Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Crwthod A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

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

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Floated2 As I Lay Dying an be seen as an ensemble piece within one larger film as a whole. The weakest link in the ensemble, disappointingly, is Franco himself, who retains a smirky remove even during Darl Bundren's most emotionally bare scenes -- though he does at least give himself the best close-ups. You might say that remove characterizes Franco's direction, too: sporadically clever as his treatment is, he never seems all that invested in the novel except as a particularly challenging exercise for his ongoing artistic self-invention. Challenge passed, then. But the task of creating a film even obliquely equal to the rageful literary brazenness of Faulkner remains a hopeless task that Franco, with nothing to lose. Overall, the film differs on another level of severe boredom.

SnoopyStyle Addie Bundren (Beth Grant) is dying. Her son Darl (James Franco) takes his brother Jewel (Logan Marshall-Green) on a delivery. It's $3 after all despite Jewel's need to be by her side. Their wagon gets stuck while she dies. Her wish is to be buried in home town of Jefferson. The whole family struggles to bring her body to her final resting place.There are great actors in this movie. Tim Blake Nelson and Logan are terrific. Beth Grant is also great. In general, everybody is doing good work. The question is how did James Franco do as a director. I am not impressed. The most obvious technique is the split screen. The best thing I can ascribed to the technique is that it hides his amateurish directing style. When Beth Grant screams, the other half is trained on Jim Parrack. That's the only split-screen scene that really works. The movie struggles to gain authenticity and the split screen doesn't help at all. It looks like a modern film school technique in direct conflict with the rural backwoods feel of the family. Franco should be striving for authentic poverty. He fails as he throws various things on the wall. None of it really sticks. The actors are able to keep the audience's interest but they do it despite Franco. The river crossing shows some promise that Franco is functional as a director. Maybe he's over thinking this and tries too hard with the split screen and the actors talking at the camera. Thankfully the last 15 minutes don't have the split screen. It's some of the most compelling scenes in the movie.

C.H Newell 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.

Jesse Boland I really did not enjoy one minute of this film. I am sorry, I know it is supposed to be this masterpiece, but piece of eh? The cutaways, and the way peoples mouths aren't always moving when they are clearly talking, in fact having actual conversations, but you suddenly change perspective, and the person talking's lips are not moving, and the other person's might be, or they may just both be sitting in chairs, or walking around poking things with sticks. I did Not think Franco's choices of the cast were all that original, it was all boilerplate, and he used the same actors you would have seen play the same types of rolls only with better material, and probably less exaggerated direction. I would not recommend this movie to anyone really. If you have to read the book for school, just read the book, or get the Cole's (or whatever they call them in your country) notes, but this movie will not help you better understand the story, this movie may just crack your logic chip.