Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

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.

Because of the low rating of 5.5 I nearly decided not to watch this movie. I would have missed a good movie had I paid too much attention to ratings and not given this movie a chance. It reminded me of the part in Lonesome Dove where one of the characters in that movie honors his promise to carry and deliver Gus's body in a wooden coffin a thousand miles to be buried back in his home in Texas. In this movie, we have a wife and mother who lived out her life to die naturally and the ordeal that a poor Mississippi family endures in getting her body back to where it is supposed to be buried. I found the actors to be well cast in their roles and I highly recommend this movie.

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.