Page 1 of 5

The Rover

PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2014 2:00 pm
by A Gang Called Turbulence
I know everyone is getting excited about Fury Road, but has anyone else seen The Rover? It has quite a few similarities with Mad Max such as being set in a dystopian Australian Outback, but it's not an action film in the classic sense. It's more similar to Cormac McCarthy's The Road if anything. The movie is set ten years after a global financial meltdown, leaving Asia as the world's superpower. The small towns in this movie remind me of something from the original Mad Max. A biker gang showing up would not be out of place. If you get a chance, check it out. I think any Mad Max fan would appreciate it.

Guy Pearce stars in this post-apocalyptic Western about a lone-wolf drifter who joins forces with a wounded man to pursue a sadistic band of thieves. A decade after the collapse of the western world, Australia has become a lawless wasteland. As desperate outsiders pillage the country's precious mineral resources, taciturn Eric (Pearce) travels from town to town searching for signs of life. Then, one day, Eric falls prey to vicious thieves who steal his car. In the process of making their getaway, the thieves abandon Rey (Robert Pattinson), their wounded partner in crime. Meanwhile, Eric vows to reclaim his most-treasured possession by whatever means necessary, and forces Rey to help him track down the men who left him for dead. Scoot McNairy and David Field co-star in this grim tale of revenge from writer/director David Michôd (whose script for the 2010 crime drama Animal Kingdom took the Best Screenplay prize at that year's Australian Film Institute awards). ~ Jason Buchanan, Rovi

Re: The Rover

PostPosted: Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:09 am
by MWFV8
I've been harping on about it since Jan.


Re: The Rover

PostPosted: Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:13 am
by roadwarriormfp
Havent seen a single advert on TV here which is pretty sad to say the least!

Judging by the trailer, this is essentially what could be seen in mad max one. While the main character isnt a cop, the story line follows.

Economic meltdown (in MM1 its caused by lack of oil), lawlessness breaks out, every man for himself.

Ill definitely have to check it out

Re: The Rover

PostPosted: Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:31 am
by A Gang Called Turbulence
MWFV8 wrote:I've been harping on about it since Jan. ... 16&t=10503

Sorry I didn't catch you precious thread. I had no idea people would have been talking about this film in January.

Re: The Rover

PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2014 3:34 am
by MWFV8
A Gang Called Turbulence wrote:
MWFV8 wrote:I've been harping on about it since Jan.


Sorry I didn't catch you precious thread. I had no idea people would have been talking about this film in January.

I wasn't being defensive. I'm glad someone else has noticed this movie.

Re: The Rover

PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 6:18 pm
by leadcounsel
RE: The Rover.

What a turd. Let me say that again. What a turd. Don't waste your time.


I was eagerly awaiting the release of this on video. It was a huge disappointment. I would give it 1 out of 5 stars.

A good movie in my opinion requires 1) compelling characters, preferably one with whom the view can identify with or sympathize with, 2) good plot line, preferably originality, 3) good acting, 4) believe ability as we go on this story or journey.

The Rover was a miracle in that it had NONE of these qualities. It was riddled with obvious plot holes, ripoff story setting, lacked originality and believe ability and cohesion, and even both plausability and the acting and characters didn't behave convincingly in many ways. It suffered badly from problems, big and small.

First, the main character. We are offered no realistic reason why he puts his life in jeopardy, tracks 3 heavily armed men across the country, and steals and kills SEVEN people and involved in the deaths of several others. He's beaten by armed men who could have killed him and mercifully did not (they even left him with a vehicle with fuel). He's arrested. He's shot at. He is unarmed and challenges multiple armed men who could easily kill him without hesitation. Why? Why? To bury a dog. A dog for which he could reasonably assume the men would discover due to the stench, and off load from the car within a day or two. Our "hero" is a total jerk to everyone. He kills innocent people. He kills law enforcement. He even kills the men at the end needlessly when he could have just re-taken his car without conflict. Our hero doesn't act rationally in only taking 1 gun and 1 magazine of ammo from the gun deal, when there were multiple guns and presumably more ammo to be had. Guns and ammo would be a valuable commodity and necessary for his pending killing spree. Nor does he take the Soldier's rifles, pistols, ammo or vehicles when given the option after his escape. It is totally unrealistic and frankly stupid.

We are offered NO reason why these 3 men prefer a car over a truck - when a truck would be more useful in that environment (off road, cargo capacity, towing capacity, etc.). We are offered no reason why the main character doesn't simply tell these men, when they meet, that they can keep the car but he merely wants to retrieve the dog from the trunk to bury it, and they can be on their way.

We are offered no plausible reason why the younger brother wants to kill his older brother. He states he's upset for being left for dead. I can't accept that would be reason to want to kill him.

The female doctor suddenly accepts our party into her home, offers free major surgery, allows the main character to remain armed in the home after knowing him a day or so (it is after all a very dangerous world), and just behaves in a way that would not result in her living very long in that world.

Apparently 10 years after the Australian collapse, Gasoline and Ammo are still available and affordable with US currency. American currency is still accept. But America (presumably still healthy) and the rest of the world have done nothing for a decade to help Australia out of the lawless collapse? Huge plot hole.

Apparently that truck was a super truck! You can roll a pickup truck at a high speed and not crack a window or do ANY structural damage whatsoever. That truck rolled at 50 mph or whatever, and suffered a small dent and busted tail light! You can drive it for days without filling the tank. Let's see, a single day of driving at 8 hours and 50 miles per hour is 400 miles. He drove for at least a day, perhaps two or three days, before buying a can of gas. By my calculations, he would have driven many hundreds of miles on what one would assume was a less-than-full tank of gas when he acquired that truck. That is IMPRESSIVE gas mileage.

The 3 men leave our hero on the side of the road, but don't bother siphoning the fuel from the truck. Fuel is presumably very valuable. Not realistic. Over the course of several days, the 3 men never bother looking in the trunk of the car. No smell of a dead dog in the Australian heat? Get real.

The younger brother - gut shot but heals in a day or two. Able to walk across the desert, somehow track the Soldiers and our hero on foot, crawl under a fence, kill a bunch of Soldiers with a 5 shot revolver, etc. He shows loyalty to our hero who has done nothing but threaten repeatedly to kill him and his brother and generally be a jerk to him. Granted he did rescue him from the Soldier and saw that he got medical care... so there is perhaps some loyalty there... but not enough I would think to lead him to the brother and help to kill him.

Gun play was just stupid. Apparently hotel rooms are bulletproof. Apparently our hero doesn't search the pockets of his prisoner for more bullets. Apparently you can just buy handguns in a circus trailer from an unarmed guy who sells to anyone without any precautions whatsoever. I could go on...

The main character could have tried to simply tell the guys his dog was in the trunk, he wanted the dog, for which they would not have objected, and everyone would have been peachy happy. End of movie. No bloodshed. Hero gets a better vehicle (a truck) and his dead dog and shovel. This film was an exercise in total nonsense on so many fronts. It was a much-copied theme (apocalypse) and done so poorly with so many plot holes and problems that these people should be embarrassed at this turd.

I could go on, and on, and on. But what a stupid film. Perhaps among the worst I've seen in a long time. Don't waste your time.

Re: The Rover

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 5:31 am
by themanw/oaname
oh. this fucking guy.

Re: The Rover

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 6:13 am
by MWFV8
Anyway, moving on, this was Tarantino's impression:

A mesmerizing, visionary achievement. The best post-apocalyptic movie since the original Mad Max. With the one-two punch of The Rover & Animal Kingdom, David Michôd proves himself to be the most uncompromising director of his generation.

Re: The Rover

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 10:19 am
by Nightwalker
Indeed. I've seen the rover to. It is a good movie. The post apocalyptic story is very realistic. Society has crumbled to a little bit of civilization. People that are trying to survive and keep a normal life as good and as bad as possible.
The gang with the pick-up got stuck in that big mess of tubes/pipes (If I remember correctly) and didn't get it out. They where in a state of panic, so, not thinking very clearly. They wanted to get moving, so they took the car of The Rover.
And he just lost the only thing left he loved and wanted to give this chapter a proper ending. So, with his determination he got the truck free and started the chase with only one thing on his mind: to finish what he started, no matter what. So, he was also not thinking very clearly. That explains some of his actions that some people might think to be stupid. But you have to place yourself in the same position as him and judge what you would do when you are extremely determined in finishing one thing, and you don't care for anything else.

I enjoyed watching this movie.

Re: The Rover

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 3:22 pm
by leadcounsel
MWFV8 wrote:Anyway, moving on, this was Tarantino's impression:

A mesmerizing, visionary achievement. The best post-apocalyptic movie since the original Mad Max. With the one-two punch of The Rover & Animal Kingdom, David Michôd proves himself to be the most uncompromising director of his generation.

I respect Tarantino's work. If you recall Tim Roth in "Reservoir Dogs," his gut shot scenes, blood loss, and performance were simply outstanding. Tons of pain, anguish, fear, and blood loss in an urgent situation. That's what a gut shot is.

Conversely, we have the younger brother in this turd of a film, "The Rover" who is gut shot so bad he is ASSUMED DEAD AND LEFT FOR DEAD BY HIS OLDER BROTHER. There must have been some indication that he was not going to survive the shot for them to abandon him. The kid is passed out, can barely escape when he comes conscious. Yet, miraculously, he survives and within a day or two, and with little more than a bandage he is able to be up and on his feet, walk across the desert, crawl under a fence, engage in other activities, etc. etc. etc.

Another minor nuisance, apparently 10 years after the collapse, you can buy a handgun in Australia for $300, which is HALF what a handgun costs in modern gun-flush America in 2015. One would think that in a gun-poor society, a handgun would cost 10 fold what they cost today...

I struggled to find any redeeming qualities in this film. The acting was not compelling or convincing, the character motivations for both the main characters were not compelling or convincing or even rational.

Anyway, you'd have to suspect ANY and ALL knowledge of reality, chemistry, biology, human nature, combustion engines, physics, mechanical devices, ballistics, medicine, global relief and politics, and local/global economics to remotely begin to enjoy this flop. Probably why it gets about a 50% rating on most review sites.