Get off my land review

Get off my land is a short film created and directed by Douglas Ray and star’s Robert Glenister who you may recognise from the con program hustle where he plays one of the main characters. This review will focus on 3 major points for the short film:

The plot

The characters

The realism of it all

The plot is (in my opinion) the most important part of any film if the viewers of a film can’t follow the film, then they cannot understand why the ending, that the film is building up to is worth all the fuss. This film at the start doesn’t seem to have much of a plot where it’s just two people walking into a field out in the country. One of them is played by Rafe Spall and the other is played by Ruth Wilson both of which are not doing much and exchanging very few words, with all this it is clear that the director doesn’t want us to expect much as this is a very mundane opening but this fact doesn’t take away from the film its self because even some Hollywood blockbusters have a boring start.

As the film continues then Robert Glenister enters the film who plays the owner of the land and tells the two people to get off his land as they are no longer on a public foot path, as that is what they are only aloud to walk on through his land. This entrance of a third character creates a problem that needs to be solved which then gets the audience engaged and intrigued on how the problem will develop and be solved.

This is problem is escalated when Rafe Spall says he will fight the farmer of owner for his land because he doesn’t want to leave the path and keep walking, the build and age difference of the two characters means it’s clear that the challenger would win as the farmer is fairly old but without saying a word the farmer walks back to his vehicle and the man goes back to the other person in victory. When the audience thinks that the suspense was anti climatic the farmer brings out a double barrel shotgun and shoots the challenger down. This is when the film which seemed mundane and a waste of time it turns dark and a sudden heart race even though its clear on where the movie is going to continue but that still doesn’t mean you don’t want to see what happens next.

The farmer then kills the other person to leave no possible witnesses and then looks directly into the camera and says “you know what I think this is a public footpath” meaning the problem that caused all of this was a miss understanding and caused the death of two innocent people which on first time of watching this sent a shiver down my spine and I’m sure of many peoples. That is where the film ends on the sad and dark tone but the plot was great with a boring beginning to give that much of a awesome ending when you think it’s going to be a waste of 5 minutes.

There are only 3 characters in the entire film one of them is a man (which literally the name of his character in the ending credits) who is obviously not suited to country life with him wearing trainers down muddy foot paths, struggling to climb over fences and thinking violence is a way to solve a problem instead of just doing what someone said. This character is obviously from the middle of a city and is well educated I can tell he is well educated by after walking off proudly he says “a moral hypocrisy of the land owning upper classes” shows he has had to deal with something like this before which shows means he would of have to lived around rich people and most schools and even some colleges would not teach what some words mean like hypocrisy but he was taught enough to know when he is in the wrong as he threatens a old man who is clearly older and more fragile than him all in the name of getting what he wants then believes that he was in the right until the man pulls a shotgun on him. He as well seems to only start the further argument to protect the honour of his lady friend.

The second character is named woman this character seems to have been raised in the countryside as she climbs over fences no problem and wear’s the correct shoes for what she is doing such as for walking down the path she wear’s boots instead of trainers and she knows when she is in the wrong and would of left if not for the boy causing trouble her character is sensible and not arrogant and would of walked away with her life if the boy didn’t make the problem worse she would of walked away with her life.

The third and the most complex of the characters is the farmer this character is just using his own right and following the law by telling people to get off his land that his family owned which they own which is fair enough and he is also very intelligent as he knew he would not be able to win in a fist fight with the man so he pulls out something that would of been used to fight for land which is guns but he is also quite psychotic in the fact that he talks to people that are not there and he seemed to kill them for no reason other than he challenged me so he must die and he knew those deaths were pointless because he then says that it was a public foot path which he said it wasn’t which sparked the original problem.

Finally the realism of the film is exceptional up until the boy starts talking and wants to get into a fight just so they can keep on walking which in its self is not plausible also the farmer killed two people in cold blood and doesn’t seem to show any remorse unless it is your job to kill and you don’t show any remorse or sadness for what you just did then you are not human. So in short the film is very realistic up until the 3rd quarter of the film.

To sum this all up id recommend this film to most people I know but just remember to bring the tissues and the swear jar cause those two things are going to be used a lot.