punishable-by-death
Joined Sep 2012
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings65
punishable-by-death's rating
Reviews46
punishable-by-death's rating
This small Aussie gem is filled with a plethora of psychological, existential and family related questions posited, often answered in surprising and unexpected ways. That it does this while being funny and thrilling is an accomplishment.
Terry and Jeff feel slighted. Their mother is dying, and in their eyes, step father Roger is taking advantage of her by willingly accepting their childhood home as part of her will.
The only answer is obvious. They must kill him, naturally.
Entering his house in orange overalls under the darkness of morning, Jeff begins to go through the plan with his brother. Only this isn't a conversation, the plan is represented by a convenient, harmless looking checklist. Terry's reaction to seeing what they plan to do listed on paper is understandable, but what lingers under his skin is the fact that his brother seems so non-nonchalant about the entire situation.
As if they aren't planning to kill their step-father and then to make it look like a suicide.
Terry remarks that if he didn't know any better, he'd have thought that Jeff had done this before, with every detail meticulously thought through. Apart from the obvious requirement for gloves, he goes a few extra steps bordering on the obsessive compulsive, including no opening of the fridge as that could cause a power surge. The same applies to the toilet:: the water pump goes off and electricity is used.
Enter the use of piss-bottles. If he wants to take a crap Terry asks, Jeff calmly replies that unless he wants to get his hands particularly dirty, he'll hold it in like a big boy.
Each item on the agenda is carefully timed so that they can get the jump on Roger while having everything planned to perfection. But nothing is perfect, and once Murphey's Law kicks in, and after much shenanigans, their plans go awry. They still though insist on maintaining their alibi for their mother: that they are in Sydney, while using a cassette tape of the noises of a big city to fool her. Scruples are not something either brother possess.
It soon turns into a thrilling guessing game as to what surprise lies around the next corner. The deeper into the situation the brothers get, the more they disagree on what is happening, the darkness of the entire situation, it is here where the fact that the two actors are brothers in reality becomes obvious, as this sort of conflict, such deep verbal jabs, this chemistry between the brothers on screen could never have been apparent if this weren't the case.
Terry begins to wonder what he is capable of, knowing his mother is only has a few months left to live and he plans to kill her partner during her final days, but furthermore, despite knowing his brother so well, he can never be sure of what he is capable of either. This is amplified by Clayton Jacobson's muted, almost emotionless performance as Jeff.
Comparisons to Coen films are not far off, as this is a dry film. It is also filled with dark humour, at first subtle but it increases as the action increases, not unlike a Coen film. The laughs come despite violence on-screen. When Roger unexpectedly arrives at the house early, the two jolt into action that they weren't prepared for, forcing them to act in ways they may not have. Suddenly, the carefully planned timetable is useless. Yet the laughs still come, if one has a twisted sense of humour. There is a definite Australian character to the laughs, not unlike Chopper.
Interestingly, their biological father killed himself when they were children, a traumatic event that still lingers, with many thoughts going unsaid. This could be seen as a family drama wrapped up in a darkly comedic thriller. Perhaps their father's suicide provided that extra motivation to get the ugly deed over with. Or perhaps it just gave Jeff the idea, as he is certainly the one in charge.
As seamlessly as this turns from an interesting premise into a thrilling movie with laughs probably more appropriate for a lunatic, there is an uncommon complaint to be found. Almost every aspect of this film is near perfect, especially the aforementioned chemistry between real brothers Clayton and Shane. And the sense of humour. And the dread that consumes the film very quickly. But it feels like this chamber-piece is over too quickly, that the psychological and existential implications of what transpires aren't fully explored. This is admittedly nit-picking, but the ending does feel underwhelming given what preceded it. Regardless, Brothers' Nest is an extremely memorable film made on a typically shoestring Australia film budget.
Funny, dark, unpredictable. Coen-esque. What else could one ask for?
Terry and Jeff feel slighted. Their mother is dying, and in their eyes, step father Roger is taking advantage of her by willingly accepting their childhood home as part of her will.
The only answer is obvious. They must kill him, naturally.
Entering his house in orange overalls under the darkness of morning, Jeff begins to go through the plan with his brother. Only this isn't a conversation, the plan is represented by a convenient, harmless looking checklist. Terry's reaction to seeing what they plan to do listed on paper is understandable, but what lingers under his skin is the fact that his brother seems so non-nonchalant about the entire situation.
As if they aren't planning to kill their step-father and then to make it look like a suicide.
Terry remarks that if he didn't know any better, he'd have thought that Jeff had done this before, with every detail meticulously thought through. Apart from the obvious requirement for gloves, he goes a few extra steps bordering on the obsessive compulsive, including no opening of the fridge as that could cause a power surge. The same applies to the toilet:: the water pump goes off and electricity is used.
Enter the use of piss-bottles. If he wants to take a crap Terry asks, Jeff calmly replies that unless he wants to get his hands particularly dirty, he'll hold it in like a big boy.
Each item on the agenda is carefully timed so that they can get the jump on Roger while having everything planned to perfection. But nothing is perfect, and once Murphey's Law kicks in, and after much shenanigans, their plans go awry. They still though insist on maintaining their alibi for their mother: that they are in Sydney, while using a cassette tape of the noises of a big city to fool her. Scruples are not something either brother possess.
It soon turns into a thrilling guessing game as to what surprise lies around the next corner. The deeper into the situation the brothers get, the more they disagree on what is happening, the darkness of the entire situation, it is here where the fact that the two actors are brothers in reality becomes obvious, as this sort of conflict, such deep verbal jabs, this chemistry between the brothers on screen could never have been apparent if this weren't the case.
Terry begins to wonder what he is capable of, knowing his mother is only has a few months left to live and he plans to kill her partner during her final days, but furthermore, despite knowing his brother so well, he can never be sure of what he is capable of either. This is amplified by Clayton Jacobson's muted, almost emotionless performance as Jeff.
Comparisons to Coen films are not far off, as this is a dry film. It is also filled with dark humour, at first subtle but it increases as the action increases, not unlike a Coen film. The laughs come despite violence on-screen. When Roger unexpectedly arrives at the house early, the two jolt into action that they weren't prepared for, forcing them to act in ways they may not have. Suddenly, the carefully planned timetable is useless. Yet the laughs still come, if one has a twisted sense of humour. There is a definite Australian character to the laughs, not unlike Chopper.
Interestingly, their biological father killed himself when they were children, a traumatic event that still lingers, with many thoughts going unsaid. This could be seen as a family drama wrapped up in a darkly comedic thriller. Perhaps their father's suicide provided that extra motivation to get the ugly deed over with. Or perhaps it just gave Jeff the idea, as he is certainly the one in charge.
As seamlessly as this turns from an interesting premise into a thrilling movie with laughs probably more appropriate for a lunatic, there is an uncommon complaint to be found. Almost every aspect of this film is near perfect, especially the aforementioned chemistry between real brothers Clayton and Shane. And the sense of humour. And the dread that consumes the film very quickly. But it feels like this chamber-piece is over too quickly, that the psychological and existential implications of what transpires aren't fully explored. This is admittedly nit-picking, but the ending does feel underwhelming given what preceded it. Regardless, Brothers' Nest is an extremely memorable film made on a typically shoestring Australia film budget.
Funny, dark, unpredictable. Coen-esque. What else could one ask for?
After American Sniper- a true story about a man who is known only for the amount of people he killed on the battleground- one could be forgiven for thinking that Mr. Eastwood had gotten his jingoistic kink out of his system. This proves to be far from the case, and it would also seem that in a short amount of time he has lost all ability to make a remotely entertaining, cohesive, even interesting film after 2016's extremely solid Sully.
We begin by meeting three US friends, narration telling us that they are the best of friends, before a quick description of each, which could honestly describe almost any person on a certain day.
Oddly, there is a jump at least a decade back, where the three met in school, where they go to college, among other filler that could easily have the viewer wondering if they had walked into the wrong theatre. These exhaustive and pointless efforts to try and humanise the characters all fail miserably; the net result: faint, blurred caricatures of young males that we don't care about. Two of them, eventually, end up in the military.
After this near-pointless introduction, one that easily takes up over half the film, if not three quarters, the two soldiers and their other friend, roped into a trip to Europe, finally decide to board the ill-fated train to Paris. Don't fear though, there are more baffling, irrelevant scenes beforehand when the trio first arrive in Europe, so you'll have time for a toilet break.
As for the scenes on the train, a description of underwhelming is being far, far too kind. Not only are some scenes extremely hard to believe and the little amount of action haphazardly shot and hard to follow, the time spent on-board the train is a maximum of fifteen minutes.
The train that is the title of the film.
Subsequently, the overall result plays out like a poorly executed coming-of-age story with some tacky action scenes stapled roughly onto the end, sharp edges and all.
As if none of this were bad enough, we have the predictable The US can conquer all 'theme' looming overhead. To be fair, there aren't any non-US people being demonised. But apart from some lip service that is easily missed, the incredibly short time spent on the train is spent focused on the three Americans.
The biggest problem with the latter is that these scenes take at least half of the passengers who helped halt the situation out of the equation. Yes, two of the Americans were trained by the military and, perhaps, deserve more screen-time. But, according to reports of the averted disaster, the first three to react and help with the the threat were two Frenchmen and one British citizen, followed by the three we actually see do all the heavy lifting on-screen.
I think this says more than you need to know about this atrocity of a film.
Hang up the gloves Clint. For both our sanity. This has no redeeming qualities at all.
We begin by meeting three US friends, narration telling us that they are the best of friends, before a quick description of each, which could honestly describe almost any person on a certain day.
Oddly, there is a jump at least a decade back, where the three met in school, where they go to college, among other filler that could easily have the viewer wondering if they had walked into the wrong theatre. These exhaustive and pointless efforts to try and humanise the characters all fail miserably; the net result: faint, blurred caricatures of young males that we don't care about. Two of them, eventually, end up in the military.
After this near-pointless introduction, one that easily takes up over half the film, if not three quarters, the two soldiers and their other friend, roped into a trip to Europe, finally decide to board the ill-fated train to Paris. Don't fear though, there are more baffling, irrelevant scenes beforehand when the trio first arrive in Europe, so you'll have time for a toilet break.
As for the scenes on the train, a description of underwhelming is being far, far too kind. Not only are some scenes extremely hard to believe and the little amount of action haphazardly shot and hard to follow, the time spent on-board the train is a maximum of fifteen minutes.
The train that is the title of the film.
Subsequently, the overall result plays out like a poorly executed coming-of-age story with some tacky action scenes stapled roughly onto the end, sharp edges and all.
As if none of this were bad enough, we have the predictable The US can conquer all 'theme' looming overhead. To be fair, there aren't any non-US people being demonised. But apart from some lip service that is easily missed, the incredibly short time spent on the train is spent focused on the three Americans.
The biggest problem with the latter is that these scenes take at least half of the passengers who helped halt the situation out of the equation. Yes, two of the Americans were trained by the military and, perhaps, deserve more screen-time. But, according to reports of the averted disaster, the first three to react and help with the the threat were two Frenchmen and one British citizen, followed by the three we actually see do all the heavy lifting on-screen.
I think this says more than you need to know about this atrocity of a film.
Hang up the gloves Clint. For both our sanity. This has no redeeming qualities at all.
Given his background, director Tom Ford's second film is surprising in that it is not a case of style over substance - there isn't too anything flashy for the most part, but the entire film has a subtle stylish quality to it, which flows into the cinematography and the colours used. Added to this though is a gritty, violent thriller with a bit of dark humour thrown in for kicks.
It is clear from the start of the film that Susan, a successful art gallery owner, isn't in a good place mentally. Christ, just look at the opening scene that accompanies the credits! She isn't sleeping, she is losing faith in herself and her career, and possibly her marriage. It is also established quickly that she is financially well-off.
Without warning, a completed book is mailed to her by her ex-husband of 19 years, a man that she says she broke up with in a bad way. Cleverly, the film doesn't show us what that was specifically, instead it uses her ex's book as a sort of prop. The story Edward has written is a dark and violent vengeful tale. Julie takes this personally, and it is hard not to see why when we learn about the similarities in personality between the story's protagonist, Tony, and Edward himself.
It is interesting to watch her reactions as she reads the story, with close-up shots, especially her eyes, showing a lot more than she could ever say. The further into the story she reads, the more it affects her mental well-being. I love the idea of a story within a story (film), which is obviously not a new trend, but this certainly offers a few twists on that basic formula.
What lingers in my mind is how the film slowly reveals itself. The film will occasionally flashback to a moment when Susan was with Edward, and at first the scene won't make a ton of sense. Then later on an event or scene will cause that flashback to fit together, to tell another part of the story. The flashbacks are handled perfectly; Jake Gyllenhaal even looks younger during these scenes, and without the heavy Texan accent he has within the confines of a book, there is no confusion. We always know where we are within the movie.
At first, I thought the ending was extremely premature. But after thinking about it for a bit, it makes perfect sense given the events that preceded it. A unique film to be certain. As for Amy Adams, this is two roles in a row that she has nailed, and each of those roles couldn't be more different. She even looks different here. Gyllenhaal doesn't let us down, unsurprisingly, and Michael Shannon serves as a fine grumbly old detective whose idea of the law becomes slightly warped as the film rolls by.
Impressive, original and well-acted, there isn't a film I can think of to compare this to - which is an infinitely good thing. Stylish where needed and gritty when it counts, this is a multi-faceted film that needs to be seen more than once. And as most of us know, the films you need to watch more than once often end up becoming favourites. The only niggles I have are some aspects of the script and screenplay - a lot of the humour fell flat, and some very tense scenes were undone by some very predictable scenarios, as well as a script that is as sharp as a spoon. Still though, I sure as hell will be watching this one again soon.
www.epilepticmoondancer.net
It is clear from the start of the film that Susan, a successful art gallery owner, isn't in a good place mentally. Christ, just look at the opening scene that accompanies the credits! She isn't sleeping, she is losing faith in herself and her career, and possibly her marriage. It is also established quickly that she is financially well-off.
Without warning, a completed book is mailed to her by her ex-husband of 19 years, a man that she says she broke up with in a bad way. Cleverly, the film doesn't show us what that was specifically, instead it uses her ex's book as a sort of prop. The story Edward has written is a dark and violent vengeful tale. Julie takes this personally, and it is hard not to see why when we learn about the similarities in personality between the story's protagonist, Tony, and Edward himself.
It is interesting to watch her reactions as she reads the story, with close-up shots, especially her eyes, showing a lot more than she could ever say. The further into the story she reads, the more it affects her mental well-being. I love the idea of a story within a story (film), which is obviously not a new trend, but this certainly offers a few twists on that basic formula.
What lingers in my mind is how the film slowly reveals itself. The film will occasionally flashback to a moment when Susan was with Edward, and at first the scene won't make a ton of sense. Then later on an event or scene will cause that flashback to fit together, to tell another part of the story. The flashbacks are handled perfectly; Jake Gyllenhaal even looks younger during these scenes, and without the heavy Texan accent he has within the confines of a book, there is no confusion. We always know where we are within the movie.
At first, I thought the ending was extremely premature. But after thinking about it for a bit, it makes perfect sense given the events that preceded it. A unique film to be certain. As for Amy Adams, this is two roles in a row that she has nailed, and each of those roles couldn't be more different. She even looks different here. Gyllenhaal doesn't let us down, unsurprisingly, and Michael Shannon serves as a fine grumbly old detective whose idea of the law becomes slightly warped as the film rolls by.
Impressive, original and well-acted, there isn't a film I can think of to compare this to - which is an infinitely good thing. Stylish where needed and gritty when it counts, this is a multi-faceted film that needs to be seen more than once. And as most of us know, the films you need to watch more than once often end up becoming favourites. The only niggles I have are some aspects of the script and screenplay - a lot of the humour fell flat, and some very tense scenes were undone by some very predictable scenarios, as well as a script that is as sharp as a spoon. Still though, I sure as hell will be watching this one again soon.
www.epilepticmoondancer.net