Reviews

Firstly the positives - it looks great and the cast is fun. Set in an idyllic beach suburb street, with colourful 70's designs, and a big cast (everyone's good in this, both parents and kids), most Australians of a certain age will find something to like about this. But it's humorous without being hilarious or much of a good time. The script and editing have made it a bit of a muddle. The two main kids are very sweet, but their storyline has no climax - do they actually go to Melbourne? The behaviour of he parents is a mystery - for a while they're all friends and up for kinky fun, then after a key party they're all enemies for no apparent reason. The gross humour of the final whale scene is a spectacular but emotionally empty note to end on. And one 70's aspect that is completely wrong is the language - it's crude and un-PC (which is accurate for 70's Australia but gets annoying after a while), but leaves out the brilliant Aussie slang of the time. See Puberty Blues for an example of it done right. That language is truly funny and endearing and would have lightened the film.

Firstly I have to give credit to the visual design and acting in this film. Despite some too- modern dialogue, and a dull overuse of static shots of people standing talking to each other, the characters look convincingly like they inhabit a darkened between-world-wars Europe lit by dim lights through heavy curtains. It feels like a realistic period piece without the Downton Abbey gloss. And the story itself should have been gripping, but - and I must add a SPOILER warning - unfortunately, due to the strident music telegraphing that this kid is bad news right from the start, the ending loses most of it's power. I'm sure some people will love the music, but a score should serve the story, not detract from it. Maybe the music was pumped up to stop people losing interest during the early parts of the film, which is quite slow and features way too many repetitive scenes of a grouchy child being reprimanded. But there are other ways to keep audiences awake, like working on the dialogue, camera angles, editing etc, rather than loud ominous music that tells the audience more than they should know about where the film is going. The exact nature of the ending still manages to be surprising, but it doesn't have much power, and instead of being frightening it was just a relief to not have to watch more scenes of the cranky kid. The music at the opening of the film will put you on edge more than anything else in the film!

I caught this at the Australian premiere during the Sydney Film Festival, with no pre-conceived expectations. Initially it all looks promising - it's handsomely produced, filmed in a spectacularly remote small town, with excellent supporting roles, from Hugo Weaving to the young kids. The dust storm is handled nicely, and the locals are an interesting bunch without being given the 'quirky' treatment. The plot gives us a nice young family whose kids wander off one day, leaving us with a 'missing children' police procedural, combined with how this trauma affects the parents. The problem is that this doesn't work well as mystery, since the writing is uninterested in original clues or twists, just dead ends, and neither can it develop any interest in the parents, as they never appear as a believable couple. As the film starts they're already sleeping in separate beds, but Kidman & Fiennes have absolutely no chemistry, so it's hard to imagine how they might have ever been any different. So they go through the motions - they blame themselves then blame each other, one of them will scream in the darkness, Mum will get drunk and make moves on a neighbour, Dad will get the wrong idea about another neighbour and bash them up, and none of it convinces. Fiennes' outbursts of rage have as much force as a badly pulled punch, and this couple is so un-real that they don't appear to have a single relative or friend who they contact, despite losing TWO children to the outback. Plot twists are the kind you get in films like Prisoners & Gone Girl, but without the surprise or suspense. Which would be fine if the two central characters were solid enough that we could take some interest in watching them fall apart. But with Kidman & Fiennes being so distant from each other from the start, there's no drama in watching the cracks appear. To make us appreciate the un-Hollywood direction it takes towards the end, the film needed central characters that were more believable than those you get in cheesy thrillers, not less. I was left remembering Kidman's excellent performance in Rabbit Hole, where she plays one half of a couple dealing with the death of a child - that was a pain you could feel, something Strangerland is completely missing.

Yes, I walked out on this movie, 20 minutes before the ending. I've seen lots of films that were crapper, but this one was so damn aggravating. And unfortunately I went to see it by myself, so I couldn't relieve the tension by turning to a friend to say 'I HATE this film and want these characters TO DIE'.

To start with the okay things first - some of the disaster sequences were hugely excessive and brilliantly creative in their way (9 or 10 out of 10), it's ambitious in size, and the cast was mostly good. I enjoyed the comic Russians, even though they were clichéd. I've enjoyed slightly silly disaster films in the past, like Knowing and The Day After Tomorrow, so I try not to take a snob attitude towards them.

Now for some of why I HATED this - *SPOILERS* * Other people have commented on the 'heroes' (ie the dysfunctional white family) escaping every disaster at the last moment, more unbelievably than Indiana Jones ever did. While everyone else screams & falls down, continents literally move across the globe for this family's convenience! This is amusing once or twice, but then just gets silly. The emotional problem with this is that you can then only take this as being enjoyable action-comedy. But at the same time BILLIONS OF PEOPLE ARE BEING KILLED (there's no gore, but it's clear everyone on the planet is violently killed), and then even more amazingly you are meant to care whether this dull dysfunctional family gets back together. No, I wanted them DEAD! * This family is AWFUL. Despite the world going to hell, they care for nobody but themselves. They even take their escapes for granted, and all they can give the dying people around them are blank stares and then go back to talking about their personal issues. At least their young girl has the decency to sob once or twice (okay, I take back wanting her dead, but not the others). At a point later in the film, where the mother begs someone to save her kids, I wanted them to ask her what she'd ever done for anyone else's? What a cow. Drown em. * There's nothing wrong with depicting world disaster through the eyes of an ordinary family, but the story isn't actually told through their eyes only, so their importance is never explained. Why am I meant to care? * Did every African-American have to be so bloody noble? EVERY SINGLE ONE? * Having all the non-Americans get the secondary roles left a nasty taste. Because the rule in disaster films is that most of those secondary characters are just there to be killed off. The WORLD is ending, not just the US. But everyone takes orders from the US President, everyone is happy to talk English, and if you're a character from outside the US in this movie, say your prayers. Or rather, don't even bother. * What was the point of filling ships with billionaires? Their money would help build the things, but once everyone else on the planet dies, crusty old billionaires are not only not the best people to hang around with (they're generally not known for their manual labour or scientific skills), but after the world is destroyed so will 99% of their wealth! Their assets will be wiped out. There is no bloody point! A possible plot-line would have involved SOME billionaires bribing their way on board. But boatfuls of them? I have a low opinion of billionaires, but am certain most would be way too smart to think that was a good idea. * This film is kind of insulting to other nations. Even though plenty of US Presidents have been creeps, not all of them have been, and I can accept a heroic US President in a film. BUT, it's insulting to have other world leaders follow him blindly, and have him behave so nobly, going down with his country, while then portraying the Queen of England as one of the loathsome billionaires buying her way out - considering that the Queen Mum made a point of staying in London during the blitz, it's an insult. There's another uncomfortable point where a character expresses exasperation at the type of people they're saving - just as the camera catches sight of a smug middle-eastern billionaire. It comes across as an insult, whether intentional or not, but this film doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. Oh, and killing everyone in the Vatican, weird. This kind of mild nastiness could have been fun if the whole film had've been more wicked and bitter, maybe making John Cusack a lovable sleazeball, but no, it has to attempt to pull on our heart-strings too. We are simply meant to love the dull white American family, and want to see them get back together, because Hollywood films take that for granted, and to accept that all African-Americans are amazingly noble, because that's Hollywood being PC.

Where I walked out - started to get the urge when the mother begged the Chinese guard to save her children. Would have loved the Chinese guard (oh look, he speaks English) to explain to her why her family didn't deserve his help in the slightest. Where I did walk out - when one of the noble African-Americans made a god-awful speech about why they should try to save more of those horrid billionaires, that those people deserved a chance to live etc. No, I was not going to let these characters try to regain my sympathy so easily after hours of callous behaviour. And I just knew it would be a matter of minutes before John Cusack's character would attempt something similar, through some heroic action (and the plot synopsis on Wikipedia tells me I was right!).

Interesting story, with one great performance by Gulpilil, let down a bit by Gary Sweet's character. He's such a thorough bastard, that ordinary racism can't explain it - why is he such a monster, is he racist or simply a psychopath, and how did a fellow like that end up in the position of heading this little troupe in the first place? The movie doesn't seem to care about these issues in the slightest, and I think that's a pretty big failing for a film dealing with the big issues it seems to be wanting to grapple. Or maybe the problem is that Sweet appears to be play-acting at being evil, rather than really embodying it. And the dialogue & accents aren't always convincing if this is meant to be 1922. Not sure whether to blame the script, the direction, or the actors (excluding Gulpilil). But I liked where the story went in the end, and David Gulpilil, as usual, was wonderful - he makes everyone else look like amateurs. Worth seeing for his character alone. He's the centre of the film, complex and completely compelling and believable. So the film works as a portrait of his experience, and for that alone I'd recommend seeing it. It's just a pity that the white characters, who are secondary but none the less are there throughout the whole film, don't come across as equally believable people.

There are two main types of sci-fi out there. 1) The straight-forward tales of adventure, from Star Wars to Independence Day. Hollywood loves these. Heros to get behind, big action, and happy endings. Fun, fun, fun. 2) Then there are the old fashioned kind about ideas, getting us to ponder 'what if?' and jolting us out of our complacency about how we see our world and the universe - the stories of John Wyndham & H G Wells, 2001: A Space Odyssey & the original Planet of the Apes. Huge thanks to those behind the script and direction of War of the Worlds for not dumbing this one down. I'd agree with one frequent complaint about this film - the ending feels unsatisfying and could have easily been modified a little, to more adequately explain the death of the aliens, and tone down the cheesiness of the family reunion. Other than that, it's great, and a near-perfect updating of the novel, especially in the outstanding first half of the film. The alien tripods are completely convincing and were very frightening on the big screen. The script sticks to the book and accurately shows that people DON'T necessarily act like saints when their world is blown apart and they've got no hope of going back. The book was never about getting behind the main character, so we don't have to love or admire him (or his kids) - it was about watching him trying to survive and making sense of what's going on, seeing it through his eyes. Thank god they didn't add any ridiculous Tom Cruise Saves The World heroics along the lines of the laughable second half of Independence Day (fun film, but Will Smith and President Bill Pullman saving the world from aliens - yeah, right!). There's one change to the novel which I thought was a little disappointing. In the book, the man in the cellar who's lost the plot can do nothing but go on with mindless religious ramblings. There was nothing of this in Tim Robbins' performance. Maybe the film producers were worried this would be too disturbing for their audience (considering Tom Cruise's ultimate actions towards him)? There are nice touches in the script relating the chaos and the general lack of comprehension of what's going on to the immediate aftermath of terrorist events in recent years. It's very unusual for a current Hollywood film to be this brave, and reflect this reality. Post 9/11, Hollywood started showing American civilians sticking together more than in the past (Spiderman intentionally featured New Yorkers on their best behaviour). But all battles can't be won, whether we like it or not. As the book repeatedly points out, the animals on our planet are used to coming last. We destroy their homes, eradicate those we consider pests, and put others on our dinner plates without a second thought. Would we have more sympathy for them if we could relate? We even lose sympathy for victims of war in other countries, as long as their wars are far away and don't feature too much on our TV news. Also, I give this film credit to sticking with the dark conclusion of the book, where the only salvation available to humanity is something beyond our control. This film wants to make us face our fears, rather than reassure us. Yes, there's a happy ending, but only just. There are some things even Tom Cruise can't save us from.

I was lucky enough to see a beautifully restored print of this film shown at this year's Sydney Film Festival, with Ensemble Offspring performing a score by Elena Kats-Chernin. The previous comment on IMDb already explains the main charms of this film. It's a small and lovely film, but it's also easy to feel a little sad while watching it. It'd be nice to think that these Berliners went on year after year having simple sundays like the one portrayed in the film, but that wasn't to be. It's quite easy to feel for these people. As the actors were amateurs, and the plot so simple and unintrusive, it does end up feeling quite close to real life. It's not hard to picture them having a life that extends beyond the end of the film. I particularly liked the scene of an arguing couple, which ends up with them taking their fury out on postcards of each other's favourite movie stars (I noticed Greta Garbo and possibly Harold Llyod amongst them). I also enjoyed the scenes by the water, which are particularly sweet and simple, the scene involving people having their photos taken, and the girl who just wants to stay in bed. This mightn't be one of the great silent classics, but it's an enjoyable experience and very interesting historically. We're very lucky not to have lost it.

This film is such a cack. The music, the editing, the dialogue, the hair, the pot-boilingly melodramatic plot, the complete lack of any decent sense of decency! Where do you start? This is definitely a film which is so unique that it needs to be seen rather than read about. Most so-bad-they're-good films have about 30mins of fun stuff padded by a whole heap of crud, but this film is non-stop! Yes, he was a paraplegic - but he got better! The DVD version of this film was released a year ago in Australia, and it is a huge improvement over the terrible old VHS version. Firstly, the VHS version had a small number of cuts, which were ridiculous and unnecessary, since anyone who's easily offended wouldn't be watching this film in the first place. And it was difficult to watch, since the pan & scan job done on it to make it full-screen was completely dodgy. The film has some odd and very fast editing, and lots of close-ups, and the whole thing becomes a mess if not seen in widescreen. So watch it on DVD or on the big screen if you can. And of course, I highly recommend this film for anyone with a warped sense of humour and looking for something 'different'. This movie is a blast. In fact, this is my equal fave 'bad' fun movie (along with Glen or Glenda). The Sydney Film Festival recently showed it, and I can't remember the last time I heard an audience laugh so much. They even kept going along with the spirit of it through the most awkward part of the movie - the killing spree near the end (this is the one part of the movie that's most likely to turn people off the film). If you can forgive the film it's few minutes of schlocky early 70's style violence, and get in the mood for a laugh, you should have a great time with it. The world would be a duller place without this movie.