User Reviews

Well, it's not exactly the same story, but a straight remake was unnecessary; it was done perfectly the first time.

Giving it a little re-imagining was the right way to go. The story is updated to now, and the motivation of nearly all the characters has changed; Jack Thompson's character becomes a scary female kick boxer and the booze is supplemented by amphetamines. The denizens of the 'Yabba' are a bit more sinister this time around and you can't be sure how it will end.

I don't think the story is necessarily all that Australian any more. Except for superficial reference points and the accents, the whole thing could be happening in a dusty town off a highway in Texas or even somewhere in "Straw Dogs" country.

With that said, Sean Keenan makes a good John Grant, you can almost feel his hangover.

He is an Aussie as he was in Kenneth Cook's book. In Canadian Ted Kotcheff's 1971 film, Englishman Gary Bond played Grant. He brought a sense of the outsider view to proceedings, starting with an air of superiority that ends up as near insanity. Sean Keenan picked up on that quality and it works for him too.

David Wenham had a tough act following Chips Rafferty's police sergeant, but he gives an edge to the copper who is hard to read.

The evolution of Donald Pleasance's 'Doc' Tydon to Alex Dimitriades' 'Doc' Tydonas is the biggest change. However, in an era where the "Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras" is a major event, the scene in the 1971 film where 'Doc' jumps on John Grant's semi-conscious bones wasn't worth dwelling on in this outing. It's no longer the crunch point that tips John Grant over the edge; other things do that here; lots of other things; the revelations just keep coming.

This version misses the vibe of Bundanyabba. Kotcheff's film was shot at Broken Hill, outraging the citizens who felt it had defamed them. However it projected the feeling of an isolated city that was big enough and insular enough to be the source of the inordinate pride that so bemused John Grant.

Admittedly, this 'Yabba' is portrayed as past its best.

The 1971 movie turned out to be a piercing outsider view of aspects of Australian culture, even more so than Kenneth Cook's book. However, comparisons aside, this reworking delivers an unusual and taut little drama in its own right.

I'm not entirely convinced that the original Wake In Fright is quite the timeless classic some movie historians deem it to be. Nevertheless, it was atmospheric and haunting, and, if nothing else, remains interesting as a scathing critique of a certain type of toxic Aussie masculinity. So the first thing one has to wonder about this TV re-make is why in up-dating the story they felt the need to convert so many of the key characters from male to female. I've nothing against positive discrimination where it works for the story, or where it makes absolutely no difference. But since masculinity is central to Wake In Fright, it seems rather a strange decision. It dilutes the theme almost to the point where it no longer really asserts itself. And it undermines the drama in other ways too. The original is set in the kind of remote outback town where men massively outnumber women, and that explains some of what happens along the way. In this version it's a considerably bigger regional town, with enough women and suburban amenities to significantly change things. It also doesn't help that they've chosen to make John Grant even more gormless. This is partly Sean Keenan coming across more like a clueless teen than just a city bloke out of his element. But Grant is also infuriatingly spineless, especially in how he submits to alcohol and gambling, even though the pressure to do so is neither dramatised, nor a given. The reckless boozing makes much more sense in the 70s film, shot at a time when macho competitive drinking was still a thing. But is an educated twentysomething not being able to say "no" to another beer really as believable today? They could quite possibly have made it believable, but they didn't. It's just one of the ways in which this production sidesteps the problems that come with up- dating the story. (Like referring to the pokies being pulled out of the RSL - as if that's ever happened!) At best, Wake in Fright is pretty to look at - as is Sean Keenan. But the muddle-headed re-imagining of the story undermines believability and suspense at every turn.

This remake of a classic really does work...for the most part. I was reluctant to watch this new TV adaptation having recently seen the 1971 film again. The story meanders considerably from the original novel and screenplay...primarily I would think to cater for more recent generations. It does not detract... although minor irritations become more than obvious..For instance, John Grants cell 'phone continually displays "No Signal" even when he is located in the middle of a fairly sizeable mining town in 2016!

The cinematography is splendid, certainly rivalling the original movie. The sun-bright, yet dark, landscape and decaying town paints a delicious background for Grants seemingly endless nightmare. Part two of the mini series, with Grant on the run, is classic "edge of the seat" movie making, although, I found the frequent "speed of light" hangover and drug tinged collages to be rather too long and a distraction at times. Other viewers may feel the opposite...

The acting varied. Sean Keenan plays Grant with even more desolation and desperation than did Gary Bond whilst maintaining the characters basic personality. Highlight is David Wenham as the cop..playing a bigger role than did Chips Rafferty, and with an even larger degree of congeniality,descending into a sinister menace and back again! I feel the weakest role was the new character on the Wake In Fright block, Anna Samson, overacting to the hilt as the harridan Mick Jaffries, with a performance lifted straight from the 1970s series Prisoner!!! Similarly, Alex Dimitriades was no match for the slimy Donald Pleasance in the part of Doc Tydon. Overall, I recommend this remake.The good considerably outweighs any negatives. The spirit of the original remains very well intact despite most of the modernisation.

What started out as what could of been a great 2 part storyline quickly turned into what can only come across as they ran out of budget or forgot what they was doing!

There was no real ending, no meaning to any of it!

Your left debating if the actions were his or the towns! The storyline of his girlfriend in the end played no relevance! nor did any of the storyline in the end!

With that it keeps you thinking and your eyes open just wondering what will happen next, but it just somehow feels unfinished!

Whenever someone thinks about 'Wake in Fright', they can't go past the classic 1971 film adaptation of Kenneth Cook's debut novel, which is also acknowledged as a classic of modern Australian Literature. Although, one thing I heard from an interview with the late Kenneth Cook; was that he thought the film was a "very successful translation of the book" for which I couldn't agree more. However, he personally thought Gary Bond who played the lead role of John Grant was "far too old and not nearly so sensitive and young as he should have been to be the hero of the book", because to his mind the validity of the hero's situation will only be there when he's a "young, soft, sensitive man" also touching on the fact Gary Bond looked too old and competent and could've got out of it too quickly. Looking back at the film now, I can't say the casting of Gary Bond bothered me especially in comparing the film to the book. The film itself has become timeless due to the suspenseful nature of what a man pushed to his limits would do to desperately get out of a situation that involved resorting going back to primal instincts of animals. Due to its confronting subject matter and wry sense it has since resonated into Australian Culture and Cinematic history incredibly well.

An often common and outspoken criticism I've heard countless (and tiring) number of times about various rehashes and remakes (however people may perceive them) is that re-doing something that has already been done or seen won't add anything new to the vastness of what's been put out there. Even in that vague statement rarely is it a case of improving upon what's been done, but more re-imagining what was done with a more modern skills and/or techniques in mind.

I don't dare say that this miniseries re-adapting Kenneth Cook's harrowing tale into a more modern time setting or context will deter whatever was done with the classic 1971 film (or book from when it was written). However, keeping Cook's own criticism in mind as well as what could be experimented with adapting Cook's timeless novel into a more modernized context, I would say there is necessity to what the makers of this new 'Wake in Fright' could do in terms of experiencing this story along different avenues.

First and foremost, the casting of Sean Keenan in the role of John Grant almost parallels Cook's criticism of the original film adaptation. Where we could see what a 'young, soft and sensitive man' would do when trapped in a remote town in the middle of the Australian Outback would do when he's then exposed to the rough and tumble nature of its locals and getting involved in their almost inhumane behaviour no one like a city-raised local like himself would experience. Thus, his descent into this madness is almost just as shocking and affecting as it was the first time around.

Secondly, this adaptation takes plenty of liberties from both the book and original film, it shares plenty of its major plot points, however in the modernization of all things there's a compelling edge added to the drama and conflicting nature of the characters, that it's within the modernized setting's nature to serve the narrative well rather than lessen the effect of the original film, which most certainly sets it apart. There's some excellent cinematography that capture the dangerous and unsettling beauty of the Australian outback, as is a compelling edge to the characters within the instilling dramatic conflicts revealed within the nature of the plotting.

Overall, it's the character development of this adaptation that really make it stand out, in opposed to the competent casting decisions, but confident enough to carry it due to the change of time setting from the 60s-70s to present day. The depth and dimension of these characters is what makes the miniseries a compelling locally produced drama here in Australia, able to show how our film/television industry can tell edgy stories, especially involving the unique subject matter of the source material. While it might not be so testosterone fueled as the original film, but it's still able to capture Kenneth Cook's cautionary nature about the foreboding dangers of the Australian outback.

As usual, casting and directing by Aussie filmmakers is excellent.

But watching one episode of this was about as fun as being stabbed repeatedly in the throat .

I found it so incredibly depressing on every single level that I couldn't recommend it in any way for any reason, you know?

It was just so dark and so horrible.

Don't put this stuff in your head if you can help it.

Also :: strongly recommend people in alcoholism or recovery don't watch !!! Massive trigger warnings !!

Very entertaining and exciting, full of good surprises for the viewers which means very bad surprises for the main character haha.

Very good dark hriller drama, no idea why people would give 1 or 2 star.

9/10

I just love this movie. It is a totally under rated and moving story. Really cool layered drama that is played beautifully by all of the actors and the end carries with it a certain guilt over your own judgment and delivers a sad empathy to the characters you previously dismissed as complete losers.