End of the Road

End of the Road shouldn't be completely dismissed. It is hard to watch not only for what happens to the people in the cast but because it tries to be arty about something that isn't. A man in a catatonic state because he is overloaded by what is happening in society isn't arty. And if his catatonic state is played out too long with obscure or trite images we just become impatient. We aren't absorbing what we're seeing.

As hard as it is to allow yourself to become absorbed in this it's hard to shut it off. And when a female character decides to have an abortion we just know we're going to be subjected to the brutality of it and we don't want to be. Not after we have seen a man come out of a catatonic state and behave oddly in public and with his students. We're already alienated by the characters to have to endure anymore.

The acting is good by everyone even if we don't like any of the characters. The film does have an impact I'm just not sure what the message really is and why we need it. Maybe someone else can figure that out.

Despite several what-must-have-been-at-the-time-neat editing tricks and sequences, inserted because the director was actually an editor and should have stuck to that, we have a film with the wrong person's personality stamped all over it. All you have to do is sit through five minutes of "The Magic Christian," if you can, and you'll see how Terry Southern applied his panacea of "Just add stupid" to Barth's beyond brilliant novel. I am only 30 minutes into the film and I don't think I can take anymore. The pathetic need to shock, impress and generally make people think he's so smart is evident if one picks up the book and reads along, seeing where Southern has stuck in obvious imagery, where he's put naked people, which masculine female nurse has been turned into a cross dressing psychotic gun wielding patient/nurse, where he's put people having sex with chickens and where he's put the American flag (a lot of places). It's even more embarrassing because he's raping the work of a fellow novelist, probably out of jealousy. Southern's idea of brilliance is to take a part that was serious in the book, James Earl Jones' Doctor, and have him dance around singing "Caledonia, Catatonia." In other words: moronic nonsense. The more the better. The scene where Southern has added masturbation to Jacob and Rennie's first telephone conversation is reminiscent of Gus Van Sant restoring it to Norman Bates in that celebrated "Psycho" remake. The scenes in the hospital are among the worst in cinema history and take up so much of the running time of the movie that Joe's character is cut out nearly entirely and what actually happens as a result of these brief encounters with lovers of chickens gets short shrift. Aside from this it is annoying to see that one of Harris Yulin's only what-could-have-been-supporting-lead-instead-of-character roles has been pared down, and that he's so miscast. Keach is somewhat miscast as well, he might have been better suited to playing Yulin's part the way it is written in the book, and he looks like a prototype for "Jedi" Mark Hamill with the scar. Strangely enough, this was Yulin's first movie and he did several more with Keach. The girl playing Rennie is actually somewhat appealing, but we never see much of her, she apparently writes schlock now so I guess this was good practice. James Earl Jones seems to be here because of this Southern connection (Strangelove), Southern has written most of his (terrible) dialogue and Jones really should have cleaned his toenails instead. But never mind that, never mind what is written in the book because Terry Southern is a writer too and he knows best. Now I have

to decide if I'm up to seeing how they lay waste to the rest of it. I did stick it out and thank the lord, the scenes outside the clinic are less stupendously mind-blowingly awful. The critic and erstwhile jerk John Simon said "the novel concludes with a harrowing abortion, whereas the film is an abortion from start to finish." Not quite as bad as Jan De Bont's "The Haunting" as lit adaptations go, but close. GO READ THE BOOK!

Man, it is hard to digest some of the bile and acrid animosity of many of the comments here. I saw this when it first came out right as I was about to graduate high school in 1970, and I loved it. I had not read John Barth's novel, so I had no prejudice about the approach. I have watched the film a couple of times since on video (though it is virtually impossible to find) and must testify it more than holds up. Stacey Keach really gives a great, subtly nuanced performance (perhaps the best of his career when he was still getting 'serious' roles) as the guy plagued by occasional catatonia, and James Earl Jones is also fantastic as a brilliant, maverick innovator of psychiatry (think Wilhelm Reich by way of Malcolm X) who, at the end, may be a bit too godlike for his own good. I personally think Terry Southern is a wonderful writer, and I love all of the films from his work from the more favorably acknowledged, like DR. STRANGELOVE and MAGIC Christian, to the less so (CANDY, which is probably my favorite). There are some crazy juxtapositions here as well as absurd humor (that would do the 1920s-30s surrealists proud), but the humor is not stupid by any means. Director Aram Avakian and Terry Southern were a good pairing. It's too bad that they never did another film together. I can only guess that this dark, dark comedy that is about America in the sixties and about human vulnerability, hubris and arrogance touched many raw nerves with not only some of the IMDb commentators, but the few people who saw it on its initial release. A totally uncompromising picture with the courage of it's twisted convictions. The intention of director, screenwriter and cast was to rattle complacent, uptight people's cages -and, judging from the invective here, I'd say they succeeded in spades. I will echo: whomever owns the rights to END OF THE ROAD, put it out on DVD - NOW!

End Of The Road is a compelling and bizarre film from that most elusive of genres, the "acid" film. Okay, so that may not be an officially recognized genre. All the same this title emerges from the hippie generation as an indictment of "establishment" ethos complete with a generous helping of surrealism and "acid-friendly" scenery.

In and of itself, its a pompous and wholly unremarkable film. It tries to play itself of intellectual and deep, and only comes off as superficial and pointless. The whole is definitely not as valuable of its parts. What is remarkable is the brilliant performance of James Earl Jones as Doctor D who is experimenting with radical psychological treatments that wreak of the mythical MK Ultra mind control experiments alleged to be performed by the CIA and legendary escaped Nazi scientist Joseph Goebles (sp).

Jones really pulls out all the stops and lets loose in this role. He bombards Stacy Keach with traumatic sounds and images as part of his treatment, and he twists and contorts his voice, body, and mannerisms to paint an over the top picture of a cutting edge scientist walking a fine line between sanity and lunacy.

It's hard to suggest that you, or anyone would enjoy this film, but if you have a taste for the twisted, you'll certainly appreciate bearing witness to this oddly beautiful artistic train wreck of a movie.

THE PLOT: Bizarre adaption of John Barth's already bizarre novel detailing the story of a man (Keach) who goes into a catatonic state at a train station. He is sent to a strange mental hospital run by a weird man named Dr D (Jones). After he is considered to be 'cured' he takes a job as a college Professor and proceeds to have an affair with the wife of one of his colleagues.

THE NEGATIVE: It has been noted that author Barth disliked this film version of his novel and it is easy to see why. It gives only a basic outline of the story while leaving out all of the deeper meanings. It also tried to tie the story to all the chaos and rebellion of the 60's even though the book was written in 1955. The final result is a very confusing and off putting mess with nothing coming together at all. The characters all act very odd and with no understanding of their motivations it becomes impossible for the viewer to relate to them or anything else that goes on. Most viewers, especially those that are not familiar with the John Barth book, will easily become confused and turned off by this film after the first five or ten minutes if not sooner.

THE POSITIVE: The film-making style is refreshingly audacious in a way that is rarely seen anymore. Everything is just thrown out there no matter how outrageous with little or no regard to mainstream acceptance. The kinetic imagery and music has a certain hypnotic effect that keeps you connected to it even if you don't understand what is going on. The film culminates with a very intense, grizzly, and tasteless abortion scene that will not be soon forgotten by anyone who sees it. Jones gives one of the most bizarre and over-the-top performances that you will ever see anywhere. Anyone who is a fan of his or has an interest in acting MUST see him in this film.

THE LOWDOWN: The film is a misfired experiment that manages to be enough of a period artifact to make it an interesting curio. It definitely has the ability to stay with you for awhile after it is over.

THE RATING: 6 out of 10.