I went to see the film yesterday ( only 4 people in the cinema ) poor thing ! I wish more peoplw will support Australian movies.
However i found the movie to be quite boring and i didnt really feel sympathetic for the driver at all! I could not understand how can the guy like David Lyons Character could try to save his kidnapper even when there were gunshots etc. How did he drive back to the city ?
This movie is *beep* for so many reasons. The 'Lead' character is so unlikeable because A. the character was written poorly and B. The Actor is *beep* I was happy when he got shot at the end. He's giving crap to the hostage for his scams, then shoots the Truck Driver, could've just knocked him out. What a dumb ass character.
This is so godamm boring. And there were only two other people in the theater when I saw it. There should have been zero because it was not made for an audience.
And that scene where the Kids song starts to play in the car. It was so stretched out and not funny. I could just see the director showing a cut of that scene in the edit room and everyone laughing thinking it was hilarious. You can tell they even thought the kids blanket was funny when the hostage woke up in it..the way he looks at it. My god that was lame.
I give this film zero out of ten. Seriously not one thing I liked about it.
Tree on Fire: Your 'review', and I use the term lightly, is nothing more than an unsophisticated, juvenile rant. If you want to be taken seriously, use grown up manner. YOu could have a great point to discuss if you put in a bit of effort.
shareI saw it today at a 4:50 PM session - and was the only person there (!)
I was not bored, just confused, the film did not seem to be going anywhere, but you were waiting for a pay off that never happened.
I was very disappointed by the ending, and the whole reason of why he was kidnapped and who was the person or person he was taking him too were never explained.
That was what was most annoying/disappointing.
I am patient, but I expect a reward for my patience, and this did not pay me that reward.
I would be interested in hearing from the script writer of what the message they were trying to convey was.
I have an eternal hope.
I doesn't really matter who wanted him kidnapped. Something to do with his betting business but what would it have mattered if we had learned who it was? Someone wanted to "talk" to him/get money back/kill him. It's irrelevant to the plot to get a face or name for the person/organisation. It's all about the developing relationship between the two guys.
shareYes. I agree with that completely. The film was not made to tell a crime story. It was made to tell a story about two characters. Besides, the driver and hostage seemed pretty clueless as to why EXACTLY the kidnapping was happening. The only way that the story could have been expanded on, ie to include ther reasons and whys, is if the 3rd person view was lifted from its current subjective view. The characters don't know WHY, so the viewer doesn't either and neither does the film. I see no problem with that. So yeah, I agree with you and I don't have to use swearing as lazy shorthand, which is a problem that infects these boards.
shareThe problem is, the film starts as if these events are the core of the story. To do this and to then abandon that plot entirely indicates the writer is lazy or clueless.
Opening a film with events or characters which are not what the film is ultimately about is one of the worst things a scriptwriter can do. In fact, it's one of those things that means a script often fails to get a greenlight in the first place. The opening scenes and characters set the stage for the story to follow. They *begin* the story, and if the story that then follows is completely different, audiences will quite rightly be frustrated.
For the life of me I can't work out why this film got the nod - unless it was AFC funding and they're still beating that "reflecting contemporary Australian culture" drum.
---
I just want sausages and mash and a bit of cake. Not twigs fried in honey or a donkey in a coffin!
The problem is, the film starts as if these events are the core of the story. To do this and to then abandon that plot entirely indicates the writer is lazy or clueless.
Read the rest of my post, because it explains my first sentence and what is a universally accepted approach to scriptwriting and story structure.
While you're at it, point out where I said I didn't understand it.
To start with something as dramatic as a kidnapping and then abandon it completely plot-wise makes no sense *unless* the writer's sole aim was to use the kidnapping purely as a hook to get people into the movie (ie convincing them it will be something it actually isn't). That shows a poor understanding of scriptwriting.
---
I just want sausages and mash and a bit of cake. Not twigs fried in honey or a donkey in a coffin!
You have a point. I wasn't liking the film and was ready to fall asleep before the first canister burial. Starting off with a rough kidnapping made it seem like Statham or Van Damme movie... not exactly high art. A better opening would have possibly been simply a road shot with the driver with a scratch or some sign of a struggle. And then a shot blackness in the trunk, snippets of memory, from the unconscious guy, maybe just a couple of flashbacks.
I liked it enough though, I still hesitate between a 6 and a 7.
***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**
Interesting concept; a woman writing and directing a road movie with virtually no females in the film.
Great supporting roles from Bryan Brown and Shane Jacobson.
Unfortunately the screenplay is the problem. It almost seems as if director wants us to fill in the spaces for her.
The two leads are good with what they have to go with, which isn't a lot. Their characters are noticeably underwritten.
Somewhere inside this pretty ordinary fare, the bedrock of a good film lay largely untapped.