The main review in IMdB for this movie is so full of praise (as opposed to the almost unanimous dislike of it by everyone else), that I wonder whether the filmmaker herself actually wrote it...
shareI would have written the same thing.
I love the movie.
I suspected the same thing.
sharei agree. Lies i say.
Best australian road movie of all time?
Firstly, PRiscilla kicks it's arse.
Secondly, it's the only Australian "surfing" road movie, so of course it's gotta be the best, but at the same token it's also the worst.
this movie was so *beep* Thank god i didn't pay to watch it.
The first thing thing that strikes me about this thread is it's title "How wrote this post".
The sort of negative comments put forth in regard to Bondi Tsunami are to be expected by someone who struggles with his first language.
The one person that agrees with these statements is called slimy_earthworm. Need i say anymore.
I find it deeply disturbing that this movie gets negative comments, and feel that had these people received a supportive upbringing they would not be so disillusioned and possibly contribute to society in a meaningful fashion.
Bondi Tsunami is without a doubt in the top 3 of best Australian movies of all time, and you should not be discouraged by the comments posted by those non thinking individuals with too much time on there hands.
someone is suspiciously defensive...
shareattacking the person is nothing but atavism.
You've also made the assumption that english is, indeed, the OP's first language.
You've also failed to notice that there was another person agreeing with the OP.
if you're going to have a go at me, how about attacking what i say rather than what my username is? How exactly is that *enough said* in any case? OMG HE'S USERNAME IS SLIMY_EARTHWORM HIS OPINIONS AREN'T VALID SO YOU MUST BELIEVE ME INSTEAD BECAUSE MY NAME IS BUCK!
you have contributed *nothing* valuable to the debate. You haven't stated *how* or *why* Bondi Tsunami is somehow "without a doubt in the top 3 of best Australian movies of all time".
I'll also say that for someone whose main arguments attacked the OP's grip of the english language, you failed miserably yourself. However, your fallacies were seemingly more *expression* problems rather than mere typos, and are thus worse. Personally I attribute this to your meagre attempts in sounding more intellectual than you actually are.
Anyway, my argument is basically this.
The statements made about this film were technically correct but offer no substance in grading the film accurately.
Whilst some of the visual imagery and cultural displacement in this film were fantastic, they did not serve for the purpose of this film. A film is there to entertain and tell a story. Whilst deviations from the norm are often positive, it was not so in this case. The movie is too convoluted for mere "background" placement, and the dialogue was corny and just plain stupid. It was saying blatently obvious things in a more sophisticated manner using unoriginal metaphors in order to provoke some form of again pointless thought. These speeches were also never expanded upon. Whilst it may be argued that these flashes of dialogue were not intended to be substantial aspects of the film, they should not have been placed there at all for a film that is not meant to be paid amazing amounts of attention to.
It just sounds, to me, like the creators trying to voice their own thoughts through the protagonist and dialogue.
As such, the content of this film did not suit its intended purpose.
The positive aspects of this film should have rather been placed into art galleries or made into short films.
As tempting as it is to further attack *you* and how you fail at life, I'll refrain from any further comment.
It was great to see upon revisiting this post many months down the track, to find that Slimy_Earthworm is trying his best to come up with a good come back. He say's he will not go into how I have failed at life but i really would love to know how I have indeed "failed at life"?
My comment in regard to your name was made because I think you are indeed a slimey parasite with a computer who's life is so pathetic you spend your time writing bad reviews on movies you do not like instead of getting out into the world and doing something meaningful that might actually help others.
You obviously have not been to Japan and do not understand their sensibilities and sense of humor, so there is no way you can appreciate this movie with the thought life of a cave man! It is clear that you lack any musical appreciation as the film can be enjoyed just for the music.
I would love to see your first feature film. If you know exactly what makes great films why are you not making them yourself. You are indeed another ADD time waster with too much time on your hands.
I could go on for hours on your warped views of the world but I actually have to go to work and when I'm finished that I'm going to go and make a film.
Goodbye :)
Firstly, I speak Japanese fluently. You'll also note that I said "Whilst some of the visual imagery and cultural displacement in this film were fantastic..", which acknowledges the Japanese culture and its role in Bondi Tsunami.
Secondly, earthworms are not parasites. Other worms (i.e. hookworms, tapeworms) are parasites.
Thirdly, I have been playing violin for 8 years, piano for 15 years, and i've been singing for 12 years. I've performed with Hugh Jackman, Kylie Minogue and I sung at Rachel Griffiths' Wedding, and I've been writing album reviews for The Age for 2 years. Indeed it is clear that I lack any musical appreciation.
Lastly, tell me how your posts are more 'meaningful' than mine. Seriously.
Not that any of that is relevant to the argument, nor can anything bar the second point be proven. I just felt I owed clarification.
Who exactly are you speaking to? I'd appreciate it if you'd steer commentary to *me* when you reply, rather than using the third person. It's just a stylistic thing really. One of those things that makes your argument look a bit unprofessional - talking *about* me rather than talking *to* me.
That's not an attack by the way. It's just another (albeit, weak) example of what I was referring to when I noted your double standard - attacking the OPs grammar when yours is semi-par. Even your phrasing is shocking: "thought life"? "hours on"? "sensibilities and sense of humour"? (overkill, mannerisms would have been a better word, because understanding sense of humour IS a sensibility).
You even spelt "slimy" wrong in that reply, and i've given you the proper spelling in my user name. Not that i'm accusing you of poor grammar, just of being HUMAN and typoing every now and then as i'm sure the OP did. As I was saying, you cannot expect a denigration to stand when you exhibit what you are bagging in the first place. In other words, if your only actual argument is that the OP cannot use the english language properly, then we can just throw the same line back at you and be done with it.
Please, I would be extremely appreciative if you can inform me where in your initial post you had argued *anything* of substance. Seriously. Even in your attacks. Let me break it down for you.
Your first three lines attack IMDB users.
Your next two lines state your opinion using hyperbole.
Your concluding lines offer a symbolic rating with more denigration.
Nowhere have you substantiated your opinions or rating with *ANY* reasons as to why you feel this film is good. Not even subjectively. You can't expect people to take anything you say seriously when you don't justify it. You have to understand from my perspective, all you are saying "OMG DON'T LISTEN TO THESE PEOPLE, ONLY IDIOTS WOULD BAG THIS FILM! THIS FILM IS GOOD BECAUSE IT IS GOOD!"
This is why I stated you failed at life. Firstly, you attacked the person which is childish. Secondly, DOUBLE STANDARD. In my opinion, you lose ALL credibility when double standards appear unless you acknowledge them. Thirdly, you say i'm the *only* person that agreed with the OP, clearly bypassing spurry's comment.
Clearly it's an exaggerated term, but so are most. =P
Yet AGAIN in this post you have resorted to NOTHING BUT DENIGRATION!
Are you devoid of self-behavioural modification?
I agree I attacked you in my first reply, but at least there was substance to my post aswell.
"I think you are indeed[sic] a slimey[sic] parasite with a computer who's[sic] life is so pathetic you spend your time writing bad reviews on movies you do not like instead of getting out into the world and doing something meaningful that might actually help others. "
Clearly when my replies are months after yours I do nothing but troll the boards complaining about users and movies using meaningless dribble. I'm also an incredibly slow typer, explaining the time delay.
Grow up.
You should note that my "review" wasn't even entirely negative. I even tried to acknowledge positive aspects of the film, including your opinion (however unsubstantiated) by saying:
"The statements made about this film were technically correct but offer no substance in grading the film accurately"
You only state opinion. You don't substantiate anything you say, nor do you rebut anything I say with argument.
I agree the film can be enjoyed for its music. But then why not have the music on its own? Why not *just* have music and imagery? Why not simply have lyrics to the music as the dialogue of the characters?
The music was used well at times but overall the concept was wasted.
The director specifically stated that this film is useful to have on in the background. As such, you don't have to pay much attention to it, you can tune in and out of it, and it doesn't require much thought. It's just aesthetically pleasing.
I agree that this film *is* quite good at doing that, but the meaningless metaphorical internal monologue of the protagonist completely contradicts this notion. It wouldn't be so bad if it happened only once, but it's used at several points throughout the film. No offence, but the acting is far too poor to pull it off. I know they were just pulled off the street and i'm accounting for that, but the monologue *beep* should have been removed. It didn't work at all. The metaphors were very non-Japanese-like aswell, which just made it sound like they were learning from a "learn to recite poetry Westerner style" book.
There are funny moments, like when the girl is running past all the Australian icons and when the male characters are in bed and such, but how does this align with the intended purpose of the film?
I still stand by my initial comments, that this film is too boring to be a feature film (there isn't enough dialogue, character development or content - barely anything interesting happens), and it's too convoluted with too many interruptions to serve its intended purpose. I still say that there are positive aspects, but again these are better off removed from the film and put on their own, or converted into short films.
Geez. At least I take the time out to do justice to your reply. This isn't an attack, but I suggest you read the whole thread again and tell me how believe you will be/are being perceived by others.
slimy_earthworm (Fri Oct 27 2006 21:52:37)
UPDATED Fri Oct 27 2006 21:55:18
Firstly, I speak Japanese fluently. You'll also note that I said "Whilst some of the visual imagery and cultural displacement in this film were fantastic..", which acknowledges the Japanese culture and its role in Bondi Tsunami.
Secondly, earthworms are not parasites. Other worms (i.e. hookworms, tapeworms) are parasites.
Thirdly, I have been playing violin for 8 years, piano for 15 years, and i've been singing for 12 years. I've performed with Hugh Jackman, Kylie Minogue and I sung at Rachel Griffiths' Wedding, and I've been writing album reviews for The Age for 2 years. Indeed it is clear that I lack any musical appreciation.
Lastly, tell me how your posts are more 'meaningful' than mine. Seriously.
Not that any of that is relevant to the argument, nor can anything bar the second point be proven. I just felt I owed clarification.
Who exactly are you speaking to? I'd appreciate it if you'd steer commentary to *me* when you reply, rather than using the third person. It's just a stylistic thing really. One of those things that makes your argument look a bit unprofessional - talking *about* me rather than talking *to* me.
That's not an attack by the way. It's just another (albeit, weak) example of what I was referring to when I noted your double standard - attacking the OPs grammar when yours is semi-par. Even your phrasing is shocking: "thought life"? "hours on"? "sensibilities and sense of humour"? (overkill, mannerisms would have been a better word, because understanding sense of humour IS a sensibility).
You even spelt "slimy" wrong in that reply, and i've given you the proper spelling in my user name. Not that i'm accusing you of poor grammar, just of being HUMAN and typoing every now and then as i'm sure the OP did. As I was saying, you cannot expect a denigration to stand when you exhibit what you are bagging in the first place. In other words, if your only actual argument is that the OP cannot use the english language properly, then we can just throw the same line back at you and be done with it.
Please, I would be extremely appreciative if you can inform me where in your initial post you had argued *anything* of substance. Seriously. Even in your attacks. Let me break it down for you.
Your first three lines attack IMDB users.
Your next two lines state your opinion using hyperbole.
Your concluding lines offer a symbolic rating with more denigration.
Nowhere have you substantiated your opinions or rating with *ANY* reasons as to why you feel this film is good. Not even subjectively. You can't expect people to take anything you say seriously when you don't justify it. You have to understand from my perspective, all you are saying "OMG DON'T LISTEN TO THESE PEOPLE, ONLY IDIOTS WOULD BAG THIS FILM! THIS FILM IS GOOD BECAUSE IT IS GOOD!"
This is why I stated you failed at life. Firstly, you attacked the person which is childish. Secondly, DOUBLE STANDARD. In my opinion, you lose ALL credibility when double standards appear unless you acknowledge them. Thirdly, you say i'm the *only* person that agreed with the OP, clearly bypassing spurry's comment.
Clearly it's an exaggerated term, but so are most. =P
Yet AGAIN in this post you have resorted to NOTHING BUT DENIGRATION!
Are you devoid of self-behavioural modification?
I agree I attacked you in my first reply, but at least there was substance to my post aswell.
"I think you are indeed[sic] a slimey[sic] parasite with a computer who's[sic] life is so pathetic you spend your time writing bad reviews on movies you do not like instead of getting out into the world and doing something meaningful that might actually help others. "
Clearly when my replies are months after yours I do nothing but troll the boards complaining about users and movies using meaningless dribble. I'm also an incredibly slow typer, explaining the time delay.
Grow up.
You should note that my "review" wasn't even entirely negative. I even tried to acknowledge positive aspects of the film, including your opinion (however unsubstantiated) by saying:
"The statements made about this film were technically correct but offer no substance in grading the film accurately"
You only state opinion. You don't substantiate anything you say, nor do you rebut anything I say with argument.
I agree the film can be enjoyed for its music. But then why not have the music on its own? Why not *just* have music and imagery? Why not simply have lyrics to the music as the dialogue of the characters?
The music was used well at times but overall the concept was wasted.
The director specifically stated that this film is useful to have on in the background. As such, you don't have to pay much attention to it, you can tune in and out of it, and it doesn't require much thought. It's just aesthetically pleasing.
I agree that this film *is* quite good at doing that, but the meaningless metaphorical internal monologue of the protagonist completely contradicts this notion. It wouldn't be so bad if it happened only once, but it's used at several points throughout the film. No offence, but the acting is far too poor to pull it off. I know they were just pulled off the street and i'm accounting for that, but the monologue *beep* should have been removed. It didn't work at all. The metaphors were very non-Japanese-like aswell, which just made it sound like they were learning from a "learn to recite poetry Westerner style" book.
There are funny moments, like when the girl is running past all the Australian icons and when the male characters are in bed and such, but how does this align with the intended purpose of the film?
I still stand by my initial comments, that this film is too boring to be a feature film (there isn't enough dialogue, character development or content - barely anything interesting happens), and it's too convoluted with too many interruptions to serve its intended purpose. I still say that there are positive aspects, but again these are better off removed from the film and put on their own, or converted into short films.
Geez. At least I take the time out to do justice to your reply. This isn't an attack, but I suggest you read the whole thread again and tell me how believe you will be/are being perceived by others.
This isn't an attack, but I suggest you read the whole thread again and tell me how believe you will be/are being perceived by others.
"OMG DON'T LISTEN TO THESE PEOPLE, ONLY IDIOTS WOULD BAG THIS FILM! THIS FILM IS GOOD BECAUSE IT IS GOOD!"share
wow i climaxed pretty early in that case. Seriously though, can you see any reason as to why mynameisbuck thinks the film is good, apart from the fact that only an idiot (who is further ignorant to Japanese culture) would hate it? If anything I said is wrong i'll gladly retract it.
haha after re-reading I guess I could sound a little psycho eh. 'Spose it depends on how you read it - was really just meant to be monotonous sarcasm, I wasn't angry in the slightest. Evidently I had to spell things out for Mr Oblivious, and I wanted to make sure I covered all of the bases. Plus I was really bored.
You took my post in a really good way, I respect that. As for this movie I 100% agree with you that's its one of the worst films I've ever seen. EVER.
take care
edit: click mynamesbuck's username. The only comments he's ever written are for this movie, so my money's on him being involved with this piece of crap "movie".
Finally watched this movie. I have some general gripes about it. First of someone said top 3 Australian movies ever? Please review all the Australian movies and then get back to me on that one... surely a mistake, there are some truly outstanding australian movies.
Ok so at the start it seemed to have a story that would go somewhere. This soon fell away until the only story left was people driving in a car. There was so much more opportunity to play on the JAPANESE SURFERS on a road trip in Australia. The story was missing.
Some of the edits were just too long. I really felt this movie could have achieved the same result as a 30 minute short. In fact if it was it could have been much more interesting. The music in parts was rather nice although once again I felt some of the music just seem to drone on and on throughout different parts of the movie.
The overall production value was low. Even for a ROAD TRIP some of the shot composition left me scratching my head. You could tell it was shot without lighting nothing to worry about but then the shot choices made me wonder due to the fact there was no lighting. My point being without lighting wiith A LOT OF PREPARATION it can be done very well. But worst was the sound. There were a few moments when the actors actually spoke and in those shots the sound was average, which pulled me right out of the picture. I just felt overall there was not enough preparation and hard work put into pre production.
Irrespective of everything I said however I congratulate the film makers for getting out there and making something happen. Thats something very few achieve. It is rather experimental, and maybe some of the elements could have future value.