Review: The Rover

by. Joe Moss
★

I must admit that I had some incredibly high expectations walking in to view David Michôd's 2014 Official Cannes Selection "The Rover;" nevertheless, after the 1:46 showing time (which felt like 3 hours), I left severely disappointed. I chalked this move up as a movie that I would have rather

viewed after consuming mass quantities of mind-altering substances--only then may it have been vaguely interesting. 

Since, leaving the theater at 5 pm yesterday, I have tried to allow time for the "poignant message" of the film to seep into my brain--as is stated in other reviews and fan-postings. BUT THERE IS NOT ONE! Others have stated that this film encompasses a type of intensity and cerebral grittiness that passes the normal viewers' mindset... I would like to call BS and state that THEY must have been on a bender while watching this drivel. I am all for cerebral, thought-inducing films...and this is not an example of such. I will say...the double entendre of the title was awesome for about 2 seconds. Then I realized the vague and meaningless point of the movie and thought to myself "WOW...that was IT?"

The film is set 10 years hence in an post-apocalyptic Australia. [NO, this is not a reboot of Mad Max (that would have been wishful thinking)]. Eric (Guy Pearce) has his car stolen and spends the entire film trying to retrieve this car. How does he find it? He lucks upon the mentally handicap brother, Rey (Robert Pattinson), of one of the car-thieves who was wounded in a gunfight with the Australian military. Roy takes Eric across 8-9 hours of the outback to a dilapidated housing outpost where they find the car. At this pint, it almost seems that Eric is about to check out and leave, but then revenge is doled out as an afterthought.

I find the impossibly long takes and lackadaisical direction that Michôd used in this film to be ridiculous. They added nothing to the substance of the film--rather they made the movie drag on impossibly long. Rather than the standard 3 acts of the film, I would argue that there are 4 in this film. 4 Distinct settings and 4 distinct plot movements that are supposed to move the audience toward a deeper understanding. That did occur...SLOWLY. In the 1:46 minutes of shooting time, I definitely feel that the movie would have been better suited to 1:20. That is about the time I looked at my watch and was thinking is the point ever going to happen. 

Joel Edgerton (Warrior, Kinky Boots) developed the story with Michôd adapting the screenplay. And somewhere I feel there must have been some elements lost in adaptation.  Elements...how about the entire dialogue? There is so little plot development occurring that when it does, I was thinking--really..that's IT? Why were we subjected to Rey (Pattinson) having a conversation in Mandarin with a woman and her child? Is this supposed to show us that he is not AS mentally handicapped as previously thought and demonstrated? I understand why we do not find out much about Eric (Pearce) until the last 30 minutes of the film, but why was that element downplayed? Why are we subjected to the long sequence with the Vet...oh, yeah, [SPOILER ALERT] by the end of the film that one is ABUNDANTLY clear... In fact, at the end of the film, you see that is the fore-shadowing event extraordinaire. The film fizzles out at the end, there is not great A-HA moment!

On a POSITIVE note, I will have to agree that Robert Pattinson's performance was a nice stand-out. He does show an innate ability to act after all. I did enjoy the depth of character 'derrière les yeux' (behind the eyes). He was a joy to watch, and for that saving grace alone the film received the 1 star. In fact, he alone summaries the movie in the best delivered line of the screenplay. "Not everything has to be about something"

I pretty much had the anaemic plot worked out by 25 minutes into the film, only to have the ending produce such an anti-climactic event that I thought to myself "self...you should have left the film 45 minutes ago."