56 reviews
I am always on the look out for anything where people are trying to survive a world that is clearly screwed. This came up on some forums as fitting the bill. It isn't. In this world people are a bit thirsty, well some of them are anyway.
This is more like a western in look, feel and in plot.
A struggling farm owner is trying to get the water company to put a main into his farm. The main character is an interesting chap with high morals, including a healthy obligation to his fellow man. He does however have some drinking demons.
What plays out is story of struggle, conflict, betrayal and absolution. Pretty much like a western then.
Performances are great, scenery and production are excellent. The story is grounded and interesting - but not particularly exciting.
A well made film with a good story - just not what I was looking for on the night.
This is more like a western in look, feel and in plot.
A struggling farm owner is trying to get the water company to put a main into his farm. The main character is an interesting chap with high morals, including a healthy obligation to his fellow man. He does however have some drinking demons.
What plays out is story of struggle, conflict, betrayal and absolution. Pretty much like a western then.
Performances are great, scenery and production are excellent. The story is grounded and interesting - but not particularly exciting.
A well made film with a good story - just not what I was looking for on the night.
- thekarmicnomad
- Jan 3, 2016
- Permalink
This is a good movie. It looks good. It's interesting. It has a decent plot. It also has a few well defined characters, one of which is Ernest Holm, the father of two teenage children and the owner of a barren stretch of farm land turned desert. Holm is played by Michael Shannon in convincing fashion. He is determined without being unscrupulous. He is flawed yet humble enough to know it. He has convictions. He loves his family. This film reminded me of There Will Be Blood. The Daniel Day-Lewis movie is, of course, superior to this one although there is a similar perspective of harsh land and desperate men whose fates lie in their ability to coax wealth from it. The other major difference its that this is set in the near future and has the conceivable technological improvisations of a world where water has become the most rare commodity. All in all a pretty good movie well deserving of a much higher rating than it currently averages.
- avidnewbie
- Feb 23, 2015
- Permalink
The movie doesn't add much to the sci-fi genre.But, the story can be interesting if you pay a lot of attention. That's one of the major problems with this movie: The story starts in a boring way making it a challenge to keep up watching but it changes it's paste when getting near to the end.At least, the actors did their best to show emotions(which are basically anger & revenge). What i liked a lot was that the movie shows many young actors with potential to make more interesting movies IF they still follow these same styles of films. I somehow feel that this movie could have been much more if the story was developed in a other way. In conclusion, i think this movie was not that bad but neither would i watch it again.
- patriciovilches
- Aug 19, 2015
- Permalink
It almost feels like someone adapted Shakespeare to a movie set in the near future where the economy had gone to hell and the US is almost without water. The film is slow, really slow, so that in two hours you don't see much. Paradoxically, some of the important scenes are rushed through, while others, related to character emotions are prolonged.
To me it felt both as a well done movie and a boring one. The practical effects, the acting, the shots, they were all excellent. The pacing and the story, on the other hand, a bit disappointing. I guess you have to be in the mood and you have to like the technique of film rather than just look for a story to entertain you.
Bottom line: Hard to call it a bad movie in any context, but only part of the viewers will be glad to have seen it. Let it go at its own pace, watch it from start to end, try to grasp the vision of the writer/director. Hope it works for you.
To me it felt both as a well done movie and a boring one. The practical effects, the acting, the shots, they were all excellent. The pacing and the story, on the other hand, a bit disappointing. I guess you have to be in the mood and you have to like the technique of film rather than just look for a story to entertain you.
Bottom line: Hard to call it a bad movie in any context, but only part of the viewers will be glad to have seen it. Let it go at its own pace, watch it from start to end, try to grasp the vision of the writer/director. Hope it works for you.
This is set in the future when after prolonged droughts water has become the most precious commodity on the planet. The story is told in three chapters from the perspectives of the three main players. Ernst Holm comes first; he has stuck it out on his dehydrated farmstead. He has alcohol issues, a wife in hospital and two young children, his daughter Mary and son Jerome.
He ekes an existence by servicing the local water mine and life is hard. His daughter has a beau in the shape of Flem Lever (Nicholas Hoult) who has designs on both her and her daddies land. He soon decides to put his designs into action with repercussions for all.
Now this is an indie effort and the CGI is excellent despite that. The story is a slow burner but it is one that is very much worth staying with. Michael Shannon an Ernst is particularly effective as the guilt ridden, hard bitten man who is clinging on to hope. The sci- fi parts in terms of machines are also done quite well, there is some action, but this is a character piece with violence as a driver for the story and not the raison d'être. I like dystopian futuristic films and this is one that goes for that in most parts whilst still clinging to some of the more regular societal norms and I felt they got the mix really well. If you like to have to think about a film, but not too much, then there may well be something of merit for you here.
He ekes an existence by servicing the local water mine and life is hard. His daughter has a beau in the shape of Flem Lever (Nicholas Hoult) who has designs on both her and her daddies land. He soon decides to put his designs into action with repercussions for all.
Now this is an indie effort and the CGI is excellent despite that. The story is a slow burner but it is one that is very much worth staying with. Michael Shannon an Ernst is particularly effective as the guilt ridden, hard bitten man who is clinging on to hope. The sci- fi parts in terms of machines are also done quite well, there is some action, but this is a character piece with violence as a driver for the story and not the raison d'être. I like dystopian futuristic films and this is one that goes for that in most parts whilst still clinging to some of the more regular societal norms and I felt they got the mix really well. If you like to have to think about a film, but not too much, then there may well be something of merit for you here.
- t-dooley-69-386916
- Jun 5, 2015
- Permalink
I just watched this movie (yes a bit late to the game) and was amazed at the, well everything. It was a minimalist movie for the genre but did so much with what they had it seemed like a big budget film. The story is compelling and you actually come to feel emotions for the characters. The direction was outstanding with shots that brought you into the action while at the same time made you feel alone in the desert. Lastly the actors how this movie escaped the Academy is beyond me. Each one brought an element unique to their part of the story from Michael Shannon who was outstanding as the farmer who struggled to keep thing as sane as possible for his children and who hoped for better days with such devotion as to be palpable. To Nicholas Hoult who showed more range than any young actor has a right to. But the rest of the cast each added an element that together make this film amazing.
- lederman-michael
- Sep 17, 2016
- Permalink
In the near future, water has become scarce. Ernest Holm (Michael Shannon) is struggling to survive on his farm as other farms are failing around him. Mary Holm (Elle Fanning) and Jerome Holm (Kodi Smit-McPhee) are his two kids. His wife is living in an institution after an accident that left her disabled. He fights off bandits and scraps by on dwindling supplies. He supplies government workers as they drill for water promising a share for irrigation. Mary is love with scheming Flem Lever (Nicholas Hoult) who has a plan of his own.
The most compelling aspect of this movie may be the robotic mules. This movie should climax with the confrontation between Flem and Ernest. Instead, it keeps going and it changes into something different. The first half has a simplicity to its sci-fi western plot. The second half bogs down as it expands. It also doesn't help to lose Michael Shannon. There is a nice desolate world being created which falls apart.
The most compelling aspect of this movie may be the robotic mules. This movie should climax with the confrontation between Flem and Ernest. Instead, it keeps going and it changes into something different. The first half has a simplicity to its sci-fi western plot. The second half bogs down as it expands. It also doesn't help to lose Michael Shannon. There is a nice desolate world being created which falls apart.
- SnoopyStyle
- Oct 9, 2017
- Permalink
- moviexclusive
- Jan 2, 2015
- Permalink
The plot: After a catastrophic drought, a man and his two teenaged children attempt to survive in a post-apocalyptic society.
I wanted to like this more than I did. Everything about it seems like it would appeal to me. The problem is that I got a bit bored during a few slower parts of the film as I waited for the predictable plot to catch up to where I knew it was going. That's not a deal-breaker, but the scenes were telegraphed rather overtly early on, and anyone who's familiar with this sort of story can probably predict most of the film after twenty minutes. That said, it successfully avoided several annoying clichés in post-apocalyptic films: cannibals, biker gangs, raping all the female characters, and characters who do more yelling than talking. I was glad to see a post-apocalyptic film that was more concerned with characters than gratuitous elements such as these. Don't get me wrong: I love gratuitous exploitation films, but it's nice to have something a bit more restrained every now and then.
I would hesitate to truly recommend this film to fans of post-apocalyptic science fiction. There's certainly much to enjoy if you're starved for good entries in that genre, but it's nowhere near as good as The Road, which was a near-masterpiece. Certainly, the mood and atmosphere of that film was missing, and if you're looking for a truly bleak and depressing story, you won't find it here. This is a more traditional Western story in which a family survives in a near-lawless frontier. If you're more a fan of Westerns than post-apocalyptic films, then I can see how you might enjoy this more than I did. Even so, I think that you'd be better served by watching old Sergio Leone films. You won't get robotic mules, but you'll get much better cinematography and pacing. I can't remember a time when I was ever bored in a Leone film.
I wanted to like this more than I did. Everything about it seems like it would appeal to me. The problem is that I got a bit bored during a few slower parts of the film as I waited for the predictable plot to catch up to where I knew it was going. That's not a deal-breaker, but the scenes were telegraphed rather overtly early on, and anyone who's familiar with this sort of story can probably predict most of the film after twenty minutes. That said, it successfully avoided several annoying clichés in post-apocalyptic films: cannibals, biker gangs, raping all the female characters, and characters who do more yelling than talking. I was glad to see a post-apocalyptic film that was more concerned with characters than gratuitous elements such as these. Don't get me wrong: I love gratuitous exploitation films, but it's nice to have something a bit more restrained every now and then.
I would hesitate to truly recommend this film to fans of post-apocalyptic science fiction. There's certainly much to enjoy if you're starved for good entries in that genre, but it's nowhere near as good as The Road, which was a near-masterpiece. Certainly, the mood and atmosphere of that film was missing, and if you're looking for a truly bleak and depressing story, you won't find it here. This is a more traditional Western story in which a family survives in a near-lawless frontier. If you're more a fan of Westerns than post-apocalyptic films, then I can see how you might enjoy this more than I did. Even so, I think that you'd be better served by watching old Sergio Leone films. You won't get robotic mules, but you'll get much better cinematography and pacing. I can't remember a time when I was ever bored in a Leone film.
I didn't check the budget of this movie but it feels like a low budget production in many ways.
First of all the characters are roughly cut and stereotypes, you don't find real inner conflicts in them, Flem could have had good intentions to a degree, but he was just selfish - that is to simple for a drama.
Second the long chapters don't make much sense, it's just confusing. Finishing a chapter with the death of it's subject is not smart. No flashbacks, no learnings in the later chapters about Ernest or the past for example.
The setup was perfect for a Rashomon style drama, by simply NOT letting the audience know every detail all the time. Wasted chance.
The whole movie was to long for the story. The slow pacing and the lack of anything happening over long periods (nothing of substance at least) makes it tiresome.
The automatic mule robot (Big Dog or LS3 Pack Mule) did not add much to the sci fi feeling - it was developed around 2009 or even earlier. If this movie is supposed to take place in the near future (like some 20-50 years) such a machine would be long gone and replaced by better systems. Some primitive drones and stuff do not convince me, too. A little bit more attention to the details would have been nice. Even poor settlers would use something better than an 80s style transistor radio.
The border situation was awkward. I wonder how the patrols walking on stilts would defend against the mob pushing them over... the available fences and guard's walkways would allow much better control. Just silly.
I watched the German translation and the dub voices were terrible. They sounded like some people from the street had been asked to dub the movie during their lunch brake.
All in all the story was too simple, too often seen and the rest of the movie didn't save the day.
I don't consider it a waste of time but would expect something more imaginative or original these days. It would make a solid first movie for a director starting his career right after film school.
First of all the characters are roughly cut and stereotypes, you don't find real inner conflicts in them, Flem could have had good intentions to a degree, but he was just selfish - that is to simple for a drama.
Second the long chapters don't make much sense, it's just confusing. Finishing a chapter with the death of it's subject is not smart. No flashbacks, no learnings in the later chapters about Ernest or the past for example.
The setup was perfect for a Rashomon style drama, by simply NOT letting the audience know every detail all the time. Wasted chance.
The whole movie was to long for the story. The slow pacing and the lack of anything happening over long periods (nothing of substance at least) makes it tiresome.
The automatic mule robot (Big Dog or LS3 Pack Mule) did not add much to the sci fi feeling - it was developed around 2009 or even earlier. If this movie is supposed to take place in the near future (like some 20-50 years) such a machine would be long gone and replaced by better systems. Some primitive drones and stuff do not convince me, too. A little bit more attention to the details would have been nice. Even poor settlers would use something better than an 80s style transistor radio.
The border situation was awkward. I wonder how the patrols walking on stilts would defend against the mob pushing them over... the available fences and guard's walkways would allow much better control. Just silly.
I watched the German translation and the dub voices were terrible. They sounded like some people from the street had been asked to dub the movie during their lunch brake.
All in all the story was too simple, too often seen and the rest of the movie didn't save the day.
I don't consider it a waste of time but would expect something more imaginative or original these days. It would make a solid first movie for a director starting his career right after film school.
First up I'd really like to counter the earlier reviewers claims that this is "A story that had true potential was crippled by a lack of character development, and the nonexistence of focus" What utter nonsense, just because a film uses subtly instead of a sledgehammer to get it's message across and credits the viewer with at least a glimmer of intelligence does not make it a bad film. On the contrary this is a fantastic film with a story arc that builds to a satisfying conclusion. Yes the pace is slow but clearly this is to enforce the ideas within the narrative, a parched existence if you will. For me the pacing wasn't an issue at all and created a pleasant tension. Visually it is stunning and the production design and the near-future technology was extremely well realised and executed. Fans of 70's sci-fi should look no further.
- neilrudd999
- Oct 18, 2014
- Permalink
Set in the future when water is hard to find a teenage boy sets out to protect his family and survive.
In a small way, this works as a companion piece to "Interstellar". Both are futuristic, science fiction movies that address a world consumed by drought. And both were released in 2014. That may be just about the only overlap, but it makes them a nice pair, and also makes me want to watch "Dune".
Somehow, though, this film never really grabs your attention. Elle Fanning is decent, and Kodi Smit-McPhee is a good actor (and a nice guy). Maybe this needed more Michael Shannon? He is, of course, among the best actors in the business today.
In a small way, this works as a companion piece to "Interstellar". Both are futuristic, science fiction movies that address a world consumed by drought. And both were released in 2014. That may be just about the only overlap, but it makes them a nice pair, and also makes me want to watch "Dune".
Somehow, though, this film never really grabs your attention. Elle Fanning is decent, and Kodi Smit-McPhee is a good actor (and a nice guy). Maybe this needed more Michael Shannon? He is, of course, among the best actors in the business today.
- nogodnomasters
- Oct 23, 2018
- Permalink
- david-fernandez
- Jun 30, 2016
- Permalink
I am a sci-fi lover and in general I enjoy movies that have strong characters and beautiful cinematography. This has beautiful cinematography, sometimes. As I was watching it I wondered how this director or editor (or both) got this far. The premise has a lot of potential and even if you disregard the poor acting, absent character development, and weak storyline, put in the right director's hands this could have been a movie worth watching. As it stands the only reason I finished it was because the set and filming were good enough to keep me tuned in. The last thing I will say is I think the four leads are actually decent actors... Kodi might be a bit stiff but he has talent and room to grow otherwise the others are really great. That and the cinematography/set are the reason this movie got above a one. I really hate to see movies flop because I feel like if they made it through all the bureaucratic hoops and all the scrutinizing of their "product idea" they must have some sense of film making but sometimes the creative team just lose focus and produce something like The Young Ones.
On another note I guess I don't really understand the title. I know the characters are youngish but that isn't their defining attribute is it? I just don't get the title. Not that it is a big deal, just and observation!
Happy watching!
On another note I guess I don't really understand the title. I know the characters are youngish but that isn't their defining attribute is it? I just don't get the title. Not that it is a big deal, just and observation!
Happy watching!
- k-nicholsrobel
- Oct 17, 2014
- Permalink
"Pray for rain."
Gwyneth Paltrow's younger brother, Jake, introduces us to a dystopian future where water is scarce in Young Ones, his sophomore feature film. The film has style and it is also gorgeous to look at the empty vast dry land (filmed in South Africa, but taking place in an undisclosed American town), but unfortunately the characters did lack some development. This could well be classified as a sci-fi western centering on a family that is struggling to survive under the harsh dry conditions. The always fascinating Michael Shannon plays Ernest Holm, the father of two adolescents who has decided to stay in his dry land hoping he can find water to cultivate his once fertile land. His younger son, Jerome (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is always alongside him as they struggle to find a means for survival. With the help of a robotic donkey carrier, he sends supplies to the workers who extract water from deep wells. His relationship with his daughter, Mary (Elle Fanning), isn't going too well. She has secretly been dating Flem (Nicholas Hoult), who isn't someone his father trusts. Flem has plans of his own for Ernest's land and he will stop at nothing in order to get his way. Aimee Mullins has a supporting role as Ernest's paralytic wife who lives in the hospital where she can use special equipment to move.
The film is divided into three chapters centering on each one of the three male characters. The first centering on Ernest, is by far the best thanks in large part to Michael Shannon's incredible performance. It also sets the rules for this futuristic world and it manages to engage us. But the promising start of the film quickly dies down in the next two chapters with predictable character arcs and familiar story lines. It is a shame because the film did promise an inventive post apocalyptic setting, but other than the fascinating visuals it doesn't deliver anything fresh. Despite not having much character development I did enjoy the performances from the talented young cast. Nicholas Hoult is solid as the villain, while Kodi Smit- McPhee once again finds himself playing a character in a desolated future (The Road). He delivers one of the stronger roles and did a decent job holding up his own in the scenes he shared with Shannon. Fanning is an actress I have always admired, but her character is the least developed this time and she doesn't get to do much here. It is a shame Shannon doesn't get more screen time because the film loses much of its appeal after that first chapter. He always brings an incredible fresh quality to each one of his characters and in a way Ernest was the reason why this dystopian world seemed so fascinating.
Young Ones is the third consecutive Western I've seen and each one has been very different. Once Upon A Time in the West is a masterpiece and a classic spaghetti western, while A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night was an Iranian vampire western that was more atmospheric than anything else. This futuristic western is also gorgeous to look at and introduces a rather interesting premise but it loses its appeal after the first part of the film and heads towards generic and familiar territory. I'd still recommend this film because there are some interesting qualities to it and there is also Michael Shannon of course who always delivers. I loved the landscape as well, but the pacing of the story does get tedious and predictable at times.
http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/
Gwyneth Paltrow's younger brother, Jake, introduces us to a dystopian future where water is scarce in Young Ones, his sophomore feature film. The film has style and it is also gorgeous to look at the empty vast dry land (filmed in South Africa, but taking place in an undisclosed American town), but unfortunately the characters did lack some development. This could well be classified as a sci-fi western centering on a family that is struggling to survive under the harsh dry conditions. The always fascinating Michael Shannon plays Ernest Holm, the father of two adolescents who has decided to stay in his dry land hoping he can find water to cultivate his once fertile land. His younger son, Jerome (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is always alongside him as they struggle to find a means for survival. With the help of a robotic donkey carrier, he sends supplies to the workers who extract water from deep wells. His relationship with his daughter, Mary (Elle Fanning), isn't going too well. She has secretly been dating Flem (Nicholas Hoult), who isn't someone his father trusts. Flem has plans of his own for Ernest's land and he will stop at nothing in order to get his way. Aimee Mullins has a supporting role as Ernest's paralytic wife who lives in the hospital where she can use special equipment to move.
The film is divided into three chapters centering on each one of the three male characters. The first centering on Ernest, is by far the best thanks in large part to Michael Shannon's incredible performance. It also sets the rules for this futuristic world and it manages to engage us. But the promising start of the film quickly dies down in the next two chapters with predictable character arcs and familiar story lines. It is a shame because the film did promise an inventive post apocalyptic setting, but other than the fascinating visuals it doesn't deliver anything fresh. Despite not having much character development I did enjoy the performances from the talented young cast. Nicholas Hoult is solid as the villain, while Kodi Smit- McPhee once again finds himself playing a character in a desolated future (The Road). He delivers one of the stronger roles and did a decent job holding up his own in the scenes he shared with Shannon. Fanning is an actress I have always admired, but her character is the least developed this time and she doesn't get to do much here. It is a shame Shannon doesn't get more screen time because the film loses much of its appeal after that first chapter. He always brings an incredible fresh quality to each one of his characters and in a way Ernest was the reason why this dystopian world seemed so fascinating.
Young Ones is the third consecutive Western I've seen and each one has been very different. Once Upon A Time in the West is a masterpiece and a classic spaghetti western, while A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night was an Iranian vampire western that was more atmospheric than anything else. This futuristic western is also gorgeous to look at and introduces a rather interesting premise but it loses its appeal after the first part of the film and heads towards generic and familiar territory. I'd still recommend this film because there are some interesting qualities to it and there is also Michael Shannon of course who always delivers. I loved the landscape as well, but the pacing of the story does get tedious and predictable at times.
http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/
- estebangonzalez10
- Mar 30, 2015
- Permalink
Great actors all around, some promising one for sure, what I can't understand is how the producers got all these actors to agree to do this movie.
I mean we have some real on screen Hollywood movie stars here, on a no (from what it looks like) budget film.
The script and story is completely terrible. The director seems to be completely new to making film, making it look like a high school student went and made a low budget Tarantino film.
The movie doesn't even seem to have any actual story to tell.
One thing that also made me very aware of the fact that it was the director who screwed this whole thing up is that he changes screens to often in a really weird way that doesn't flow naturally.
I understand that he is trying to transfer some sort of message to the audience but it never comes through and the whole thing just feels like a weird experience without cause.
In conclusion, the movie is a waste of time.
I mean we have some real on screen Hollywood movie stars here, on a no (from what it looks like) budget film.
The script and story is completely terrible. The director seems to be completely new to making film, making it look like a high school student went and made a low budget Tarantino film.
The movie doesn't even seem to have any actual story to tell.
One thing that also made me very aware of the fact that it was the director who screwed this whole thing up is that he changes screens to often in a really weird way that doesn't flow naturally.
I understand that he is trying to transfer some sort of message to the audience but it never comes through and the whole thing just feels like a weird experience without cause.
In conclusion, the movie is a waste of time.
- mansstrandberg
- Nov 12, 2014
- Permalink
It's a lovely film.
Realistic observational.
Very satisfying as the film reaches its climax.
It's atmospheric.
Realistic observational.
Very satisfying as the film reaches its climax.
It's atmospheric.
- yanbibiyan
- Jun 25, 2021
- Permalink
Young Ones makes use of brilliant cinematography that is instantly wasted in the hands of a director who is without a shred of talent, an editor who must have been a butcher, mediocre sound editing, and a cast that is almost as misguided and inept as the screenplays author. A story that had true potential was crippled by a lack of character development, and the nonexistence of focus. The directors lack of skill is clearly seen in his failed attempt to (I may be paraphrasing) give the character of the machine, a robotic donkey, a sense of having a soul (not even a glimmer of this is seen in the film), and his somewhat unsuccessful try at implying that there is prosperity outside the boundary of where the characters live. The film is without any sort of outstanding performance by the cast, and lacks even a single character that the audience can empathize with. Personally I believe that this feature was a waste of a perfectly good cinematographer, and I wish I had spent my time at another premier.
- Cossette-mark
- Jan 18, 2014
- Permalink
If you love the artistic and non-mainstream risks taken by art-house films, then Young Ones belongs on your watch list with other indie Sci-Fis such as Lars von Trier's Melancholia, Juan Solanas' Upside Down, and Terry Gilliam's The Zero Theorem.
A gritty film about pioneers in a drought ridden landscape, it's a futuristic dust bowl tale as grim as Grapes of Wrath. It's memorable and keeps your attention, while portraying Sci-Fi in a very believable way. The mix of poverty and high technology, the extremes of the haves and have-nots, and water shortages in the US, amplifies the current state of a society as all good sci-fi films do.
Good actors and acting, and gorgeous to watch. What's not to like?
A gritty film about pioneers in a drought ridden landscape, it's a futuristic dust bowl tale as grim as Grapes of Wrath. It's memorable and keeps your attention, while portraying Sci-Fi in a very believable way. The mix of poverty and high technology, the extremes of the haves and have-nots, and water shortages in the US, amplifies the current state of a society as all good sci-fi films do.
Good actors and acting, and gorgeous to watch. What's not to like?
Within the first 3 minutes of the film you can see that the writer and director is a big fan of Quentin's work, this is immediately evident by the over-splattered blood, and then this super obvious "Chapter 1" that appears on the screen. Now the obvious question is "does this film justify being put into chapters?" And personally I believe the answer is no.. the storyline just doesn't feel like chapters are needed because the whole film could actually be put into one chapter called "water crisis".
Now the acting, that's a different story, it's a bunch of actors who usually take supporting roles who all have to carry the film at the times when it feels like nothing happens and boy do they succeed! Michael Shannon sells his role like he always does and quite frankly one wouldn't rank him higher than any of the rest of the cast which is really good.
The photography is fresh considering this is a low budget film shot with South African equipment. You do get a hint of visual quality that is usually found in other South African films and that is a shame, I'm not sure if it is that the film is likely in 25FPS instead of the Hollywood 24FPS but there is a noticeable difference, whatever it is you get used to it quite quickly. The zooming resolutions are sure to impress you and the Google BigDog feels like one of the cast with an emotional connection as well.
All in all I wouldn't discourage anyone from watching this film, but I wouldn't recommend it if you want to see a good film either. If you have extra time on your hands and want to see what you shouldn't do when copying other directors go for this, if you want to see a film about how to correctly execute a low budget, then go for this as well.
Now the acting, that's a different story, it's a bunch of actors who usually take supporting roles who all have to carry the film at the times when it feels like nothing happens and boy do they succeed! Michael Shannon sells his role like he always does and quite frankly one wouldn't rank him higher than any of the rest of the cast which is really good.
The photography is fresh considering this is a low budget film shot with South African equipment. You do get a hint of visual quality that is usually found in other South African films and that is a shame, I'm not sure if it is that the film is likely in 25FPS instead of the Hollywood 24FPS but there is a noticeable difference, whatever it is you get used to it quite quickly. The zooming resolutions are sure to impress you and the Google BigDog feels like one of the cast with an emotional connection as well.
All in all I wouldn't discourage anyone from watching this film, but I wouldn't recommend it if you want to see a good film either. If you have extra time on your hands and want to see what you shouldn't do when copying other directors go for this, if you want to see a film about how to correctly execute a low budget, then go for this as well.
- tinyfordst
- Nov 9, 2017
- Permalink
- Leofwine_draca
- Oct 14, 2019
- Permalink
This was an unusual mix of post apocalyptic, sci-fi, western drama. How many movies can you say THAT about? And I liked it. A lot.
This isn't a typical strait forward JUST post apocalyptic/dystopian, or JUST Sci-fi movie and fans of these particular genres may be quite disappointed in this film. I suppose this movie isn't for every one, but in reading my review I believe you will get a good idea, (without any spoilers)if it is a type of film you may enjoy.
Like all good movies, IMHO, the focus is not on the setting but rather the characters humanness and how they react and feel in outrageous and/or unusual, difficult situations.
The acting was top notch good to excellent. I have liked everything Michael Shannon has done and became a new fan of Kodi Smit-McPhee, the actor that played Jerome. The story was character driven, which allowed me to fairly quickly care about the characters. There is a lot of dialogue and just a bit of action, so again action loving viewers, may be disappointed.
The cinematography was wonderful! It really set the tone for a dry and hot waste-land. I didn't notice the editing, which means the editor did his/her job. The special effects EXCELLENT. The camera use was good in that it gave us a variety of different types of shots and angels (zoom in close-ups like the old westerns) and interestingly, red- and black outs, fade in and outs, etc. The score was noticeably good and in some places excellent.
Within 40 minutes the movie had taken directions I didn't see coming.
The second half of the movie was paced more quickly and the twists and turns along with the tension started building, becoming for a short while a psychological thriller.
This film showcases full realistic characters that develop and change around a story about Guilt, Greed, Blame, Betrayal, Murder, and Revenge, in an unusual setting. What's not to love about that?
Although I would ordinarily rate this a 7 (that's HIGH for me) I am going to rate this a 9 to help bring up the score. Perhaps that will draw some viewers like me, who will better appreciate this movie.
This isn't a typical strait forward JUST post apocalyptic/dystopian, or JUST Sci-fi movie and fans of these particular genres may be quite disappointed in this film. I suppose this movie isn't for every one, but in reading my review I believe you will get a good idea, (without any spoilers)if it is a type of film you may enjoy.
Like all good movies, IMHO, the focus is not on the setting but rather the characters humanness and how they react and feel in outrageous and/or unusual, difficult situations.
The acting was top notch good to excellent. I have liked everything Michael Shannon has done and became a new fan of Kodi Smit-McPhee, the actor that played Jerome. The story was character driven, which allowed me to fairly quickly care about the characters. There is a lot of dialogue and just a bit of action, so again action loving viewers, may be disappointed.
The cinematography was wonderful! It really set the tone for a dry and hot waste-land. I didn't notice the editing, which means the editor did his/her job. The special effects EXCELLENT. The camera use was good in that it gave us a variety of different types of shots and angels (zoom in close-ups like the old westerns) and interestingly, red- and black outs, fade in and outs, etc. The score was noticeably good and in some places excellent.
Within 40 minutes the movie had taken directions I didn't see coming.
The second half of the movie was paced more quickly and the twists and turns along with the tension started building, becoming for a short while a psychological thriller.
This film showcases full realistic characters that develop and change around a story about Guilt, Greed, Blame, Betrayal, Murder, and Revenge, in an unusual setting. What's not to love about that?
Although I would ordinarily rate this a 7 (that's HIGH for me) I am going to rate this a 9 to help bring up the score. Perhaps that will draw some viewers like me, who will better appreciate this movie.
- tdwillis-26273
- Jun 1, 2017
- Permalink