The novel is a serious satire (if that's not a contradiction in terms) on Australian politics.
The producers just took the idea of giant killer rabbits and chucked out the remaining 98% of the book.
"I've made over 100 films, sir. How many have you made?"
"One GOOD one."
was called year of the angry rabbit i think
the film does say whats its based on
Based on a novel? More likely this movie was based on an LSD hallucination.
All the universe . . . or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?
"The Year of the Angry Rabbit is a science fiction novel by Australian author, Russell Braddon, in which giant mutant rabbits run amok in Australia while the Prime Minister uses a new superweapon to dominate the planet.
"Much more than just a sci-fi novel about giant rabbits, it is a savagely humorous indictment of War, Nationalism and Capitalism . The novel was notable as being part of a small revival of Australian science fiction in the sixties but its theme seemed clichéd by then. Nevertheless, its comic-horror tone was well received and it was filmed as Night of the Lepus - a famously risible monster movie..."
(more) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Year_of_the_Angry_Rabbit
I have read Year of the Angry Rabbit, many years ago now. It is satire and comedy, unlike the movie. The film is deadly serious, which is its major mistake. Killer rabbits have to be a joke!
shareWho knows why they thought it would work as a straight horror movie. It doesn't look as if they were going for satire then changed their minds along the way. it looks as if they set out to shoot for a flat-out "monster movie". If it was meant as "camp", it failed there, too.
I suppose the Killer Rabbit from Monty Python and The Holy Grail (1975) is as close as we'll get to the original story you mention.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg
Thanks for the post, Royalcourtier.
"Please use elevator, stairs stuck between floors."
The novel really is a lot of fun, and a pleasingly witty satire, though definitely a product of its time (in terms of the geopolitics, in particular).
I have friends who were trying to get the rights to make a film version of the actual plot of the novel (in which the Giant Killer Rabbits were only a relatively small part), but discovered that this movie had locked up the rights permanently. Seems a pity. Needless to say, Braddon wasn't exactly thrilled by what happened to his novel.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
How often it has been said, "The book was better", and I won't doubt it. Certainly the producers of Night of the Lepus must have thought it would be a genuine thriller after reading the source material.
And just as often, the story just doesn't translate to the Big Screen. But, apparently those friend of yours that you speak of not only see the potential but have figured a way of making it work. I wish them well.
Using live bunnies was cost effective but not a good idea. I am thinking of that other low-budget gem that always gets the raspberries, The Killer Shrews (1959). They used dogs but dressed them up in those bizarre costumes and a pretty effective "hero" puppet (yes, when I saw this movie in the early 60's and still a young boy, I thought the creepiest and most memorable scenes were those involving that close-up shrew).
No matter what, in Night of the Lepus all we could think of was cute bunnies running around while being terrified through miniature movie sets.
I've not read The Year of the Angry Rabbit but if I should locate a copy and find the time to read it, I'll look for what your friends and the makers of Night... saw in it.
Thank you for posting, puit-a-beul.
"Please use elevator, stairs stuck between floors."