Three Dollars

A man discovers how close he is to homeless, and what dignity really means. We watch him take the first step to solving his predicament: admitting it to himself and to those he loves.

The man is David Wenham (in the role of Eddie Harnovey) and what a performance he gives: an unexciting environmental chemist never evoked such pathos. His altruism, his silly kindnesses, endear him too us; they seem a truly authentic response from a man accustomed to being the charity-giver, and who's sense of himself won't let him admit that the tables have now turned. Living that lie, just for a little while longer, to postpone a hard decision or realisation: this is an experience we've all had, and Wenham plays it so well, subtly hinting at deeper more honest feelings.

Molokai, Getting Square, The Boys, The Proposition, Dust: Wenham has demonstrated an impressive acting range across his oeuvre thus far. Any fan must watch Three Dollars to see yet another thing this man can do with aplomb. His principal companions in this film, Frances O'Connor and Robert Menzies, also turn in fine performances.

I really appreciated Three Dollars' subtle character development. Robert Connolly's screenplay is a fine one, and his unobtrusive visual style really worked for the material. Others on IMDb have criticised this film for being slow, and possessing some pointless episodes; the phrase which best describes these bits is character development! No, this film doesn't have the steroidal plot of your average Hollywood blockbuster. But, by the same token, your average Hollywood blockbuster never comes close to the complex, unglamorous emotional journey depicted here. If you can appreciate a film which doesn't consist of a series of Indiana Jones style trials, you've found a winner. If you don't have an art house sensibility then you might find this film a little diffuse, but I still recommend the challenge.

One only has to read this site's negative reviews to discover this film has a credibility problem. I found it very authentic; two close friends in the employ of Australia's social welfare provider (Centrelink) agree with me. So why is it that people don't believe the events of this film could reasonably happen? The answer is that people expressing such opinions have an unrealistic faith in their employment protections and social welfare system; if one has never lived on the edge, or been in close contact with people who have, one often has such misapprehensions.

Australian corporations regularly lay off large numbers of people: a process euphemistically called 'restructuring'. In Australia, sacking one person is legally fraught: sacking many is legally painless. Companies will announce there intention to do so well in advance, but, in my company at least, you are told you've been sacked on the day that you finish. It's happened twice at my office, and a couple of people have been very surprised.

If your one of those people who didn't really plan for the eventuality, even if you run to the welfare office (Centrelink), you'll run into several weeks delay while your case gets processed; how do you feed your family in the mean time? Most people resort to credit, but not everyone has the luxury; David Wenham's character probably has a ten thousand dollar Amex debt from his recent 'unapproved' business travel.

I have seen a former director, sacked without notice, march into my Fortune 500 company's office, with his entire family, demanding that his entitlements be processed for payment then and there; he forcefully proclaimed for all in the open plan office to hear, "I have to feed these people you know!" How improbable? How true! A sole bread-winner who is absorbed in their work, who is impractical, in debt, and manages his finances from week to week (a character which David Wenham convincingly inhabits) could easily find himself in the Three Dollars situation.

What is so sad about this film is that some people reject it as unrealistic when, in fact, a similar thing happens to an Australian every day. Very soon in Australia there will be no protection against unfair dismissal for employees of companies with up to one hundred people. None whatsoever. This isn't forecasting on my part, but a matter which has already been passed into law. It's easy to see from other comments relating to this film how such laws succeed; our prime minister, 'Honest' John Howard, couldn't possibly sponsor such a bill? Could he? The problem of the disjunction between what is actually true and what people are prepared to believe is a problem faced by better films all the time. The only solution, I suppose, is to keep making them, and thereby change peoples' misconceptions. I encourage overseas watchers to give this story the benefit of the doubt; it is really quite a truthful one, I assure you.

To make an analogy, few Australians would be aware that a pistol with a silencer makes a noise of 110 decibels or more (that's louder than a pneumatic drill or someone shouting in your ear). Many would wonder where the noise came from if Kiefer Sutherland ever used anything like the real thing; and, sure enough, comments would appear on IMDb saying, "How unrealistic was that!" Those reviews that proclaim Three Dollars to be unrealistic are making the same mistake: their point of reference is not reality.

Take the leap with this film, even if what happens offends your belief in the justice of your society: your belief may well be unjustified.

It's good to see a film tackling this unpopular but important subject.

Three Dollars is an affecting character-driven drama. The central performances are truly excellent. It is a melancholy film, but a certain wry humour keeps it afloat. It is saddest in its comment on society; more than a little optimism can be found in Eddie's final situation: provided you value self-realisation over money.

"Three Dollars" is one of the best films I have seen this year. I was not sure what to expect because I had never before seen David Wenham in a dramatic role. I had enjoyed him in comedies especially the television series "Sea Change".

The intricacies of his performance made this movie memorable, moving and fascinating. Other actors are believable and involving. The story is unusual but can easily be identified with. The direction allows the story to flow and makes the most of the emotions.

I can thoroughly recommend this film to anyone who likes to examine the morality behind decisions we make and the effects the decisions have on our futures.

Although it has been suggested that "Three Dollars" is about the mind of the Australian Male, Melbourne version, (such as it is), it really could be set in almost any large Western city. Eddie (David Wenham), a genial thirty-something, works for a Government environmental testing agency as a chemical engineer. He is instructed to sign off on a dodgy developer's polluted project. He resists, and at the start of the film we see his reward, a forced march out the door. So much for fearless impartial regulators. Eddie is in a spot, no money (three dollars in fact) and his university tutor wife Tanya (Frances O'Connor) has also been laid off. They have a large mortgage and a cute six-year-old, Abby, to feed. Eddie gets a conducted tour by Nick, a derro (Australian for derelict) he once helped, of the mean streets that may await him, but at the end there is hope from a (possible) guardian angel in the form of Amanda (Sarah Wynter), Eddie's childhood sweetheart (and daughter of the dodgy developer) who in a coincidence worthy of Latin American magic realism, manages to pop up in Eddie's life every nine-and–a–half years.

David Wenham can do comedy ("Getting Straight") or drama ("The Boys") equally well, and here he does both splendidly. His Eddie is amiable, a bit of a duffer, but instinctively decent. Thus he cannot approve the dodgy development, despite being aware of the consequences. Wenham, who has great integrity as an actor, has no trouble evoking the pain that can come with doing the right thing. Frances does a fine job as his ambitious but frustrated academic wife, and Joanna Hunt-Prokhovnic (aged nine) as the six-year-old Abby nearly steals every scene she is in. Two minor roles are in the scene stealer category also, David Roberts as Eddie's loathsome boss Gerald and Robert Menzies, unrecognizable as Nick the derro.

The plot leans heavily on coincidence. Not only do Sarah and Nick pop up so providentially, but Sarah is having an affair with Gerald, who happens to have once enticed Tanya away from Eddie with an offer to let her play a female Hamlet while they were all at University together. And of course there is the matter of Sarah's father being the dodgy developer. This all doesn't matter for the story is essentially a fable about keeping one's integrity even when everybody and everything seems to be conspiring to take it off you.

The script is fine though the pace flags at times and one or two of the plot diversions (eg meet the parents) seem unnecessary. There are also some unnecessary flourishes such as the crop-dusting plane attack - an apparent tribute to Hitchcock's "North by North West". Robert Connolly's only previous outing as a feature director was another entertaining modern fable starring David Wenham, "The Bank". It's a long wait between watchable Australian films these days so naturally I hope this does as well. It is a little less slick and a little more tuned to real feeling.

There are many things to appreciate about Robert Connolly's Three Dollars, but the film could have been much better if it was dealt better with what I'd call its 2 main problems. These problems are: the unnecessary length of the film and the ambiguity of its main premise or what one's might call the distraction of the main dramatic problem in the storyline.

Starting off its trailer, no one could get the slightest hint what 3 Dollars was going to be about; so why there was a trailer in the first place? However, Robert Connolly in his Q&A with the premier show of the film in Brisbane repeated more than one time in his answers to the audience that "the film is about a good man being tested in all aspects of his life. Tested in his relation with his wife and daughter. Tested in his morality about his work. Tested in his financial situation, and tested even in the streets he walks on!" The film, as Connolly puts it, is "an epic story of an ordinary man." This definition for the main plot line in 3 dollars took the filmmakers to kind of misleading direction. Do ordinary people make epics? Probably yes, but Three Dollars in fact is not an epic film. It's a film that was frilled with many details that made its interesting story less connection. The film finds its appropriate pace in the last 25 minutes and holds it firmly to the end, but the first 90 minutes were so long that I'm sure many people won't stay on their seats to reach those interesting 25 minutes. Scenes, takes and dialogs were all very long that it could have been shorten. I believe that 3 Dollars strongly needs to be reedited and take off no less than 20 minutes of its unnecessary scenes.

Related to the problem of the film's length, one's could also points out to the problem of that the film spent very long time building up its frilled story just to reach its final point—where the ordinary man becomes a tramp for one night. On the way to reach that point, the film mixes many genres for no good reason. Sometimes it looks like black comedy whereas other times it was pure social realism story. Mixing genres, in fact, is good thing to reject Hollywood one-vision style of film-making, but it could be also dangerous exercise if it not done smartly. Mixing genres in 3 dollars seemed illogical and been done in a way that it didn't help the film a lot. Talking about mixing genres I just want to refer here to the homage Connolly had to Hitchcock's North By Northwest. I mean the famous scene where an airplane attacks/follows an unarmed man. This scene, though it was well done/remade in 3 dollars, is a good example for those sequences were audience's attention been drawn to something else rather than the main story.

But 3 Dollars is also a brave Australian film that succeeded avoiding some of the market requirements such as action, gunfights and happy ending. In fact, there is a brave thing about 3 Dollars that deserve special salute: filming the harsh street life of beggars and tramps. I think it is the first Australian film that dealt in this depth with this issue, which most directors usually avoid. Why they avoid it? Because it's hard to be done. Filming the harsh life on poor streets is a harsh practice itself. The best parts of 3 Dollars are those last 25 minutes about the life on the street. While watching those sequences, I was recalling the Australian aboriginal singer Archie Roach's song, Move It On, where he painfully sings, "I was raised on the street/ I'm nobody's fool/ yeah I was raised on the street/ but street can be so cruel".

I watched this movie for a second time tonight, the first time was when it was released at the cinema. I have a very good memory, but when I came across this in the library I knew I had seen it but could not remember anything about it except for a few minor details.

It turns out the reason I could not remember the story is that there is no story. Story's begin to develop but then get forgotten, by the end of the movie, you are left feeling that there was no point at all. The last half hour feels extremely forced and the previous hour or so spends to much time in the past rather than setting up the ending.

Sure, movies don't always have to follow the three act structure, but they need to be good in some aspect, perhaps amazingly shot, or fantastic dialogue, something.

David was the one shining light, as he always gives a great performance, but towards the end, you feel his character is wondering what the point of this movie is just as the viewer is.

If that was the directors intent , then brilliant, unfortunately, it was not.

The Ian Curtis impersonation on the dance floor is fantastic!