9. The Rover

June 26th in Chicago: A lot of the 8 films I've seen so far are big "Hollywood" films. There are some exceptions but I needed to see more smaller independent films (that doesn't always mean they're better btw). This has a running time of 105 minutes and stars Guy Pierce (who was brilliant in The Proposition, if you haven't seen it then do so), who's excellent in Australian films but it also stars Robert Pattinson, whom I don't think is all that talented but this looked to be a departure from the role of brooding vampire Edward that made him famous. The film is directed by David Michôd, whom I've never heard of but he's pretty acclaimed in Australia. I took a chance.

Let me start off by saying this; the film is brutally violent, dirty and whatever else comes to mind in a dystopian setting. The characters are not pretty. They sweat, bleed and DO NOT maintain their freshness. The film takes place 10 years after the "collapse." The film doesn't mention what the "collapse" is but society is a little more lawless and Australian currency isn't much good in the Outback, American cash is. It's not post-apocalyptic but let's just say thing are bleak (though in the Outback I doubt they were much different before the "collapse"). It almost looks as if this world would be a foreshadowing of the things to come in The Road Warrior.

 The film opens with Guy Pierce pulling into a roadside bar (remember things are bleak out here). As he enjoys a beverage, a car hurdles out of control by the window. The three occupants are apparently getting away after a commission of a crime, one man is bleeding from a gun shot wound and they have left a man behind (the brother of the wounded dude, who is Pattinson). Their vehicle gets stuck and being pressed for time, they opt to take Pierce's wheels. This act does not sit well with Pierce who manages to free the getaway car and gives chase. Pierce manages to force a standoff with the crew but finds himself on the losing end and is temporarily stranded. He gets going again but is at a big disadvantage but he's determined to get his car back (if these guys had killed Pierce like they threatened, the film ends here, so their mercy is a huge plot line).

Pierce rolls into the next "town" to look for some information. He meets some weirdos, kills a dude while purchasing a firearm and runs into Pattinson. Pattinson was left for dead but he was apparently just "mostly dead," which as a we all know is "slightly alive." Pierce needs information so he finds a doctor to patch him up. I would think that it would be very difficult to find quality health care in the Outback under prosperous circumstances but in this setting, not so much. The doctor patches up Pattinson but in the morning, the friends of the gentleman Pierce shot are looking for revenge. After an exchange of bullets, Pierce & Pattinson hightail it out of there to continue the search for Pierce's car. Pattinson knows his brother's location and they have a small window of time to get there.

When Pierce and Pattinson meet up with the crew, Pattinson is a little put off by the fact his brother left him behind. Needless to say the plan doesn't go very well and a lot of blood is spilled. Pierce gets his car and drives off. Why was the car so important? Because Pierce's dog was in the back and he was going to give it a decent burial.

Here's the thing with this film; there's not a whole lot of dialogue. Which means there isn't much of a back story. Why is Pierce so determined to get his car back? He tells a soldier that he killed his wife and her lover and he expected to be taken into custody. No one came. No one cared. That coupled with the collapse, hardened him and made him bitter. Pattinson's character is the younger brother and worships his brother but being left behind puts a bad taste in his mouth. He takes a liking to Pierce probably because he's unrelenting and dispenses cold, unforgiving and thought provoking advice. Pattinson even rescues Pierce after Pierce is taken into custody. In return, Pierce feels sorry for Pattinson and kind of takes him under his wing, reluctantly of course.

This was an interesting no frills film. It reminded me of a late 60's/early 70's spaghetti western. The main difference is in those films, the title usually gave you a sense of what was going to happen (in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly you knew there was going to be something that was going to be good, bad and ugly). What the hell is a rover? That's all good as this looked to be a small budget film so the story is not going to be too elaborate. The only thing that bothered me was why Pattinson played an American. He and his brother were probably from Texas of somewhere. For some reason Pattinson decided to play his character like Karl Childers. What two brothers from the American Southwest were doing in Australia (the Outback no less) is anyone's guess. So if anything, Pattinson's performance annoyed me but that's it. This type of film is not for everyone but it was a good film. To be honest, I am now going to make an effort to check out some of Michod's past work. Thank you for your time.