rajkovicmarko Trepass against us, presented at the Toronto Film Festival in 2016, would like to tell so much, without however having the time and the tools to do so. It is unclear what theme the film is about to focus on. The spectator is confronted with the difficulties of nomadic life, father-son relationship, education and redemption, without however finding the time to immerse himself completely in any of them. The film, and often the spectator, feels the weight of two figures, such as Fassbender and Gleeson, who cover the roles of Chad and Colby. It would be understandable if one doubted that the two of were involved in the project to give him a boost (perhaps it needed it) rather than believing that their characters were so articulated that they needed the two actors' talent. Director Adam Smith, at his debut, is capable of talking about chases, sequences of action, and some hint of gangster comedy. It gives the movie adrenaline and the elements to be watchable, but not more than that. Often you are wondering why what you see is so as it is, as you are thinking that some characters have nothing to do with the world they live in. For example Chad. This is due to the rush of the director to arrive at the clue of the story, related to the characterization of the characters, which if is not flat, is mainstream and even trivial. This does not mean that the film is not touching, but it is less reflective than it should, and perhaps it would want to be.

kosmasp This is a really tough movie to watch. It's not glitter it's not really made to be epic or anything else. It's a movie that stays low, that deals with a lot of strains, especially concerning family issues. But not just one dimensional ones, rather multiple ones. Blood related family, chosen family and so on.Michael Fassbender and Gleeson are on a rampage acting wise. They really are amazing in this. The story is engaging enough and there is enough to enjoy. But you have to remember this is pretty gloomy. And the characters are not really people you'd necessarily root for in real life. But it's just that some people have to deal with different circumstances ... Not all the characters have to be likable - so just enjoy

paultreloar75 Interesting to see how a movie about some travellers has the capacity and ability to unleash some proper prejudice in some reviews. This isn't without it's flaws but that's almost the idea running through the film in the first place. Family ties and families stifling you and free thought and freedom to live as you want are all themes that percolate just below the surface.The acting performances are very solid, even if the accents sometimes stray a bit. The vernacular is caught pretty well and the simple details are pretty much spot on. The camera-work is good and the score does the job. This doesn't try to scrub them up as some unrecognisable good ones underneath it all, it's warts and all but with some depth and texture.In that respect, I have to say that I didn't find it a million miles away from Moonlight, in the sense of people growing into inevitable futures. Different strokes for different blokes of course, but they are both human-led dramas in my opinion. In this one, Fassbender can't escape the cold grip of his family but sometimes, one wonders whether he wants to. Who'd want to live out with the fecking gadjos after all?

Pramitheus 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.