You won't be disappointed!

Blistering performances.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

A man looks to find a way to escape the criminal ways of his outlaw family. Although it does touch a good and touching subject about Family and Parenting 'Trespass Against Us' suffers from a troubled script and an awkward shift of tone threw out the whole thing. For example the movie starts in this awkward way with Fassbender's son driving a car and he basically just sits there laughing about it. Plus the dialogue from both Fassbender and Gleeson is also a big issue since it's kinda over the top sometimes and kinda dumb. The drama also doesn't work at all and it's a waste of both talent and time for both of this 2 great actors. (5/10)

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?

I saw the negative reviews before watching this film and decided that with Gleeson and Fassbender in starring roles, it couldn't be all that bad. Well, it is and then some. In England there are three types of travelling people - the original Rom gypsies (very rare now), Irish travellers who in English are often called "Tinkers" and a third group of basically itinerant criminals called "Pikeys".They travel the highways and byways of merrie England camping illegally on public or private land, terrorising the local population, taking over the nearby pubs and generally causing trouble whilst they carry on with their more traditional pursuits of begging and stealing.Eventually they move on or are moved on leaving piles of rotting garbage (you could clearly see this towards the end of the film) for someone else to clear up. That community is what this film is about.I cannot think of a less edifying subject for a film.Are we supposed to empathise with this group of nomadic miscreants perhaps seeing something noble in their total disregard for law and order and other peoples wellbeing? Are they the modern hunter-gatherers of society turning their backs on a corrupt system and preferring to live a life free from other people's rules like working for a living and paying taxes? I neither know nor care.A totally misconceived and egotistical dog's breakfast of a film giving the audience nothing for their money.Perhaps the director once bought a sprig of heather from a woman in a straw hat and colourful clothing - " It will bring you luck dearie"- and thought it would be a good idea to make a film about these lovely people.The accent which gave people a lot of trouble is what we call in England "West Country" - basically the counties of Devon and Cornwall. A broad west country accent is difficult to understand even for the English so I don't know how they would expect the rest of the world to cope with it- utter stupidity. Incidentally Gleeson's accent was authentic most of the time save for the occasional trip back to Dublin but Fassbender absolutely nailed it. You might say that this is what you would expect from an actor with his talents but for a man from Heidelberg it was a truly remarkable feat.When I started this review I intended to give it a 2 but I have decided to give it 3 because the sun is shining today.

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.