Blood, Sand and Gold (2018) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
12 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
VIEWS ON FILM review of Blood, Sand and Gold
burlesonjesse513 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Blood, Sand and Gold is my latest review. What, no sweat and tears? Anyway, "Sand" doesn't have a MPAA rating but I'll go with a standard R. There are a few F-words, a cold-blooded murder involving a tied up escort, and a couple of other nasty kills. Just think of Blood, Sand and Gold as Raiders of the Lost Ark meets National Treasure. Now take away any excitement or verve that those movies hastily possessed.

Blood, Sand and Gold is your typical, slick Redbox endeavor. It has lots of glossy locations (Canary Islands, Dubai, Belgium, and Hong Kong to name a few), a no-name cast, a familiar movie poster (similar to Extraction, Arsenal, or Sicario), and a rookie director in 27-year- old Gaelan Connell. Released only in New York City, "Sand" is a globetrotting affair that feels surprisingly grounded. It obviously has a budget but I doubt it will break even on said budget.

With its minimal images of wealthy relics and its lack of insightful treasure speak, Blood, Sand and Gold still comes off like the cinematic poster child for modern day archaeology. It stars Monica West and Aaron Costa Ganis. West looks like a cross between Judy Greer and Tilda Swinton. Sadly, Ganis looks like the B-list version of Gerard Butler. Together, Ganis and West's characters (Jack Riordan and Mave Adams) travel the globe in search of priceless, 15th century artifacts needed for a salvage company. On their journey, they involve themselves in deeper territory as conspiracies about stolen treasures begin to surface.

In regards to the overall effect of Blood, Sand and Gold, watch for middling acting, ludicrous shootout sequences, and laughable fistfights that seem to be forced and used just for filler (that way "Sand" can safely say it's an action film). There's a car chase where a woman who's never shot a gun before, kills about three bad guys without missing once. There's also a scene in which an elderly dame (maybe in her 70's) turns all antagonistic and fires an AK-47. Finally, you have a romantic subplot between Riordan and Adams that lasts for about five minutes. It involves the French language and conversations about screwing on a table. Gag me.

As for the look of Blood, Sand and Gold, well it's not half bad. Cinematographer Chloe H. Walker provides mountainous landscapes, shots of gleaming deserts, and twinkling city skylines. However, the performances in "Sand" are so lackluster (the troupers either overact or seem wooden) that Walker's keen eye just becomes prepossessing, empty background. What a shame.

In conclusion, Blood, Sand and Gold is filmmaking water mold. Gaelan Connell's direction on it lacks a sense of coherent locality. The actors go from country to country and with each frame, "Sand" feels like its solely edited on the fly (that can't be good). All in all, it's best to just skip Blood, Sand and Gold unless it's the last movie left on Earth. Then, you should only see it once. Rating: 1 and a half stars.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Masked Dialogue? = Total Miss. Possible Spoilers
kinofan124 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Within the first few minutes, I "heard" trouble. Yes, those films that have either poor dialogue sound quality that they they attempt to smother with loud music / Foley, or the composer pushed to have the score loud for ego sake. Either way, if I have to strain to hear the dialogue, it's a fail. Had they invested in ADR in lieu of extraneous locations, so they could drop the music with confidence when characters were talking.

Speaking of locations, the story seemed to be outdoing a 007 film, but for no necessary reason. Perhaps it was the attempt to make a small budget movie look huge, but every element of the story must have a reason for being there. I found the reasons to be on the weak side.

The acting was okay, but some over-the-top action made me smile instead of gasp. Lack of setups for payoff left story elements implausible. The rooftop chases (funny how both actors knew the "landscape" so well, but only one lived there, and the actress was uncannily able to follow them from a street perspective for what appeared to be many blocks, without ever being able to see them). Her sudden ability to be a sure shot in another scene with no setup and other unbelievable incidences rendered the story, for me, well, unbelievable. Anyone else notice that her white shirt never showed a single bit of dust, even in the desert.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
not bad
vriddheeg10 March 2017
The movie starts surprisingly well. The locations they have shot at are gorgeous, but the dialogue delivery is bad, none of the actors can act, and despite the film being a good one time watch, the climax is predictable.
18 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Hand-held and shaky, combined with some terrible acting
Reem75061812 April 2017
Even though I really wanted this movie to be my cup of tea, which it could have been if they would have used a tripod and would have taken the time to do a bit of decent casting, it turned out to be everything but that. I'm not saying all actors are bad in this movie, but there are quite a few cringe worthy moments. There's a Dutch speaking guy that can't even manage to get the grammar right. Shaky cam -at times- is so bad, that even slowly walking people are (partially) out of the frame. Drunk filming might be fun to do, but the result is no fun to watch. To be fair, the sound is okay though. It feels like most of the budget was spent on sound and music.

All in all I can't say that I enjoyed this film and I cannot agree with those who claim it's 'the future of action movies'. And if it turns out to be just that, it's a sad future indeed.

I didn't make it to the end, so maybe there's some great stuff that I've missed, but that's a chance I'm willing to take..
11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Low Budget, But Surprising Well Put together.......
kungfuogre10 March 2017
Well I Watched this movie, Just About 10 Mins Ago, I finished. And You Can Tell That They Had to work within a limited Budget. But The Scenes Were Really well Shot, As well As Clever Use of High Definition Camera Drones. And The Actors Really Gave it there All. The Villain Was Particularly Well Do(though A bit Cliché' lol)
9 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Just Awful
mattm-4621 June 2022
I think the most expensive part of this film had to be the travel and catering because if these actors got paid for this terrible movie they should give the money back. Don't waste your time. I've see fan films with better acting.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Amazing with the Budget!
Med200112 March 2017
I have never written a review before but felt I had to this time. Saw this advertised online then read the review by GearPatrol.com on IMDb...for the money ($274k) the result is amazing. Mr Connell has made the genre of film he wants and should be more than pleased with the result. Most low budget indies are about character and story but this shows that the genre can be bigger than that. This reminds me of what Gareth Evans did with 'The Raid' but for less. Yes..the acting may not be the best (but far better than most of us could ever do, believe me) but he has made a small, independent movie that so surpasses expectations that I cannot believe. His vision far out ways his budget and the major producers/studios must surely want to see what he does with a larger budget. And no, I am not related to anybody connected to the director, producers, investor or anybody else. I just love film of all genres and was really amazed with what I just saw...sometimes you just want to be entertained. Watch and enjoy.
10 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good Small Budget Action
Dark_Lord_Mark14 March 2017
Nothing much to say. Shame IMDb killed the message boards and we cannot has discussions on why this movie is good beyond reviews.

It's a good movie that is small budget. A prisoner gets hired to search for gold by a very beautiful woman. Things unravel and the adventure begins. There are a few twists and some nice action. I found it a bit long.

Movie is a 7 out of 10. Recommended to kill some time. I did again find it a bit to long.

This has action, adventure and is a good watch.

Shame IMDb killed ideas.
6 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Future of Action Movies!
bikefood15 March 2017
Do yourself a favor and buy this movie right now. Not only is it a ton of fun to watch, but it's also the future of movie making. For less than $275k, director Gaelan Connell has made a epic action movie that gives most any Hollywood blockbuster a run for it's money. Sure, the script has a few cheesy lines, (it is an action movie after all), and none of the actors (all relatively unknowns) deliver a performance quite as memorable as, say, Heath Ledger did as the Joker. But this movie was shot for a fraction of the budget of any Hollywood blockbuster and is honestly almost as good. The Dark Knight cost $180 million to make. Blood, Sand, and Gold literally cost 0.1% percent of that to make. Not one percent. POINT one percent! And here is the crazy thing: You really wouldn't know it was made for so little by watching it. The action sequences are top notch, the locations are exotic, and the pacing is superb. There are car chases, foot pursuits, exploding trucks, helicopters, grenade launchers, machine guns, luxury cars, and a seriously big tiger! Part of what makes the movie so exciting is that Mr. Connell and his crew didn't rely on special effects during any of the movie's many action scenes. When one of the bad guys gets chased straight off the roof of a building, the stunt guy really does go crashing into the hood of the car parked below. Metal bends, the windshield shatters, and you completely forget that you are just watching a movie. When the fuel tank on an SUV ruptures after a car chase in the desert, you watch as it actually blows up! There is no CGI or digital touch up, just one massive fireball as the SUV explodes into gnarl of twisted char. It is gritty and real and absolutely exhilarating to watch.

If I were a Hollywood producer I would be terrified of Gaelan Connell. With Blood, Sand, and Gold, he just proved that with enough raw talent and ambition you can make a full-length, blockbuster quality action movie for about the same amount of money that Christopher Nolan spent on just 30 seconds of the Dark Knight. This is the future of film making!
9 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
How do you say that in French?
nogodnomasters23 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
After finding a chest of the missing treasure of Sir Francis Drake in the Western Sahara desert, the company turns on Mave Adams (Monica West) and leaves her for near dead in the desert. The film then flashes 4 years...which is not 4 years later, but the length of time Jack Riordan (Aaron Costa Ganis) has spent in a Belgium prison for illegal archaeological digging. I had trouble with both of those details, but continued. It seems Mave's brother Matthew (Christopher Redman) of Adam's Exploration has taken over the company as CEO and has bumped her out. Mave hires Jack to help her recover the treasure stolen from her in the desert (we saw that coming) for most of the rest of the feature minus a few details.

This is similar to your Indian Jones type of films except in modern times. Aaron Costa Ganis is no Harrison Ford and as such his character was a let down. Monica West failed to give her character the needed personality and I don't know what she is doing in the desert with her skin that pale. The film lacked engaging dialogue and quality actors.

It has been speculated some of Drake's treasure may be buried in Marion, California. I could have bought into that. Western Sahara is a bit far fetched. The ending leads into a sequel for our twosome treasure hunters which is in production.

Guide: F-word, implied sex, brief nudity (Shuna Iijima)
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Greate movie, talent and history
JunjoVFX7 January 2018
Without a doubt, it is not a blockbuster movie, but it has managed to create a quality film with low resources, good talent and experience. A great achievement for the beginning of several new film agency in the world with great stories.
4 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
It's just entertaining and you will enjoy it
boydapeters18 March 2018
I rated 10 to balance the rotten downvoting. This film is really basic and delivers on its objective. To entertain and leave viewers happier after than when they started. On a budget smaller than my last entertainment allowance this guy made a film with global locations, reasonable acting and a compelling storyline where you the protagonists are identifiable and not off putting. Basically he ticked the boxes. He also showed hollywood that script matters, not big name actors. I read he cut corners by buying the actors a round the world ticket and crowd-funding props like classy cars and locations and actors doing on the cheap for the gig all on tourist visa's. Something like $300k to do the whole film which if you watch you won't believe is possible but they did it. The director is 24, and he made the entire film for $276,000, and shot it in 4K film in 8 weeks on 3 continents - absolutely amazing. This is not a top line blockbuster sop don't expect that. But it is entertaining and will be 10 x more enjoyable to watch than half the rubbish you will see this year. And this guy has shown plenty of producers what he can do on not even a shoestring. Quite frankly Hollywood should be worried how badly they have been exposed. As for the film no point to review it itself, its a good 6.5/10 and does its job. Watch the trailer that's what you you get. I don't re'watch films often but I'd be prepared to watch this again if it were on.
4 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed