billybob49

The "growth pills" wee Geordie takes in the early scenes are obviously anabolic steroids... So here we have a mid century drug cheat competing in the Melbourne Olympics, which isn't quite the same trope as a bonnie farm lad from the Highlands winning gold and hearts. Apart from that, it's lots of fun in the old school manner of Ealing/Michael Balcon et al. Enjoy.

Technically competent and adequately performed Hallmark fare. Nadia Tass has to be a contender for Australia's own version of the "Otto Preminger Upward Failure" Trophy - an infamous award from Esquire Magazine accorded to the Swedish Hollywood director who started his career with a half decent film and got steadily worse thereafter. Since "Malcolm" (1986) , it's been downhill ever since for Ms Tass - and yet she seems to get automatically funded. It must be a Melbourne thing (ref Paul Cox et al).

This film stinks on every level - because of its disguise as a quality film. It's cloying cast mug and perform by numbers. The plot comes from a weekend Robert McKee course and the resolution would probably even send hallmark executives asking for a shootout. The soundtrack is also pure saccharine, just in case you miss the point. There's no meat on any of the bones in this - it's all predictable and "charming". UUgh.

Avoid at all costs.

Oh, the score of 2 is for the her husband's cinematography ... which is excellent, as always.

I can't see anyone under 50 even being remotely interested in this "Patrick White In Drag" type film (to quote another IMDb user). The 2 hours reminded me of those hours spent in non air- conditioned portable classrooms (for me, in the late 60's) wading through arcane English literature classes wherein Patrick White was regarded as "worthy"...or "significant".

"Storm" has all the features we have come to expect from "quality" Australian film-making - a great cast, polished direction, impeccable production values etc etc ... but it's as dull and disconnected as the world White writes about. Who really gives a stuff about an imploding grazing family presided over by a a dying monster ... nominally set in the 1970s, but really (as in most of White's writing) set in the 1930s?

On a $15m budget ... it probably needs a world wide gross of $100m to break even. Ye Gods - who green-lit this? How much Government funding went into it? (Its $1.6m domestic gross should just about pay for the Prints and Advertising" budget & little more).

We have a bustling new generation - make that two generations - of film-makers pushing the envelope and making "Animal Kingdom", "Daybreakers", "Red Dog" etc who seem to be at least aware of their audience and their responsibility for getting a return for their investors. Film-making is an expensive business ... and "Storm" is just a sad old melodrama, outdated, over-priced and isolated from the real world, doomed to fail financially. I can understand why audiences congratulate themselves for having sat through it ("splendid and intelligent" - another IMDb post), but it's just an Anglo middle class statement from people who are longing for the days of "Careful He Might Hear You" or "The Devil's Playground".

At least the English Class in those old portables only lasted 50 minutes...