I seriously don't know what the hell I just watched. I do remember putting it up in my watch-list because of the trailer and obviously because it stars Michael Fassbender. Still, as I write reviews, I am going to review it because it's not all poop. Now before I go on about this movie, let me make this clear. If there was some deep meaning in it, I didn't get it and I am so sorry. I am saying that because look at the title of the movie. It's so prosaic.
SCREENPLAY - OK, I am really not sure whether there was a screenplay for this movie. I really don't think, because nothing made sense. At least to me, it didn't make any sense whatsoever. They are a family of vagabonds, OK. They rob and come back, OK. They rob again and Fassbender gets caught, OK. There is just some random stuff going on. The only thing that made some sense is that Fassbender's character is kinda scared of his father, played by Gleeson and that's it. As there are no character developments or character-arcs, when something happens, I just couldn't care. Even the kids aren't lovable. The dialogue is strange. I am sure it is some form of dialect from the U.K., and maybe it is authentic but at the end of the day it has to make some bloody sense. I mean, for example take this, "Dogs can only play with cats so long before it's the dog that gets scratched". If you've any form explanation for that, please leave it in the comments.
DIRECTION - When you've got a script like that, I think there isn't anything you can direct. Is it possible to direct with such a vague script? I very much doubt that. Let's talk about the one interesting thing about the movie, and that is the robberies. That had a little bit of context and that is the Cutlers needed money to survive. Adam Smith went to the extent of sucking the context out of that too. I am literally pinching the gap between my forehead and nose. There was nothing. I didn't even have a spurt of emotion while watching this movie, and it has Fassbender in it. Even the father-son dynamic isn't strong enough. To sum it up, the direction was bland.
CINEMATOGRAPHY - The singular thing that kept me watching this snooze-fest was the cinematography and why wouldn't it be good? Eduard Grau has been the D.O.P. for The Gift(2015) and The Awakening(2011). The use of colour was more expressive than the actors. The car chase scenes were something. I think the Fast and Furious franchise needs camera-work like this to bring some realism into their action.
ACTING - I am so sorry but Michael Fassbender wasn't good in this movie. During the silent moments he was expressive with his eyes but whenever he spoke, he sounded so inexpressive. Probably because of the accent or the dialogues but that was some waste of talent. Brendan Gleeson managed to make a character. He came across blunt and dull-headed just fine. Sean Harris as that mad dude, was amazing. Amazing. Seriously, it looks like "what the hell is going on" but that is extremely difficult to pull off and that too consistently throughout the movie.
FINAL VERDICT - It is at the end of the day a pass. Nothing really here worth watching. I know, Michael is here but you will only be disappointed. At the end of the day, I do respect film-making. It's a tough process but it has to make sense, right? If it doesn't make sense to the average movie-goer, then what's the point? Now, if anybody has watched this and has found some inner, deep meaning then please do explain. I say that because whenever I don't make any sense out of a movie, I assume that I am not at that level yet to understand the movie. If you are going to explain the plot, then please don't. There isn't any. If there is some inner meaning? Please share.
SCREENPLAY - OK, I am really not sure whether there was a screenplay for this movie. I really don't think, because nothing made sense. At least to me, it didn't make any sense whatsoever. They are a family of vagabonds, OK. They rob and come back, OK. They rob again and Fassbender gets caught, OK. There is just some random stuff going on. The only thing that made some sense is that Fassbender's character is kinda scared of his father, played by Gleeson and that's it. As there are no character developments or character-arcs, when something happens, I just couldn't care. Even the kids aren't lovable. The dialogue is strange. I am sure it is some form of dialect from the U.K., and maybe it is authentic but at the end of the day it has to make some bloody sense. I mean, for example take this, "Dogs can only play with cats so long before it's the dog that gets scratched". If you've any form explanation for that, please leave it in the comments.
DIRECTION - When you've got a script like that, I think there isn't anything you can direct. Is it possible to direct with such a vague script? I very much doubt that. Let's talk about the one interesting thing about the movie, and that is the robberies. That had a little bit of context and that is the Cutlers needed money to survive. Adam Smith went to the extent of sucking the context out of that too. I am literally pinching the gap between my forehead and nose. There was nothing. I didn't even have a spurt of emotion while watching this movie, and it has Fassbender in it. Even the father-son dynamic isn't strong enough. To sum it up, the direction was bland.
CINEMATOGRAPHY - The singular thing that kept me watching this snooze-fest was the cinematography and why wouldn't it be good? Eduard Grau has been the D.O.P. for The Gift(2015) and The Awakening(2011). The use of colour was more expressive than the actors. The car chase scenes were something. I think the Fast and Furious franchise needs camera-work like this to bring some realism into their action.
ACTING - I am so sorry but Michael Fassbender wasn't good in this movie. During the silent moments he was expressive with his eyes but whenever he spoke, he sounded so inexpressive. Probably because of the accent or the dialogues but that was some waste of talent. Brendan Gleeson managed to make a character. He came across blunt and dull-headed just fine. Sean Harris as that mad dude, was amazing. Amazing. Seriously, it looks like "what the hell is going on" but that is extremely difficult to pull off and that too consistently throughout the movie.
FINAL VERDICT - It is at the end of the day a pass. Nothing really here worth watching. I know, Michael is here but you will only be disappointed. At the end of the day, I do respect film-making. It's a tough process but it has to make sense, right? If it doesn't make sense to the average movie-goer, then what's the point? Now, if anybody has watched this and has found some inner, deep meaning then please do explain. I say that because whenever I don't make any sense out of a movie, I assume that I am not at that level yet to understand the movie. If you are going to explain the plot, then please don't. There isn't any. If there is some inner meaning? Please share.