The Rover

For any discussions at all relating to the movies

Re: The Rover

Postby TheFilmist » Thu Jan 22, 2015 3:50 pm

The way you watch movies is so antithetical to how I experience films and storytelling, leadcounsel. What a joyless experience watching something with you must be.
TheFilmist
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:20 pm

Re: The Rover

Postby leadcounsel » Thu Jan 22, 2015 6:35 pm

TheFilmist wrote:The way you watch movies is so antithetical to how I experience films and storytelling, leadcounsel. What a joyless experience watching something with you must be.


You just want to attack me, yet offer ZERO to add about the movie, or plausible rebuttal or responses to my posts. That's a typical ad hominum attack. There are a LOT of great movies out there. "The Rover" is simply not one of them, and it's not only NOT great, it's a total turd of a film.

Everyone has preferences. I simply demand my adult audience movies be confined within the realm of the natural laws of physics, human nature, biology, economics, etc. Action, even science fiction, must be believable. Absent a clear and credible storyline otherwise: Gravity applies. Mechanical concepts apply. Ballistics apply. Human behavior applies.

Otherwise it's just a really unbelievable and dumb make believe story, a cartoon, a caricature, etc. with scene by scene criticism that XYZ wouldn't happen, it doesn't work that way, that's not realistic, that's not survivable, etc.

When you compare the great movies that stand the test of time, versus the fleeting dumb things, all the great movies are confined by the natural laws cited above, unless explained away. If it's part of the story, I can believe in aliens, robots, terminators, superheroes, etc. But it has to make sense and work within the laws of the universe as we understand them, unless we are given a plausible explanation like superpowers or a super machine, etc.

With Rover, it's a credible world - post apocy collapse. But from the very start, scene by scene, it's simply not believable. See my original post for the main reasons why. But here are the main unanswered questions:

1. Economics. American currency is accepted whereas Australian currency is not. Drawing from this, America is still healthy and trade is open. So, why isn't America, NATO, or the rest of the world helping Australia a DECADE after a collapse there? Totally incompatible economic reality of the world. Both cannot co-exist. Gas and guns and ammo are still relatively available and cheap. Nonsense. That stuff would be hoarded.
2. How does the truck and the 3 unbelted passengers survive a high speed car rollover virtually unharmed? The truck sides at high speed along the roof and windscreen yet there is virtually no evidence of damage. Nearly impossible, and certainly improbable.
3. Human nature. NONE of the characters behave in expected or rational ways. Violent world, yet gun seller casually and privates sells a gun under absurd circumstances. Violent world, yet the main character assaults 2 armed men on a rural road over a dog carcass, rather than just expressing his case. His odds of dying were very high and he acted unrealistically. The younger brother - time and again unbelievable behavior from early to the end including being willing to kill his kin over a reasonable misunderstanding. The woman doctor - not realistic in allowing him to remain armed in the home, and also in provided free major medical surgery and care. The 3 men prefer a car of a truck, and don't bother taking the gas when they leave it.
4. Biology, injuries, etc. No injuries to the 3 unbelted men in the car rollover. No ill effects from the gut shot younger brother.
5. Tactics. In a world of survival, apparently like this one is supposed to be, the gun seller was extremely reckless and careless. Main character leaves guns and ammo behind repeatedly... during the gun purchase transaction, after he kills the cop in front of the motel, and after he escapes from the Soldiers (leaving rifles, ammo, gear, vehicles and fuel behind). Gut shot younger brother, after walking across the desert and somehow knowing where the hero was taken, somehow digs a hole under the fence, sneaks in, and surprises and defeats the 3 Soldiers with a 5-shot snub nose .38 special revolver. Oookkkaayyyyy....
6. Reality. Dead dogs start to stink in the heat. After a day or two, the men in the car would have smelt the dead dog. Plain and simple. Driving days and many hundreds of miles on the same (presumably less than full) tank of gas is improbable unless it's some highly fuel economic vehicle.
7. Ballistics, medical, and biology. Guns are death rays that instantly kill everyone (body count over 10) EXCEPT the younger brother who heals remarkably quickly with no ill effects from being gut shot. I'm here to say that a .38 snubby and a 9mm pistol are certainly not death ray guns.

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.....

No feature film should have so many major plot holes and violate so many natural laws and still be taken seriously...
leadcounsel
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 12:11 pm

Re: The Rover

Postby roadwarriormfp » Fri Jan 23, 2015 3:10 am

TheFilmist wrote:The way you watch movies is so antithetical to how I experience films and storytelling, leadcounsel. What a joyless experience watching something with you must be.


haha yes it would be.

Having watched Rover its safe to say leadcounsel just doesnt like or understand australian films, bit like madmax.

Other then the rollover and ute which isnt much damaged, the film is set perfectly in outback Australia.
The people act just like they would act... or just the way aussies would act. Maybe this is lost on someone so worldly as leadcounsel (he who doesn't know the difference between a roots blower and centrifugal blower)
We are 100% snafu....
User avatar
roadwarriormfp
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 1999 7:10 pm
Location: Suncity, Australia

Re: The Rover

Postby Taipan » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:51 am

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


Yeah, it's called 'watching a movie'.

Your criteria for a 'good movie' and overly analytical approach set the bar so high (for ANY movie!) that your 'review' is completely pointless and I suspect is only written to start a flame war here, which would also explain why you posted from 27 different IPs so far. If this is in fact the only way you can function on this board - i.e. to get a rise out of people - you will get banned. I'm not saying you should agree with everyone's opinion - not at all, but if your sole purpose here is to derail every conversation and present ridiculous arguments for the sake of pissing people off because you don't (or pretend not to) understand the basic principles of movie making - which you have proven on multiple occassions - then your time here will be over soon.
At last the Vermin had inherited the Earth
User avatar
Taipan
 
Posts: 1472
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 9:14 am
Location: The Wasteland

Re: The Rover

Postby MWFV8 » Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:22 am

leadcounsel wrote:No feature film should have so many major plot holes and violate so many natural laws and still be taken seriously...


I recommend checking out the "Everything Wrong With..." videos from CinemaSins (https://www.youtube.com/user/CinemaSins) on YouTube. It documents all the incredulous moments and plot holes in feature films going back a long way. It's really quite funny and enlightening. I would perhaps be a better use of your energy than trying to find windmills to blow against here. As would writing your own material to show how you think it should be done.
"Wrong, we fight for a belief. I stay."
User avatar
MWFV8
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 2:06 pm

Re: The Rover

Postby leadcounsel » Fri Jan 23, 2015 9:56 am

roadwarriormfp wrote:
TheFilmist wrote:The way you watch movies is so antithetical to how I experience films and storytelling, leadcounsel. What a joyless experience watching something with you must be.


haha yes it would be.

Having watched Rover its safe to say leadcounsel just doesnt like or understand australian films, bit like madmax.

Other then the rollover and ute which isnt much damaged, the film is set perfectly in outback Australia.
The people act just like they would act... or just the way aussies would act. Maybe this is lost on someone so worldly as leadcounsel (he who doesn't know the difference between a roots blower and centrifugal blower)


I think no better or worse of "Australian" films - and in fact I'm on this forum because 2 of my all-time favorites (MM1 and MM2) are from there. I judge a film based on QUALITY not region. I've never visited the outback, but have been to Australia (Caines and Sydney). As to how aussies would "act" nobody here is any more or less an expert on their behavior in this sci-fi world after a collapse, other than the obvious flaws in human nature as represented in the film, which I've already listed.

You can like or not like whatever movies float your boat - but attacking a person over and over for a review that is based in logic and such shows that persons character and lack of critical thinking skills. It's no wonder most movies are total shite - because they just have to flash pretty colors on a screen for the bulk of the non-thinking public who lack fundamental skills. I presented a plethora of significant plot failures and other issues with the film, it seems that members here just want to chime in an call me a name without any honest discussion of the film itself.

If your thing is to waste 90 minutes of your life and whatever the film costs to purely be entertained without engaging your brain, then so be it. I personally like to be challenged, have a movie provoke thought or humor or learn something interesting. It's more to me than just pretty colors and movement. A film is art, a message, an idea that the artist is communicating. If it doesn't fit in with at least the natural laws of the universe, that message is completely lost on me. It lacks credibility in my eyes.

I recommend checking out the "Everything Wrong With..." videos from CinemaSins (https://www.youtube.com/user/CinemaSins) on YouTube. It documents all the incredulous moments and plot holes in feature films going back a long way. It's really quite funny and enlightening.
I've seen these reviews, and find them quite hilarious. The Crystal Skull and Promethius come to mind.
leadcounsel
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 12:11 pm

Re: The Rover

Postby TheFilmist » Fri Jan 23, 2015 9:22 pm

A film is art, a message, an idea that the artist is communicating. If it doesn't fit in with at least the natural laws of the universe, that message is completely lost on me. It lacks credibility in my eyes.


But. . .that cancels out like 95% percent of filmmaking. Avante-Garde filmmaking, over-the-top action filmmaking (like Mad fucking Max, which - I'm sorry, but - is one of the most self-consciously over-the-top, bombastic, fantastical and mythical action film series' ever made ever), grandiose fantasies, surrealistic tone-poems, French New Wave, whatever. Film as a medium has survived and thrived by consistently flaunting the rules of reality, and the previously established rules of the medium. That's why it's so malleable. There are no rules. By that measure, and taking what you're saying to its logical conclusion, the only style that has any worth at all is cold, analytical documentarian stuff where the camera is stuck on a single-mount tripod watching a guy eat cereal for twenty minutes. And trust me, this exists.
TheFilmist
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:20 pm

Re: The Rover

Postby roadwarriormfp » Fri Jan 23, 2015 10:59 pm

If your thing is to waste 90 minutes of your life and whatever the film costs to purely be entertained without engaging your brain, then so be it. I personally like to be challenged, have a movie provoke thought or humor or learn something interesting. It's more to me than just pretty colors and movement. A film is art, a message, an idea that the artist is communicating. If it doesn't fit in with at least the natural laws of the universe, that message is completely lost on me. It lacks credibility in my eyes.


Thats why all the reviews were so positive right?

Upon its Cannes premiere, the film received generally positive reviews, and Pearce and Pattinson's performances were highly appreciated. Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that 65% of 158 film critics have given the film a positive review, with a rating average of 6.4 out of 10. The site's summary states: "Fueled by engaging performances from Guy Pearce and Robert Pattinson, the tension-filled The Rover overcomes its narrative faults through sheer watchability." On Metacritic, which assigns a weighted mean rating out of 100 reviews from film critics, the film holds an average score of 64, based on 38 reviews, indicating a 'generally favorable' response.[62]

Kenneth Turan of The Los Angeles Times stated that "The Rover" is a most impressive piece of filmmaking, tense and unrelenting, that chills the blood as well as the soul" and about performances said that "Pearce's barely controlled ferocity as Eric is exceptional, but it is not as much of a revelation as Pattinson's unrecognizable work as Rey, a damaged, unfocused individual who is the older man's half-unwilling accomplice". Todd McCarthy, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, wrote that "Pattinson delivers a performance that, despite the character’s own limitations, becomes more interesting as the film moves along, suggesting that the young actor might indeed be capable of offbeat character work. But always commanding attention at the film’s center is Pearce, who, under a taciturn demeanor, gives Eric all the cold-hearted remorselessness of a classic Western or film noir anti-hero who refuses to die before exacting vengeance for an unpardonable crime" and concluded that it is "An intense look into the near future, and it’s not good." Jessica Kiang in her review for The Playlist, grade the film B+ by saying that "Bleak, brutal and unrelentingly nihilist, and with only sporadic flashes of the blackest, most mordant humour to lighten the load, it feels parched, like the story has simply boiled away in the desert heat and all that’s left are its desiccated bones. In a good way."

However, Scott Foundas of Variety said that "Michod’s sophomore feature isn’t exactly something we’ve never seen before, but it has a desolate beauty all its own."[66] Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian noted that "After a terrific start, the film begins to meander, to lose its way, and its grip." Drew McWeeny of HitFix called the film "glacially paced and intentionally minimalistic."

Filmmaker Quentin Tarantino stated that the film is "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.
We are 100% snafu....
User avatar
roadwarriormfp
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 1999 7:10 pm
Location: Suncity, Australia

Re: The Rover

Postby MWFV8 » Sat Jan 24, 2015 1:48 am

Another thing to consider here is the limitations with independent filmmaking in this age. As even just breaking even is so hard to achieve every single dollar has to be accounted for. Something seemingly simple like using a pickup that genuinely looks like it's been rolled over can sadly break the bank. I know that sounds crazy but that's how bad things are for indies right now.
"Wrong, we fight for a belief. I stay."
User avatar
MWFV8
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 2:06 pm

Re: The Rover

Postby leadcounsel » Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:10 am

TheFilmist wrote:
A film is art, a message, an idea that the artist is communicating. If it doesn't fit in with at least the natural laws of the universe, that message is completely lost on me. It lacks credibility in my eyes.


But. . .that cancels out like 95% percent of filmmaking. Avante-Garde filmmaking, over-the-top action filmmaking (like Mad fucking Max, which - I'm sorry, but - is one of the most self-consciously over-the-top, bombastic, fantastical and mythical action film series' ever made ever), grandiose fantasies, surrealistic tone-poems, French New Wave, whatever. Film as a medium has survived and thrived by consistently flaunting the rules of reality, and the previously established rules of the medium. That's why it's so malleable. There are no rules. By that measure, and taking what you're saying to its logical conclusion, the only style that has any worth at all is cold, analytical documentarian stuff where the camera is stuck on a single-mount tripod watching a guy eat cereal for twenty minutes. And trust me, this exists.


I don't see anything in MM that is really implausible. It's a very realistic vision of a world that has begun to collapse and why it has been copied a zillion times to both good and largely bad results. The people all behave as you would expect. Crazy street gangs exist today, so no stretch they'd exist later. Natural laws and human behavior are very consistent with reality and it is a film that is nearly flawless and you really have to dig deep to find flaws and criticism (the car blower issue, some minor plot holes that are mostly irrelevant, minor editing stuff). But on balance it was a ground breaking movie that is now nearly 40 years old and still head and shoulders above most modern films. It was about story telling, acting, real stunts, and honest raw believability. Hence it is a film that will stand the test of time. It has a 95% review rating on Rotten Tomatoes... and I can't imagine the moron that doesn't like MM.
leadcounsel
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 12:11 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


cron