MovieChat Forums > Echoes of War (2016) Discussion > Great film.

Great film.

posted 9 years ago by Thrill_KillZ
19 replies | jump to latest

I'm not quite sure what is up with the dozen or so 1 and 2 star reviews currently up, all coming from user accounts created on the date of submission. Smear campaign? Quite the IMDb reversal of the usual shills. I'm left to wonder, did the craft services team's checks bounce?

The film was nearly flawless in it's execution. It's direction, cinematography, casting, sound all excellent with superior acting from all cast members. That being said, if you don't like a slowly laid out, extremely human drama with well rounded characters that evenly builds tension until culminating to a decisive ending, move along, but if you do then you will be very, very pleased.

[–] brokenstar64 9 years ago

Excellent review; opinion based without any obvious bias, and no spoilers. Thank you.

Really looking forward to seeing this.

[–] satansfist 9 years ago

Plus a legendary sex scene at around the 12 minute mark

[–] brokenstar64 9 years ago

"legendary"?... If you say so.

Really enjoyed this film. Beautiful cinematography, well written, solid performances from all the cast.

[–] mothermayhem3255 8 years ago

Your funny,that is what stood out for you? The 12 minute mark sex scene? Jeez,get your brains out of your pants.

[–] brian-royer-286-857305 9 years ago

Great Film??? Were you stoned or something? The only thing it has going for it is that it moves along just fast enough to keep a person from nodding. Otherwise it falls flat on substance and development. At the end there wasn't any real build up to make it exciting. If that wasn't bad enough then watch how the edit guys blow it! They let a clear shot to the right side of chest switch sides in the next few frames. This was supposed to be an important scene so I had to laugh when I saw him laying on his back with his wound now on the opposite side from where he was shot. Oh well at least one person thought it was a great film.......lmao

[–] Thrill_KillZ 9 years ago

I'm going to use your exact words in response:

brian-royer-286-857305 » Sun Sep 14 2014 10:38:13

This was absolutely no hunk of poo! I'm guessing you were looking for a more exciting subject. The acting was absolutely great at capturing a simple honest man making simple honest living. The actors did a perfect job of portraying the drama that goes on in the real life struggles of normal people in the world.

Well said, it's funny how interchangeable posts can be. I took a look at Scrapper a while back and forgot about it, probably for the best since our definitions of a powerful human drama seem to be worlds apart.

[–] brian-royer-286-857305 9 years ago

I watch a lot of films and this one was merely OK. Like I said it was able to keep a person watching til the end but you need to re-watch this one before calling it great. Just check some of the editing and especially the part I commented on at the end. This ranks this film at a 6 or 7 at most. Calling it great is just ridiculous.

[–] Thrill_KillZ 9 years ago

The insane number of 1 star shill reviews I read after watching definitely added some extra praise from me and slightly impacted my vote, nothing gets under my skin worse than fake reviews, this just happened to be a negative campaign and I felt the need to let people know that this film does actually contain quite a few positive attributes and also tell them to expect a slow drawn out drama. The thriller/western tag is a stretch while it does have some decent tension it's miles from a western theme. A great film for me is around a 7.5/10, a good film is about a 6/10, keep in mind I have slightly over 4,000 films(40%) rated at a 5/10 or below so my expectations are pretty low all the time.

[–] imatosser182 9 years ago

I didn't really enjoy it. A war vet comes home and gets most of the cast killed, including himself. It felt pointless I'm afraid 🇺🇸

[–] farfolomew 8 years ago

That is the point, though, isn't it? That's why Seamus was so reluctant to take him in in the first place. He knew Wade was unstable and could bring harm to the family, but he also couldn't turn his back on him and believed he was savable.

I loved the ending. Wade turned into such a cold-hearted killer and he knew himself that he had to die. Seamus finally did what needed to be done.

[–] mothermayhem3255 8 years ago

Please be still.

[–] blubird-1 8 years ago

nah.....don't like your opinion. Its still a good movie, especially for a smaller budget. Better than 80% of the popcorn fluff flooding theaters.

[–] nammage 8 years ago

They're all mainly from Texas, too. Which tells me one of two things: it's a group of friends trolling or it's just one guy trolling under different accounts.

-Nam

I am on the road less traveled...

[–] Jaybone23 8 years ago

I think the especially negative reviews, of 1 or 2 stars, are from people of the ADHD generation who are incapable of sitting for too long without seeing some kind of action. And that action has to be of the type comprised of dozens of quick cuts which actually make if difficult to know what is happening onscreen. It's troubling. It seems there's at least one entire generation out there which can't appreciate a well-crafted story. And this is not to say that "Echoes of War" is a great film. I didn't think it was particularly special, but at least the filmmakers had the guts to slow things down and tell a human story set in a time where history was only on the verge of speeding up to a modern pace.

[–] farfolomew 8 years ago

I agree. I didn't think the story itself was all that great, but it was directed, scripted, edited, and executed well, which made it an enjoyable movie to watch.

I'm finding now that when I'm rating movies, it's about more than just the superficial things like effects, or even plot. It's the whole product. Certainly some elements have far more weight (ie, plot) but you can still have a quality film with the good parts, like soundtrack, making up for avg parts, like unneeded exposition, here and there.

--- MY RATINGS ---
2001,F.Gump,S.Shank,A.Beauty:10 | TDK:6 | Avengers:4

[–] blubird-1 8 years ago

It has a bit of an "Eastwood" theme to it. Surprised at thr lower ratings. People in America in general are becoming more brain-dead and like the fat characters in Walle. Young and old.

[–] Jaybone23 8 years ago

Yeah, I mean, I wasn't blown away by it, but I found it worth my time to watch it. It's a nice, small indie film. But I, too, was a little curious about the lower ratings. I just thought some who saw it were expecting a different film. I never saw the trailer, so I don't know how it was being presented, I just happened upon it on cable while listlessly channel surfing one afternoon. I think you're correct on both points: the film does have an "Eastwood" feel to it, in story and scope, and I also do think the American public doesn't want to be challenged by the films that are being offered to them. Hence, I think, the proliferation of inexpensive horror films and the mega-expensive super-hero franchise films. Thanks to the technology, it's much easier to make "little" films, but they aren't going to be presented in the same ways (like on a big screen in a theater) the same way mainstream films are presented. That may be changing for ALL films, really, but what I mean, I guess, is that those films that focus on story are largely ignored, and I think that's ultimately detrimental to the culture at large.

[–] bostonmaggie 8 years ago

But I wouldn't give it 1 star either.

I'm not from Texas; don't have ADHD and didn't work on the film.

However, I like a little story with my movies. I like a little "Why is this happening" so I can understand character motives. Wade & McCluskey I got. Seamus & Abigail, not so much.

If Seamus didn't want Wade doing anything, then why not explain it to Wade. Cause that fake Bible talk wasn't cutting it with Wade.

And I thought Seamus was a heck of a lot more unstable than Wade.

[–] Wuchak (8101) 6 years ago

I like a little "Why is this happening" so I can understand character motives. Wade & McCluskey I got. Seamus & Abigail, not so much.

Seamus was a peaceable, devout man who believed in helping his fellow neighbor in desperate times. He told Wade that the McCluskey's weren't taking that much in the grand scheme of things and so he didn't mind. If doing this allowed the McCluskeys to survive the post-war years with a sense of pride (i.e. not asking for or taking handouts), he could handle the retarded guy stealing some animals from his traps. Seamus also felt living in peace with his neighbors was more important than risky confrontation.

While the retarded guy stealing from the traps was wrong, the patriarch who put out the traps -- Seamus -- made the decision to allow the McCluskey's to take what they needed and turn a blind eye. As such, everyone would live in peace and make it through those desperate years. He should've explained this better to Wade and kicked him out if he refused to cooperate.

To put things in perspective, if Wade never came back from the war and the situation would've continued as Seamus allowed it, no one would've died and Marcus & Abigail would've eventually gotten married and had grandkids, which would've united the two families.

As for Abigail: What's to understand? She and the McCluskey boy where experiencing teenage love -- first love -- and, besides, Marcus wasn't stealing from the traps and he was thoroughly at odds with his father, although he lacked the oomph to stand up to him because he was still only an inexperienced teen.