This movie was so boaring i wanted to walk out, but stayed because so many people gave it a high rating here.
Please think twice before seeing this movie. The entire story is revealed in the summary here in the plot description beyond that there's not much in the way of a climax, or resolution beyond the obvious that is.
VERY disapointed!
[deleted]
Sorry ving tsun, this movie was not about pigs (not a boar in sight) and I found it far from boring...
Seriously, this is a good movie, where the audience is asked to use a little imagination - something which a lot of American movies fail to do - with the T's all crossed and the I's all dotted.
Go and see it, it's a rewarding experience - 8 1/2 out of 10 from me.
While there weren't any boars in sight, there certainly were dried dog carcasses hanging from a tree. What WAS that about, or is that the level of imagination we are supposed to apply to this dud? It was a shocker. Like Ving, I didn't walk out (I make it a rule not to do so), but there certainly were about four or five of my fellow sufferers who did. Lawrence is either paying homage to Peter Weir's Picnic at Hanging Rock (a polite interpretation of his purpose), or (more likely) he's trying terribly hard to be profound, but with a script that is a dog's breakfast (perhaps THAT was the advertent/inadvertent reference to the 'Christmas tree' of dogs??). Imagination is a tricky thing to invoke as a way of saying 'the picture's great, if only the viewer looks more deeply for the director's meaning'. I once went to another Aussie film at the Sydney Film Festival. In that one, everything's great until the main character inexplicably develops gills and swims away. The director, who was present for questions afterwards, was asked: 'why does he turn into a fish?' (virtually everyone in the audience and I were asking ourselves that question). She responded: 'because I was sitting writing the script, feeling very bored and frustrated with it, and so decided "why not turn him into a fish?"'. There are directors who can be cleverly cryptic(Kieslowski, for example), and then there are those who are just plain irritating, because they seem to be pursuing self-indulgence rather than profound communication. I felt the same impatience with Lantana (incidentally, am I the only person who was forced to wonder how a NSW detective could come to be in a fine Italian suit such as the one LaPaglia wore in that film?), but at least that had a certain amount of mystery about it, AND something of a punch line. This one's just a pretentious, long-winded bore.
shareYes this is a remarkably boring movie.
shareI purely didn't like this movie because I thought the scripting was below average. The conversations and acting seemed so forced. The photography in this movie was nothing special. The characters seemed to be really changing from scene to scene, but this was far from character progression.
shareTotally agree about the dog's breakfast of a script.
There were about a half a dozen different ideas or themes hinted at at various points, and they were all left not only unresolved, but unexplored. I don't think that every theme needs to be resolved; but they do need to be developed at least to the point where one has something to ponder.
But in Jindabyne: What is the point of the serial killer, apart from providing a convenient body? The Aboriginal thing: just how was the non-reporting supposed to relate to past white injustices? Deborra-Lee Furness: at some point someone makes a remark that suggests that she had a child who died; so what do we make of that? Laura Linney had abandoned her child after childbirth, and returned later: so what was that all about? Rocco and his Aboriginal girlfriend: was there supposed to be something important about the back/white relationship?
I could go on. All of those ideas could have been turned into something worth making a film about. But none of them were.
However I totally disagree about Lantana. That was a film where the ideas, once introduced, were taken further and explored in a very mature and intelligent manner. The gradual revealing of Geoffrey Rush's character was as good as anything I've seen, and utterly believable. Anthony LaPaglia also was superb and quite convincing; and I didn't even notice his suit.
For me, Lantana is everything Jindabyne is not. I would rate Lantana a high 8 or 9; Jindabyne scores about 3.
In some country towns, the bodies of shot feral cats and dogs are displayed on a tree. Not quite sure why - you'd have to ask the folks that do it - but it does happen. It has meaning in the film as there is a theme of seemingly inexplicable acts. The men fail to report a body immediately, a serial killer kills, a mother deserted her newborn baby, a grandmother is resentful of the daughter of her dead daughter, and so on. None of these people feel that anyone understands why they did what they did, and in most cases they have no idea why they did what they did!
Anyway, that's my take on it, and I can understand how people might not like it. I like to see stories where nothing is resolved and more questions are raised - many people don't. Having said that, the script could have done with a rewrite or else more creative editing was needed - segues between some scenes were really bad.
I always thought dead dogs were displayed as a warning. saying if your dog is caught on my property I'll kill it. so maybe it was a scene of warning? don't know.
I also found the film boring, parts were really good, i just wished finding the body happened a bit earlier in the film .
You purposefully corrected ving tsun; here's one (or two) for you - there is no apostrophe in "Ts" or "Is", even if the latter is confused with 'is'...
shareI agree, I was utterly bored with this movie, and walked out after 40 minutes.
The only interesting character was the 7 year old girl who went around killing and collecting small animals.
The rest of the characters were stereotypical, middle aged, middle class AUSSIES - the women catty and fretting after the kids, the men ockerish and obsessed with fishing.
All the elements of a mediocre AUSSIE film were in place - dull suburban characters, domestic tedium, "Landscape" a character in a dull story, and too much forcing the film to be profound, when it ISN'T.
I didn't even get to the bit where they found the body.....
You didn't even stay until they found the body??? Everything up to that point was character introduction. You missed a good movie.
Sure a dictatorship would be easier - Dubya
My husband and I saw the film today and had no trouble going the distance. I guess while my short term memory may be shot to bits my concentration span is as long as it's ever been.
The script was good - what sort of conversation to you expect? A discussion about Margaret Throsby's latest guest and their choice of music throughout their interview? How about Paul Kelly's music as a beautiful background to the characters, the environment?
And how interesting to have an American woman trying to get some action/reaction from her family and circle of friends? Wouldn't have worked with an Aussie as the leading lady.
The guys were pragmatic - the lady was dead - they literally kept her body cool so it would be preserved - and they went on fishing. Gabriel Byrne's character obviously needed a break and everything would have been different if they had had a mobile phone signal.
It's a well told story about a small town with an indigenous and Aussie/Irish population who depend on passing trade. I guess a little more of that video about how Jindabyne was flooded for the Snowy Mountains project would have helped a few people to find the characters. Perhaps the director/editor assumed more local knowledge - or didn't count on an age group that doesn't even know about the Snowy Mountains scheme. The power lines had some significance.
I loved it. A film need not have a confusingly implausible climax to be a worthy story.
shareYep, it's not exactly boring, it's just badly written and plotted. The acting was fine and I've seen films that are more boring. But there's so much horrible things in this film.
shareThis was a well made film.
it wasnt a slasher flick,
or a fast paced action film.
It was a story about some people
It was a journey though a town at the time a girl was murdered.
it ends there because that is were the story about the murdered girl ends.
Things dont need to be all nicly tied up to make it a good film...
every seen donnie darko
I just got to see the movie at the Toronto International Film Festival on Wednesday night. It's hard to say why but I like the movie. It is one of those movies that make you think and doesn't have the beginning, middle, and the ending all wrapped up neatly. I understand that many people do not like this type movie or the "slowness". But as for my husband and me, we really liked it.
It was also very nice to have Gabriel Byrne and Laura Linney there to introduce the movie and answer a few questions afterwards.
Karen
this film was so boring i even thought of turning it off and getting "open water" back out of the attic!!
share[deleted]
[deleted]
This was stunningly boring.
Some say it was a good story, some say it was acted, some say it had resonant bits in it that made you think... I thought it was self-indulgent nonsense.
Agreed. Self-indulgent is exactly the right word. I rented this mess on DVD. The only extras are some deleted scenes (which I ignored...the whole movie was bad enough) and "The Process" where the director and writer etc. go on and on and on sounding like pretentious twits about the banality of making this movie. Christ, was a dud. It takes a lot for me to say that about a film and I love Byrne and Linney. But this movie truly sucked. Poorly done, too many loose ends, a misleading opening warning, and boring as hell.
I'm still surprised Linney, but especially Byrne, agreed to make this crap.
just got done watching the first hour. nothing happened.
"It's just a movie" is no excuse for lazy filmmaking!
[deleted]