April Wheeler (Kate Winslet) walks along a city sidewalk as another woman pushes a stroller
Film review

Revolutionary Road

2008 · Directed by Sam Mendes · 1h 59m · MPA R

In a sentenceMichael Shannon turns up to say out loud what everyone else has spent an hour not saying

Connecticut, 1955. Frank Wheeler (Leonardo DiCaprio) takes the train into Manhattan each morning to a sales job at Knox Business Machines that he despises. April Wheeler (Kate Winslet), who once meant to be an actress, keeps the white clapboard house at the end of Revolutionary Road and their two children. When her community theatre production dies on its opening night, the drive home becomes a roadside fight. April’s answer is a plan: sell the house, move to Paris, let her earn as a secretary while Frank works out what he wants. Frank says yes. Around them the estate agent Helen Givings (Kathy Bates) talks without pausing, and the neighbours Shep and Milly Campbell (David Harbour, Kathryn Hahn) watch with something close to envy.

Fi1m review

Sam Mendes’s film of Richard Yates’s novel is handsomely built and fiercely acted, and it explains itself more often than it needs to. Winslet and DiCaprio are reason enough to watch, and Michael Shannon, in two scenes, nearly steals it from them.

Sam Mendes takes Richard Yates’s novel of a marriage dying in a Connecticut suburb in 1955 and films it straight: the house, the commute, the drinks, the shouting. Frank Wheeler (Leonardo DiCaprio) sells business machines in Manhattan and tells everyone he is above it. April Wheeler (Kate Winslet) has worked out before the film begins that neither of them is going anywhere, and spends two hours trying to make that untrue. It is fiercely acted and handsomely built, and it would be a better film if it trusted its pictures and stopped explaining them. We liked it, with reservations, and the reservations are about the script.

The house is the first thing the film gets right. Kristi Zea gives the Wheelers a white clapboard box with a picture window and pale, nearly bare walls, so every raised voice has somewhere to bounce. Roger Deakins lights the rooms with hard daylight through the glass and leaves no shadow a person could retreat into. His best shot is the morning commute, a station concourse full of men in identical grey hats filmed from above so that Frank is one more hat. Albert Wolsky dresses him in the same grey as the rest and April in dresses ironed for guests who are not coming.

Winslet plays April as a woman who has already decided. The scene in which she proposes Paris, laid out across the kitchen table like a balance sheet, is the film’s best, because the terrible thing about it is how sensible it sounds: she will type for the government, he will think, the children will learn French. DiCaprio has the harder job. Frank is a man who talks well and knows it, and his best moments are the small ones, agreeing to something and visibly looking for the exit as he does. His thirtieth birthday, spent at lunch with Maureen Grube (Zoe Kazan) from the typing pool, is played with no appeal for our forgiveness, and it is the most honest thing he does in the film.

Then there is Michael Shannon. He plays John Givings, son of the estate agent Helen Givings (Kathy Bates) who sold the Wheelers their house, brought round for lunch from the hospital where he is a patient. He looks at the consensus and says what he sees, and he is the best thing in the film. He is also where the trouble shows. Justin Haythe’s screenplay has thinned the novel’s interior voice, the long passages in which Frank talks himself into his own excuses, and without it the film needs somebody to state its case. John is that somebody, twice. The second time we found ourselves agreeing with him, and then disliking the film for arranging it so that we would.

The fights are the other problem, and it is one of quantity. Tariq Anwar holds them in long takes and lets the two actors go, which is right, and the roadside argument after April’s play had us wanting to be anywhere else, which is what it is for. But there are perhaps six of these and they all climb to the same pitch, so that by the fourth we were bracing rather than watching. Thomas Newman’s piano score is sparse and decent, and it arrives at precisely the moments when the scene had already done the work.

The supporting cast is better served, because nobody asks them to make a speech. Kathryn Hahn and David Harbour, as the neighbours Milly and Shep Campbell, watch the Wheelers with a longing neither would admit to, and Harbour in particular lets us see a man who would swap places with Frank and knows it. Dylan Baker’s Jack Ordway drinks through the office hours with the cheer of someone who gave up years ago. Bates talks like a woman who cannot bear a silence.

Mendes’s American Beauty (1999) looked at a similar cul-de-sac and found it funny. This one finds it only sad, and it offers no relief at all, which is what will decide whether you can sit through it. Putting DiCaprio and Winslet together again eleven years after Titanic (1997) is not an accident, and the film knows it. See it for Winslet, for DiCaprio’s small moments and for Shannon’s two scenes, and not on a night when you have already had an argument. It runs 119 minutes and carries a 15. The Wheelers have two children; you will not remember their names, and the film is quietly clear that their parents sometimes forget them too.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

60
Positive
7
Mixed
8
Negative
4

Most critics respect the film more than they warm to it, and the praise clusters almost entirely on the acting. Kate Winslet’s April is the performance named most often, described as harrowing and emotionally intense, with Leonardo DiCaprio credited for matching her in the couple’s quarrels. Michael Shannon’s supporting turn is singled out by several reviews as the strongest thing on screen. The period design and cinematography draw steady, if quieter, approval.

The disagreement is over the adaptation. A sizeable minority argue the film flattens the novel, simplifying the Wheelers’ motives and losing its psychological detail, so that even committed performances end up feeling hollow. Others find the bleakness relentless and the dialogue dated. The spread is wide, running from strong approval to outright dismissal. The Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw admires Winslet but says her dominance unbalances the film, while The Hollywood Reporter dissents even on the acting, finding it short of subtlety.

RogerEbert.com
24 December 2008 · ★★★½/4 · Roger Ebert
88

The review finds the film a compelling, unsettling portrait of a marriage in crisis. It singles out the lead performances for praise.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
30 January 2009 · Peter Bradshaw
78*

Bradshaw finds the film a deeply felt, moving and genuinely tragic study of a marriage tearing itself apart. He especially praises Kate Winslet’s outstanding, harrowing performance, while noting that it dominates the film and creates an emotional imbalance.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
25 December 2008 · B · Keith Phipps
77

Phipps finds the film intense and well acted, but ultimately too distant and overfocused on dissecting the marriage. He singles out Michael Shannon’s unsettling performance and the scenes with the suburban neighbors as its strongest moments.

Read the full review →
Variety
17 November 2008 · Todd McCarthy
70*

McCarthy considers it a very good adaptation, while noting that film cannot fully capture the novel’s subtle layers of thought and emotion. He praises the electrically charged performances of Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, and singles out Michael Shannon’s supporting turn as mesmerizing.

Read the full review →
Evening Standard
10 April 2012 · The Standard
65*

The review is broadly appreciative, though it faults the ending and the film’s limited cinematic imagination. It particularly praises Kate Winslet’s performance, the ensemble acting, and the period design and cinematography.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
26 December 2008 · Kenneth Turan
65*

Turan finds the film ultimately moving and relevant, though its dated dialogue and premise make it a near thing. He especially praises Kate Winslet’s emotionally intense performance.

Read the full review →

Straight answers AI written, from our review

Is Revolutionary Road worth watching?
Revolutionary Road is worth watching for the acting, and we scored it 71. Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio are reason enough, and Michael Shannon nearly steals the film in two scenes, but Justin Haythe's screenplay explains what the pictures have already shown and the fights all climb to the same pitch. It suits anyone who can sit through two hours of a marriage failing with no relief offered.
How long is Revolutionary Road, and what is it rated?
Revolutionary Road runs 1h 59m and is rated R by the MPA in the US. It is a drama and romance film.
Where can I watch Revolutionary Road in the US?
Revolutionary Road is streaming on Pluto TV in the US, and it is also available to rent from Amazon Prime Video from $5.99. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.
How violent or frightening is Revolutionary Road, and is it suitable for children?
Revolutionary Road carries a 15 in the UK and an R in the US, and it is not for children. There is no physical violence to speak of and nothing frightening; the certificate reflects adult themes, language and a marriage conducted largely through long, loud arguments. Teenagers could follow it, but it is a grim evening and offers no comfort at the end.
How does Revolutionary Road compare to Far from Heaven?
Revolutionary Road and Far from Heaven both look at a 1950s suburb that is immaculate on the surface and miserable underneath, but Haynes keeps the sadness buried while Mendes has his characters shout it out. Far from Heaven is the more controlled and, we think, the more painful film; Revolutionary Road is the one to choose if you want the actors let off the leash.
Is Revolutionary Road based on a true story or a book?
Revolutionary Road is based on Richard Yates's novel of the same name, not on a true story. Justin Haythe's screenplay thins the book's interior voice, the long passages in which Frank talks himself into his excuses, and leans on Michael Shannon's character to state the case instead. You do not need to have read the novel to follow the film.
What should I watch after Revolutionary Road?
After Revolutionary Road, try Far from Heaven (2002, Fi1m 87): Haynes’s 1950s suburb, immaculate on the surface, with the sadness kept underneath it. Then 45 Years (2015, Fi1m 88): Charlotte Rampling and Tom Courtenay, one week, one letter, a marriage quietly re-examined; and Blue Valentine (2010, Fi1m 82): The courtship and the collapse cut together, so you see exactly what was lost.

Cast

Awards

Academy Awards, 2009

Nominated
Best Costume Design
Nominated
Best Production Design
Nominated
Best Supporting Actor

If you liked this, try…

  1. Scenes from a Marriage (1973) · not on Fi1m yetBergman’s long look at a couple coming apart, and the model for most since.

  2. Far from Heaven (2002, Fi1m 87)Haynes’s 1950s suburb, immaculate on the surface, with the sadness kept underneath it.

  3. 45 Years (2015, Fi1m 88)Charlotte Rampling and Tom Courtenay, one week, one letter, a marriage quietly re-examined.

  4. Blue Valentine (2010, Fi1m 82)The courtship and the collapse cut together, so you see exactly what was lost.

  5. A Separation (2011, Fi1m 93)Asghar Farhadi’s Tehran divorce drama, in which everyone is right and nobody wins.