I don’t want a spoiler just tell me if it ends horribly or not. My wife and I stopped watching halfway because we feared a horrible ending. It’s a fantastic movie, at least what I saw of it.
Even a yes or no will have to be spoilered, so Yes.
Likewise, I’m in the same position but to me, upon first impression, Yates’ 1961 novel and the movie based upon it don’t seem that much different than what John Cheever was writing about during the 50s. Even the location is the same: suburban Connecticut.
I look at living in the suburbs like working at a large corporation for 20 years. It’s safe and provides you with a decent enough lifestyle, but it’s uninteresting, highly structured and you will never stand out or be exceptional.
Sure. America is so big and diverse, people live in places for all kinds of reasons. Primarily we move to a location for work or lifestyle reasons. But then we find a neighborhood that fits our lifestyle, financial situation and proximity to work. You might move to LA to pursue a career in acting, NYC for the excitement, Seattle for the outdoor lifestyle, Florida for the sun, etc.
I just saw this film and the one question that I kept asking… why don’t y’all just sell the house and live in NYC?
April, especially, suffered from a lack of character motivation. She is constantly unhappy… but why? What did she want out of her life, other than to “feel different”? If she didn’t want to move to the suburbs, why did she move to the suburbs? What was April doing prior to meeting Frank that fulfilled her dreams and desires, and what did she give up so he could have his house in the burbs? We’re never told, and the movie was poorer for it as she eventually comes across as somebody who likely would be unhappy no matter what situation in which she found herself.
Oh, I know – “They were stuck in the ultra-conformist 1950’s! They couldn’t have escaped if they wanted to, those poor people.” Oh, bullshit: They were actually stuck with a lack of imagination: Frank could have found another job. They could have moved to NYC (or any other city where they knew the language – London, for example). They could have the kid in Paris, or moved right after s/he was born. April could have found something to do that got her out of the house, instead of sitting in it and brooding all day.
And the thing that gets me is that they lived in Connecticut! What, you couldn’t ask the neighbors to take care of the kids for a day or two while you and your hubby went for a wild Jazzy weekend in Greenwich Village?
But, no, instead of trying to effect a rational compromise (“Well, maybe Paris was a bit silly, but hey, Frank – why don’t you get a job at that Hewlett-Packard company? We could move to San Fran, I could feel all bohemian and kewl, and you can do the computer sales thing”), she ends up killing her baby and herself. Are we actually supposed to sympathize with her?
The thing is, April didn’t come across as unhappy because of the “stifling conformity” that was her life, she just came across as clinically depressed. And were this film supposed to show the tragedy of being depressed, it would’ve been a lot better. Instead it was supposed to show the Tragedy of the Burbs, but since we have no idea what these people were like prior to their move, it all came across as pretentious bullshit.
She would’ve felt just as trapped there. They might have left the majority of their possessions in America, but they still would have taken their baggage. 
Her character doesn’t require motivation, because her entire arc is that of someone who is deliberately miserable. I actually found her to be a compellingly realistic, if depressing, character. She is a perpetual victim, nothing is her fault, she is incapable of changing her circumstances, so why bother? The ending is rather inevitable, too.
Btw, since this thread is bumped, Mendes must have wanted, NEEDED, a very strong antidote to the hatred and confusion of the couple in Revolutionary Road, because his new movie could not possibly be more different.
Away We Go is a wonderful, wonderful film. It’s a gentle comedy that generates smiles more than laughs and that’s ok, because that’s what’s intended. It’s a sweet and quiet movie where, except for Alison Janney’s wacko character, the humor comes from how real people react and the things they say, how your spouse cracks a joke that is funny to you at the time, but it isn’t something you’d tell your friends and relatives about (like “Bob said something so funny the other day, I have to tell you…” no, not like that).
There’s barely a plot…couple with baby on the way visit friends and relatives in various parts of the country (and Canada) to try and decide where they want to raise the child, there’s no major conflicts, no marital strife, no Movie Problems that they have to solve by the end, no bad things happen to the couple to provide the viewers with Something To Fret About, and they end up pretty much the same people they were at the start. Just plain decent people about to have a baby, just like millions of other people.
The most striking thing, and this is why I think it’s the anti-Revolutionary Road, is that this couple loves each other. They’re each other’s rock, they get along, don’t fight, have the same goals, hopes, dreams. As I said, there’s no marital strife, and that’s refreshing!
I loved this film and these characters. I wish they were my friends. Since I hate hate HATED the characters in Revolutionary Road (I thought, “just move to NY you idiots”), I was afraid I’d hate these people too, but I couldn’t have been more wrong. They’re worth spending time with, and I plan to go back and pay to see it again when it opens (I saw a free sneak preview).
I don’t think the message of the movie is that the suburbs stink. I think it’s more about how certain types of people create their own misery through their selfishness and egotism.
I have known people like Frank and April. Both assume they are superior to the average person in some vague way. April doesn’t know what she wants, but suffers from a kind of restlessness that is rooted in the feeling that she isn’t reaching her potential. She knows this because she is too much like her neighbors, whom she knows she is superior to. Frank is passive - he goes along with whatever is dangled in front of him. Both are self-centered and childish.
I believe the movie makes use of people’s assumptions about the suburbs. We “know” that suburbia is dull and safe, full of boring people who don’t want to take risks. This makes the suburbs a good setting to expose the character flaws of people like Frank and April.
Actually, according to the official website:
While there are other themes, the “suburbs stink!” mentality is paramount to the story, so much so that the website spells it out for ya… you know, in case the inertia and lost dreams of your life caused you to miss it. 
Except for all his complaining to April, he really did enjoy his job and had no intentions of leaving it.
My boyfriend dissappeared on me after seeing this movie on our last date, lol. You’ve been warned!
I do agree Hollywood rarely gives us a functional view of the suburbs but I don’t know if it’s a chicken or egg thing. My take on the whole thing: Private Site
Kate Winslet is more beautiful in this movie than most movies she is in, and that’s saying something, but yes her character is definitely soul sucking.
However, I can understand why she might hate him, early in the film he confronts her with the idea that she’s not that great of an actress and probably will never be big time.
Woah, I’m glad I didn’t see this movie.
It sounds horrible.
http://www.themoviespoiler.com/Spoilers/revolutionroad.html
I found Kate Winslet’s character more sympathetic than Leo’s. Maybe that’s because it seemed like she actually had the balls to move to France, whereas Leo never had any intention and couldn’t be honest with himself about what he really wanted.
That’s not to say she would have been any happier in France, because at heart she was probably an unhappy person…but at least she seemed willing to try something different.
I like to think of the movie as the sequel to Titanic. “What Kate and Leo did after Titanic: Move to Connecticut and die of boredom.”
As for the movie, their problem was that they were chasing some fantasy of how life would be so much better in Paris. Whatever it was he wanted to do (writing or whatever), he could have done in the suburbs, or they could have moved to Manhattan and had a glamorous life there.
I didn’t care for the characters in RR either. I just couldn’t bring myself to give a damn about either of them, and I couldn’t see where all their vitriol was coming from.