Three Dollars

I so wanted to be positive about this film, but to be honest I cannot. Its just one of those films which leaves you, ultimately, totally dissatisfied. Just what was it all about? Its a film where nothing happens but at the same time so much. Its unrelenting in its depressive 'story' - an ordinary man, married with a child and who has a fairly successful job, who, by the end, is forced to go through the garbage bins on the streets of Melbourne to try and secure food for him and his family.

Its the story of the downward spiral for a man who has scruples and where every character lies (or at best denies the truth)in some form or other. But just how much can you stand watching a man lose his job, watch his wife lose her job and then teeter on the edge of clinical depression, experience the first epileptic fit of his young daughter, know that his father is seriously ill and then witness his ultimate degradation of his experience of street-living? It ain't easy! Especially when the film runs for nearly 2 hours.

The saving grace of the film is the performances. David Wenham, possibly Australia's best, gives a superbly understated performance. No histrionics to be seen - simply a man who in some ways is simply defeated by circumstance - a wife, a child, a mortgage, a job in the Public Sector that is under threat - and a sense of values that are in some ways alien to modern society. There was also always a sense of underlying humour in his character, which helped, in parts at least, to lighten the darkness of the film. Frances O'Connor as his wife provides a spunky supportive role. And Robert Menzies as down-and-out Nick is great for the short period he is on screen.

I was somewhat puzzled, however, by 'Last time I saw Amanda I had $3' and the role she had in Nick's life. 'We see each other every nine and a half years....' Quick maths point out that the characters are in their mid-30s, but not sure about the basic premise of introducing the character Amanda! A pointer to the development of his life? Maybe. Emphasising the differences between them? Maybe. But take her and all references to her, and I don;t think that it would have had much impact on the film.

Ultimately, very disappointing - I gave it 5 for the performances.

This movie I found to be cringeworthily poor, but it was something that I couldn't look away from and due to its slow pace, fast-forwarded through until the end.

I think it was because I was hoping for some kind of payoff for investing time with these characters and a story that rings true to many adults.

Instead all this is is a purely emotionally manipulative film, catering to the audience's basic fears of unemployment and being poor - the fact that this successful couple could be so under "stress" after 2 days in which (however unlikely in real life) they both lose their jobs despite having family and friend support networks (and like a poster-er above said, Australia's welfare state to rely on) and wind up digging in garbage bins is just laughable. Even as a metaphor it's just pathetic and manipulative.

What was the point of this film? I just wasted 2 hours of my life on it and there was little redeeming quality.

Plus, the flashbacks were very bad in terms of clothes and using the same actors. Also the timeline just didn't work as Joy Division came out in the late 70's until 1980 (bonded over by the 2 main actors couple who looked like they were in university) and the movie takes place in 2004 which would mean they were together for 25 or so years by that point and yet only in their mid-30's?? The movie seemed like a big advert for mental health services as it's supposed to be about the changing nature of society and how it's "okay" to be a little stressed and depressed, just get some professional help.

Three dollars is quite clever it had great Aussie locations and an excellent cast. the cinematography was very Amateur but i quite liked it. David Wenham who plays eddie done a A class performance. people thought his movie had no story line but it did it was simple. it was about a man who used to have a good life but is now in a state of financial difficulties and is struggling to pay for his families meals. i can believe people didn't like this it was incredible!....the film had other meanings behind it such as homeless people in Australia, having a good job and people taking it away from you. filmmakers should make more films like this

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".

It's a real shame that films like 'Three Dollars' don't get any recognition in there own countries, because it definitely shows what a great industry we have hear. The premise is quite simple: a tale about an honest man, trying to support a family who loses his job and nearly collapses. Throughout the film, we learn about how he met his wife, and what it really means to be down on luck.

It's hard to explain why this is such a great film, but it is undoubtedly a fantastic story that is well acted and directed, with an as usual great performance for leading man Wehnam. All I can say is that it is well worth seeing, one of the best movies I've seen this year, yet no one will ever know about it. See it if you get a chance.