mail-4017

I have never seen such beautiful cinematography so utterly wasted. The first couple of minutes were sort of WOW, but with an edge of when is this thing going to actually start and after 20 minutes of the same it just got more and more annoying.

It's a pity but I really think this film will be used as an example in film school about how it is is possible to get the visuals stunning but bore and annoy your audience with lack of narrative.

After 20 minutes I started to feel insulted, what the hell does a Tibetan monk have to do with some skiers, one of the first lines in the film was "dude that looks gnarly' ...Oh please....

Please no more so mo CGI shots of eagles...I actually stopped watching after 30 minutes, I would have preferred half the production values and double the human interest and narrative.

The cinematography at times verged on acceptable but the acting never even approached this level, not even close. I found it hard to empathise with any of the characters because I couldn't suspend the belief in the acting. It's hard to know if the writer, director or actors are to blame as one of the constant annoyances was a guaranteed WWII cliché of dialogue every minute or so that simply grated.

The accents were simply laughable and removed any sense of authenticity. As some of the other reviews have noted, the background sound design is obviously looped and this gets boring quickly.

The CGI was also basic, which in some cases can be charming, in this case however it just looked cheap.

I didn't finish watching this movie, I wouldn't recommend you start.

Twentynine palms captures the atmosphere of the high desert, I am English and I have been to the area, I found it to be very powerful and raw, the desert isn't something that exists in England and the sense of overwhelming space with no consequence is captured brilliantly in this film.

I would describe this as a photographer's film as there is very little camera movement, lots of action takes place in a mundane way in what is essentially a still image, these 'stills' are not especially beautifully composed or crafted but just real, the lack of camera movement and long lingering still shots add a sense of space and the mundane to the film.

The plot is inconsequential to the atmosphere and essentially it is the place and setting with the sense of isolation that brings out the primal urges from our main characters weather they be sexual or violent.

This is not classical entertainment but a brilliant art house movie, the only improvements for me would have been aesthetic, the movie could have been more crafted and still kept the atmosphere.

I am stuck for words as to how bad this movie is.

The actors could teach trees to be wooden, plot had more holes than swiss cheese and 'Victoria's' accent!?!?! I can't believe she has even been to America the way speaks.

I quite enjoy a good B movie, however, this was supposed to be a high gloss Sci Fi as the irony was missing, the casting agent, directors and production should perform ritual suicide for letting this get finished with their names attached.

It staggers belief to think that while filming this movie, anyone could have been happy with the day's work.

Cashback is the only film that I have seen that has moved me to comment on here. I found it to have the perfect combination of absolute beauty, both in concept and visual execution, and total lack of pretension.

Sean Ellis shows an incredible talent for the ability to deliver a film that is essentially a romantic comedy, something I would usually avoid with as much passion as this film delivered, but that moved me to the core with its beauty, both in the cinematography and the main character's development.

It would be so easy for Ellis to have made a film of such great beauty and style that was artistic, stylish and maybe unattainable, the fact that he has made a movie that is both perfectly art house and universally watchable is a credit to his talent and maturity. I eagerly await anything else he might turn his hand to.