle Steve's story. However, a few nuances prevented my review cheerfully green.
The most obvious thing that does not benefit the film is the linear narrative. The film is extremely simple in its presentation, ruthlessly killing an already simple intrigue. If we look into the story that served as the basis for “Cadillac”, we see that it begins not with the beginning of the conflict, but much later – closer to the end, while smoothly unfolding in both directions: to the beginning and end of the story. Such a reception awakens curiosity and a desire to know what is happening. Unfortunately, the creators of Caddillac took the path of least resistance, revealing all the cards in the first 20 minutes of the film.
However, the directness of the script is not the most depressing here. Much more criticism is caused by the antagonist of the film - Dolan. It does not correspond to the image that arises when reading the story, and does not correspond at all to the infernal description in the opening monologue of the picture (see above). In fact, the devil looks rather pathetic and looks more like a middle-hand pimp than the Great and Terrible. But it would have been possible if he hadn’t done so much. Despite the fact that in the center of the narrative should be the main character of the film, his actions, experiences and most importantly – revenge, his opponent often looms in the frame. I understand perfectly well what this is connected with: Dolan is very concise in the original work, and the filmmakers wanted to reveal the character better. But to understand how bad and disgusting this guy is, we don't need to read his profile. I mean that the antagonist is given a huge amount of time and is filled with irrelevant information that is supposed to reveal our character, but only causes boredom and annoyance. Honestly, I was much more interested in the henchman of the bandit, about whom we learned almost nothing, than the Glavgad, “undressed” to underpants.
Naturally, the strange flirtations of the script with the Dark Side could not but affect the disclosure of the main character - Robinson. His experiences, suffering and throwing seem somehow crumpled and superficial. I think that if Robinson was older (because in the original source it is an elderly person with poor health), it would cause the viewer much more empathy. And the contrast with the young and full of strength Dolan would be impressive. But alas... We have what we have.
So, you might ask, there is nothing good about this movie? No way! As already mentioned, this is quite a good thriller with a criminal bias and a slight mystical sweetness. There are a couple of interesting scenes and curious supporting characters in the film, if you understand things like that. And if you successfully get to the end of the film and do not fall asleep from boredom, watching the swarming of the main villain, then in the last minutes you will get the main course of the film – revenge. And believe me, it’s worth watching! This most emotional part of the film is unlikely to leave anyone indifferent. Although, of course, to thank for this scene is first of all Stephen King, who invented it, and only then the creators of the film, who managed to implement it well.
In general, Dolan’s Cadillac is well worth watching, but as you can see, it has drawbacks that can pretty spoil the fun. Alas, Mr. D. Beasley and R. Dooling (director and screenwriter, respectively) before that mainly worked in the field of series and they clearly lacked experience in creating a full-length film adaptation. If you are ready to accept this, understand, forgive and close your eyes to obvious mistakes, you can pass the evening well (tickling your nerves in the final).
Personal assessment: Nothing to yourself