UKH

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets

9/10

Not the 6/10 - 6.5/10 that most reviewers are giving it.
If pushed, I'll knock it down to 8.5/10.

It's actually Luc Besson's best film (just displacing the Adele Blanc-Sec adaptation). OK I have not yet seen Le Dernier Combat or The Lady, but compared to all the rest, it's in that top two.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Very good to hear... any more details on why?

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Interested to hear more of your thoughts. I'm going to watch it regardless but was honestly expecting some visually stunning bibble.

In reply to Offwidth:

I can post my dribblingly long (spoiler free) ramblings, since you ask. Usually they fall on deaf ears or just get dislikes! Hang on

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Ok since writing this in the small hours I've read that it WASN'T shot in 3D (not sure about reliability of source) so ignore my comment about "genuine" 3D. Some typos

"
Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets

9/10. Alongside "Les aventures extraordinaires d'Adèle Blanc-Sec", Besson at his best. Actually this may well be his best film yet (which tells us something about the difference between his original screenplays and his adaptations of existing successful work).

Just a very enjoyable and cool film with no pretensions to high art etc. There is so much that is good about it.
A simple yet compelling storyline. A lot of momentum (it is pretty much a "one day" film timeline). Rounded, interesting and likeable characters that warrant audience investment.
Absolutely beautiful visuals. I admit that when I saw the trailers I worried that they were overdoing things but having seen the film now, I'll say that certainly it is bursting with detail but it never overdoes it (not like what I got from the trailers for various Transformers movies). No computer graphic is wasted here. The 3D was genuine and well designed, and I think the deepest 3D I've seen (in fact I think I should have been two rows farther back because row 4, my usual sweet spot, didn't seem to cope with the depth of it).
Despite a couple of lulls in the narrative, it's a pretty tight screenplay in terms of story. Some of the dialogue could have done with being a bit smarter (actually if Tarantino had done some script editing like he did on Crimson Tide, that would have been nice) and I think a little bit more out-and-out humour might have been welcomed.
But aside from that, my only other niggle is some confusion I had about a certain timeline event. So there is no reason for me to knock off more than 1 point. I loved it.

What was really interesting was the tone and the balance of the whole thing. It's not a "kids' film" but at the same time, it's not going to bore or scare kids, and it doesn't go far with the "sex interest" aspects i.e. it doesn't give blatant winks to the adults. At the same time, it should be appealing to the grown-ups for all the right reason.
I mention this only because I see so many animated kids' films that throw in "over the kids' heads" references and innuendos which seem unfair on the kids and arguably a token gesture to keep the parents awake. Valerian treats the whole audience with equal respect, and that's rare in this kind of film.

Some reviews have correctly said that Cara Delevingne is the most spirited in this, and gives the film its heart, and that it's a shame they don't have (her character's name) Laureline in the title as per the source material. Those same reviews incorrectly say that Dane Dehaan is a bit aloof and cold. That's the CHARACTER. He's absolutely fine, if not standout. An interesting choice as the lead for a $200 million film, I must admit. I'm a huge fan of this guy but I don't know if he's an obvious choice for this sort of thing. I've never read the books so maybe somehow he fits Besson's idea of Valerian. Anyway he was fine so I am not complaining.

Global consensus seems to be more like "just under 7/10". Probably being dragged down by people who think it is lazily derivative of loads of stuff (Star Wars being the obvious one) not realising that loads of stuff (Star Wars being the obvious one)
borrowed ideas from the books from the early 70s."

In reply to Offwidth:
All that said , it is a film that would be tricky to defend against people who say it's rubbish, because one person's cheesy crap is another person's campy fun

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Perfect detail cheers. Pretty much 100% sure thanks to that (was pretty certain to go anyway).

Please keep posting detail and stuff the dislikers. As I've said many times, when I analysed them (unlike likes) there was no correlation with quality and really good stuff too often gets smitten. Dislikes are for the children's playground types and for people angry in political arguments and UKC should dump them.

In reply to Offwidth:

Ah I shrug off dislikes 99% of the time but when they are the ONLY response to something you've put effort into, you do notice!
Sorry about previous weeks on the threads, I've been moody. Cheered up now as I have booked a holiday :-D

In reply to Blue Straggler:

How does it compare with Luc Besson's pulp sci-Fi masterpiece The Fifth Element?

In reply to alx:
It is better. In my OP I make reference to Besson's original stories vs his adapted stories. The Fifth Element is based on a story he wrote when he was about 15, which might explain a lot of the cheese and the overriding simpleness of it. And for some people, that's where its strength and charm lies.
Valerian is based on well established successful graphic novels (which I have never read and had never heard of before I learned about this film) i.e. it's not a Besson-created original. And personally I feel this gives it stronger characterisation etc. There's a bit more maturity to it; I can't say more without entering into spoiler realm.
I do like both films but I felt Valerian was superior in many respects.
I did watch The Fifth Element (second or third repeat viewing) only a couple of years ago so I think my comparison isn't skewed by it being a distant memory.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Thanks! I had written it off until I had read this post and will definitely put it on the list to see.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Disclaimer. It is not my fault if you all hate it!

In reply to Blue Straggler:

No need for apologies.. that occasional diva aspect is part of your charm

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I watched this again last night, and it was still wonderful. Confirmed two very minor "plot holes" that don't really detract from a 137 minute narrative.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Just watched Salt and Fire.
Looks good, sounds good but the screenplay was appalling.
Even the normally excellent Michael Shannon could't save it.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

I keep coming close to watching because of Herzog and scenery, but then I always recheck the reviews. Also I am not the Shannon-worshipper that most people seem to be. He's good, but good at pretty much only one thing. However, I will soon be visiting that bit of the world so maybe I should take a look.

Back to Shannon. I liked him in 99 Homes, doing the "Michael Shannon thing". But he's not a selling point on a film. Especially if that film is a Jeff Nichols film

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I was interested when I first heard about the film, but the casting of Cara eyebrows and the inclusion of the detestable (imho of course) rihanna.

Happy to read your positivity regarding Adele Blanc-sec, it's been on my to-watch list for some time.

In reply to nathan79:
Cara was great. I thought her unusual eyebrows helped; whilst very attractive, she's not conventionally gorgeous-sexy which gives credence to her role and avoids being distracting. I was just discussing casting with a friend and one thing that came out was that someone like Haley Bennett, whilst perfectly capable and suitable for a variety of reasons, would not have been as effective. I actually struggled to come up with an alternative to Delevingne. Maybe Valorie Curry.
But it's a Luc Besson film so of course the leading lady must be a former model (see: The Fifth Element, Angel-A, The Extraordinary Adventures of Adele Blanc-Sec, yes I am conveniently ignoring some others )
Rihanna is not in the film for long, but she's effective.

Most people have a bigger issue with the casting of Dane Dehaan.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Only been aware of him since I saw Midnight Special but now working my way backwards through his films.
I didn't realise he had such a following as you say but happy to be numbered amongst them.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Definitely want to see Valerian. Was hoping it would released on IMAX but sadly it seems not so. Probably go for the 4DX 3D version though so far I've not been over-impressed with 4DX films and definitely would prefer IMAX.

So far this month I've just watched Minimalism, a documentary about living with less stuff. Found this pretty interesting. I think climbing makes you realize there's more to life than mindless consumerism but this obviously comes at it from a different angle. While consumerism is often criticised for the harm it does to the planet the view here is about how it bad for the individual, bad for one's well being. Not earth-shattering but a good film nonetheless and potentially quite subversive in a subtle way. 7/10

http://www.theminimalists.com/films/

In reply to stp:

What is 4DX? Is it 3D with rumbling seats? Not being facetious - this is the impression I got from a confusing and overwhelming advert.

Having now seen Valerian in "Real 3D" and in standard 2D, and bearing in mind that apparently it wasn't shot on 3D but a post-production conversion was applied(*), I can say that it is so beautiful that 2D is more than adequate.


* my knowledge is lagging regarding these technologies. On a film like Valerian where so much of it is green-screen with CGI added in (obviously) afterward, I imagine that whether they filmed the live action on 3D cameras or not, is a minor point anyway. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can comment.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Sam Mendes' "Revolutionary Road" brought him to major global attention 9 years ago. He got an Oscar nomination for that, and has not struggled to find work since.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

4DX is a bunch of external effects to add realism, atmosphere etc. to a film. The seats move when the camera pans, you get a bit of rain on you when it rains (not too much). There are strobes at the side of the cinema. The seats can shake and rumble. There are smells. In the alien film you felt some tentacles at your heals when the alien was grappling with someone and when the alien burst out of the guys back you felt some of the body fluids hit you in the face.

From the two films I've seen - War for the Planet of the Apes and Alien Covenant - some of the effects work well and some not so well. I didn't notice any smells except at the beginning of the Alien film and it was more a distraction coz I didn't know what the smell was meant to be. I think it has some potential if well implemented and for the right film. You also get a nice big seat with lots of space around you.

In reply to stp:

Thanks. I wouldn't like that. I like the action to take place on the screen. Directional sound is nice as it doesn't distract my gaze but beyond that, this sounds like a load of 60s gimmicks like those employed by the likes of William Castle, to get people back to the cinemas after television took hold (and I guess there is a similar motivation now, with the rise of affordable huge screens for the home)
I get plenty of space around me as I usually choose to watch box-office poison
Or it's more that my local multiplex is oversized for the local population.

I am off tonight to watch a preview of Kathryn Bigelow's "Detroit". Only people with Cineworld Unlimited cards, who are free tonight and want to watch this film, can go. That is a niche audience! I bet there will be a maximum of six of us there. Thankfully not in 4DX as I don't want to feel like I am under siege in a 1967 race riot (although this being Bigelow, I will probably feel like that anyway)

In reply to stp:

How much extra do you pay for 4DX?

It is very much a moot point for me as I think my local Cineworld isn't equipped for it so I would end up choosing between: walk 8 minutes from my front door and pay nothing or at most a £1.60 supplement for Real 3D; or drive or get the train somewhere for between £6 and £10 in fuel or train fare, and spend bucketloads on a 4DX ticket.
I pay a £4.70 supplement for IMAX and have to travel to Nottingham for that (£8.60 on the train).
I've done this for Gravity, The Force Awakens, Mad Max Fury Road, Point Break (remake), Rogue One and Dunkirk.

In reply to Blue Straggler:


And 70s too. I recall watching Midway in 76 on the Haymarket in sensurround or whatever, with Akagi et al taking hit after sickening hit and the plush crimson chairs vibrating a little. Then there was The Wild Geese a couple of years later at the same place, with a helicopter stuck on the outside of the cinema as if Burton, Moore, Harris and all the rest had just rocked up for the show.

In reply to felt:

Yes, and 1950s too. "60s" was shorthand for "50s, 60s, 70s"

IMAX started in the late 80s but back then it wasn't for feature films in your local flea pit

In reply to stp:

SPOILER ALERT

So, in the scene when the monkey shit hit the back of the guard's neck, you didn't get to smell it?
What a golden opportunity missed.

In reply to Blue Straggler:
Pretty sure I watched Bradford's first IMAX film about space flight and such before my son was born in 1984.
No feature films though.
Just googled it, opened April 83.
Mind blowing (or at least expanding) in its day.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Thanks for the correction. So I should have said
"IMAX started in the early-mid 80s but back then it wasn't for feature films in your local flea pit" :-p

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Precisely.

In reply to Blue Straggler:
Saw it yesterday and one of the few obvious really annoying faults for me now is the implicit dumb sexism in the name of the film. The villains were rather pathetic compared to Fifth Element (but that was sort of an end of the Universe scenario!) and it could maybe have got away with being a tad more comedic and the lead actor choice is odd (but sort of works out in the end) otherwise within its storyline conceit its better as a film in almost every respect.... what a visually stunning rollercoaster it was. Certainly one that is a must to see on the big screen and as obviously a marmite film as any big release I know.

In reply to Offwidth:


" I think a little bit more out-and-out humour might have been welcomed. "

:-D

Yes, why they didn't include Laureline's name in the title is a bit confusing BUT I'll guess that they were hoping for a franchise and thought that calling it "Valerian and Laureline" might make it sound like a standalone film OR a buddy movie OR an out-and-out romance.

A lot of thought goes into how to title films in order to give them legacy and to not send out a confusing message.

"Lawless"(*) was an adaptation of a novel called "The Wettest County in the World". They changed the title solely for fear of mischief-makers playing around with the "o" and "y" in the third word of that title

* coincidentally the film in which I first saw Dane Dehaan - and he was by far the best thing about it, no mean feat considering who is in that film. Don't blame the actors, blame the writing and direction.

In reply to Offwidth:


Indeed. Again, see my point about franchising. The Valerian film struck me as "just another episodic adventure in Valerian and Laureline's lives and careers". It's not an origin story and it's not an "ultimate final save the universe" story. In that respect, it's like the great 2012 film of "Dredd", which everyone I know was impressed with but which did not make enough money to spawn a franchis, funnily enough! OK, Dredd is arguably Judge Anderson's origin story but in terms of the titular character, it is "just another day in the life of..." and again the villain in that one is not about to destroy the world....

In reply to Blue Straggler:

If the leads are a pair on equal standing, I still think both names should normally be in or neither. We certainly wouldn't want people thinking this film was a romance now would we.

I'm not blaming Dehan on that casting point, I thought his acting was good and I'm glad he did it in a similar way to Kyle MacLachan as Paul Atreidies that seemed unlikely to some. He still had a hard 'sell' to make (to be compelling to the viewing public as the go-to experienced intergalactic agent) in Hollywood terms (to maximise profit). This is in contrast with say the Spiderman franchises where they had the benefit of a ready made plot excuse. We are of course used to young female models in such roles, thanks to a different sort of sexism (Besson has done his bit there over the years).

I'm with you on Dredd 2012 ... a bit mystified as to why it didn't do better but that's how cult films are formed.

In reply to Offwidth:

Surely you're not implying that Luc Besson has regularly featured young actresses with a history in modelling? There's only been Milla before. Oh and Rie Rasmussen. Oh yeah and Louise Bourgoin too. Ahem


What do you think of the idea of Domnhall Gleeson as Valerian?

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I think August needs a new thread as this seems to have become a Valerian thread!

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I think the price was around the same or slightly cheaper than IMAX. I don't think I'd bother with the extra travel and cost for it though. Expensive but there are far fewer seats in the theatre so I guess price is understandable.

I saw Gravity on IMAX and very glad I did. Great film and particularly well suited to the giant screen and 3D I thought.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Yeah definitely a missed opportunity.

In reply to stp:

In my limited experience, Gravity is the best use so far of the IMAX/ 3D combination.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Ok.
Just watched Blood Father on Sky.
Definitely not a Mel Gibson fan but it's a decent film.

In cinema:


Kathryn Bigelow's "Detroit", still pondering marks out of ten on this one but it was good, a hard and intense viewing experience in line with The Hurt Locker and better than Zero Dark Thirty (I know it's daft to compare these quite different films just because they are from the same director). Slightly grainy muddy shaky cinematography works excellently here to put the viewer right in the situation (an isolated incident in a motel during the Detroit race/class riots in the summer of 1967). Superb performances all round; Will Poulter as a somewhat loose cannon policeman gives one of the most terrifying on screen performances I've seen since Robert Duvall in The Apostle and Patrick McGoohan in Hell Drivers. He makes Rod Steiger in In The Heat of the Night, and R Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket, look like Mary Poppins . This film will make you flinch and wince. It IS rather long though.

Atomic Blonde. Like Baby Driver, I kind of expected this to be more FUN (and funny) than it was. It came across as being uncertain of what it was going for. Maybe it's my expectations that were wrong but I expected a bit of tongue-in-cheek pastiche on top of the fairly standard and pedestrian "spy thriller" plot. The 1989 retro stylings were a delight as were the costumes and cars and the SOUNDTRACK. But I was just disappointed that it played so straight. Final act twists do NOT make your film suddenly more modern.
Where it does excel is in the performances and the action. If you've seen the trailers then you know what to expect. One set-piece is pretty much given away in the trailer but all the more enjoyable in context; then another more brutal one comes later. And where this differs from a real 80s film is in showing the brutality of one-on-one combat. Aside from Theron being your stereotypical indestructible indomitable heroine, you do see her taking some real punishment (fairly bold film-making, in a way - very risky to show huge hulking men smacking around a woman half their size, but as she gives as good as she gets, it never seems too prurient or misogynistic - although as a man, how can I comment on misogyny?). James McAvoy really steals the film though, in the more complex role (Theron's character comes - deliberately - with no backstory etc). Worth a look for the action and cinematography/art direction but don't expect originality or a compelling storyline

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Also watched The Salvation on DVD, I think someone on here (probably Tom V) mentioned it a while back.

Gnarly stuff! Mostly very good although the nihilistic vengeance motive (as evidenced by an ending - not the action climax but the very end) that somewhat disappointed. Certainly a different approach to an old Western trope, but at times it seemed like it was bending over backwards to not be aping Once Upon A Time in the West TOO much (a tip to the film makers - avoid such comparisons by not instructing the composer to "make it a bit Morricone"). Compelling performances as always from Mads Mikkelsen, Eva Green (in this film famously mute) and Jeffrey Dean Morgan. Interesting cinematography, there was a real modern digital look to it which seemed weirdly just right, and some of the fairly obvious studio shots also weirdly seemed just right. I liked it well enough and it only cost me £1.

In reply to Blue Straggler:


I dunno, for me you have to go a long way to beat Tom Hardy shuffling around in a cardigan

In reply to nufkin:




Or Mia Wasikowska not needing to act when shooing Shia LaBeouf away for being a stalking creep

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Have you cone across the other Mikkelsen brother?
He's on a C4 Eurocop thing at the moment and has a fantastic accent, which he puts down to learning his English from Monty Python sketches.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Same as I would for anyone ... depends on how well he played the part (or was allowed to, given the direction and editing).

Anyway watched another really good documentary last night: Citizen Jane: Battle for the City https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/citizen_jane_battle_for_the_city/ detailing the human resistance to ideological (and very profitable) city planning in post war New York and elsewhere.

Also saw The Battle of the Five Armies this week and decline to recommend it as much above average, except for CGI and some of the actors doing well with poor material and heavy make up (speaking as someone who thought the Directors Cut of The Return of the King was glorious, despite some obvious flaws).

In reply to Offwidth:

Another fabulous gem from last night: A Seperation: a tragic series of family consequencies arising from a husbands loyalty to his father (requiring care from advanced altzheimers) leading to a planned divorce. Filmed and set in Iran. Nearly everyone seems to like this!

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_separation_2011/

In reply to Offwidth:

Re-watched Black Hawk Down.... still a big wow second time around! I just don't get the critics who see this as pro war... there arguments could apply to almost any realistic protrayal of such incidents. I'm not convinced more focus on the other side would help either (warlord led militias in such chaos probably don't have much sensibly worth exploring ....unlike say the excellent pair of movies Eastwood made about Iwo Jima) but maybe it could have dealt a bit better with the general population caught in the mess of a hellish civil war. Also, didn't realise Tom Hardy and Orlando Bloom were in this first time I saw it.

In reply to Offwidth:


Plus Renton and Spud, and thingy Malfoy from Harry Potter. Also I think Jamie Lannister, though I might have to check that on IMDB. I've spotted someone new almost every time I've watched it.


Nor me - on balance I think it just tries to show what it was like to be there (perhaps with a little artistic licence) and avoids making overt judgements either way. Presumably made particularly tricky by showing the (relatively recent, at time of release) deaths of actual people who'd have family to avoid upsetting unecessarily

In reply to Blue Straggler:


At the end of the film my 8 year old son wanted to stay till the end of the credits in case there was an extra scene. I thought he thought it was a Marvel film. When I told him it wasn't he told me he knew that but it didn't feel like the end and it seemed like there would be another film...

In reply to Offwidth:


I compared Dunkirk (2017) to Black Hawk Down in terms of "very little commentary on the politics of the situation, just a portrayal of what it's actually like to be on the ground", but I have not seen Black Hawk Down for over 15 years. Have you seen Dunkirk (2017) and was my comparison fair/accurate?

In reply to Blue Straggler:

The Big Sick. Current-release film being incorrectly pegged as a rom-com. There is romance and comedy for sure, but also some drama and insight. Maybe a Rom-dram-com?!

Superb film. It is a version of the real lives of the co-writers (and one of the stars). A Pakistani with a traditional family who moved to Chicago when he was 14 but who all stick to Pakistani traditions, apart from our protagonist who likes to live like an American, only pretends to pray, and is totally uninterested in being entered into an arranged marriage.
Meets and falls in love with a white American woman. Comedic drama ensues.

Brilliantly written and it juggles the romance, the drama and comedy very deftly - really well balanced in tone unlike a lot of things I've seen lately.

Also unlike a lot of things I've seen lately, it offers us likeable and charming leads that we care about (I suppose it helps when a film is autobiographical). What's odd is that if I were really harsh, I would say "well why SHOULD I root for these two, she's a privileged upper-middle-class floozy and he's a failing comedian and minicab driver, they are not out saving the world etc" but actually that's part of the charm, they are just real and quite believable.

9/10

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Not seen Dunkirk yet and might not get to see cinema showings first time round.

Last night watched Le Weekend: smart 'marmite' but I enjoyed it despite having a creepy familiarity from knowing too many old academics in a spot of bother.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/le_week_end

In reply to Offwidth:

Is Lindsay Duncan being taken off the subs bench and put into play as some sort of "next B-list version of Helen Mirren"? She popped up in that maths film that I really liked, "Gifted", and was quite superb and chilling in it.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Le Havre is my latest recommendation. Weirdly deadpan and feels completely out of its time but totally charming.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/le_havre_2011

In reply to Blue Straggler:

As it is going on national release this Friday, I want to highlight Kathryn Bigelow's "Detroit" again (my review didn't garner any response, fair enough given that most people were unable to see it)

I saw it the Tuesday before the Charlottesville incidents, which made the news of Charlottesville rather eerie.
For people watching Detroit post-Charlottesville, the film might seem eerie.

I initally pondered whether Detroit the film was THAT good but as it happens, they seem to have retooled the trailer since I saw the film, and I've seen that trailer a few times (having been back to the cinema a few times), and in the wake of actually having seen the film, the retooled trailer is working to remind me that the film really is bloody good. Apart from the length, you almost can't go wrong - even if the story is a bit much (or a bit too little), the acting alone is worth it. I'll go with an 8.5/10 on this one.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

The Hitman's Bodyguard. Passable (6/10) for passing the time if you need to, but what a muddle. Feels like it was written as a straight action thriller and somewhere along the line someone said "inject some comedy" but they didn't really inject enough, leaving the film confused in tone. What the bad guy is up to, is not at all comedic. But hey, stick Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L Jackson together in a mismatched buddy caper not a million miles from Midnight Run, and it's "OK". Just a shame that some aspects (notably a dialogue about whether assassinating probably-bad-guys is better or worse than protecting probably-bad-guys) were undeveloped.

Salma Hayek alone drops this film a whole point. She's awful, her character is awful, badly written and really unnecessary.
Elodie Yung was good playing it so straight that you wonder if she was working from my theorised original non-comedic script.
It's not really that much of an action film, there are some "action set pieces" but it's standard stuff and the back-projection and/or CGI on certain chase scenes featuring Mr Jackson, are laughable (ditto Reynold's big heroic scene being performed by a stuntman wearing a blacked out motorbike helmet - if this was a nod to Never Say Never Again, then it was TOO subtle - I spotted that it potentially could have been that, but there was no context for spoofing ageing Connery)

In reply to Blue Straggler:

The Rise... better than average UK crime/revenge caper with some quality support actor backing making up for a rather low key lead performance.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1981140/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Not entirely sure about this one but I'll give it a mention for originality... Chicken (2015). Strange tale of a teen with learning difficulties looked after by an emotionally troubled older brother in a caravan on an abandoned farm and what happens when someone buys the farm.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2420876/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Two compelling docudrama travel tales in the face of ridiculous adversity.... well worth a watch even though the films don't quite match drama of the stories:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/kon_tiki_2012/

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_way_back/

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Dunkirk - f*cking hell!

War for the Planet of the Apes - good CGI, less enjoyable than the other three.