Dorathen Better Late Then Never

GarnettTeenage The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Paynbob It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Bigbang Another indie movie where the dialogue stinks. Nobody speaks in clear, understandable sentences. Everything is vague, ambiguous and one-word. So your task in every scene is to figure out what the hell is going on. It's like a job. Instead of being entertained you're working. Indie movies think this dialogue is realistic, but it isn't. This isn't how people talk. People speak clearly and make sure you understand what they're talking about. I know people are miserable but wow these people are just hopeless. I didn't even like Cate in this and I usually love her.I'm also tired of movies about drug addicts. It's so 80s and early 90s. Don't get me wrong...

tedg There are two national traditions of a sort that are driving excellence in film today. One focuses on the nature of the long form in terms of structure that connects emotionally and through folds intellectually as well. Its Spanish filmmakers, though distributed around the world.So far as modern acting is concerned, it is the relatively small nation of Australia who so dominates it is a wonder. It must come down to a couple — or even one — influential teacher at the national acting school there, NIDA.Here we have the latter without the former, such a shame. Oh, the filmmaker is intelligent enough, let's say of the Frears type and intensity. He's put together a sad tale of tentacles into a woman's soul, that once touched is forever vulnerable.But its essentially actor-centric. The actors fill their spaces marvelously, and create a wonderful froth of interaction. But it is merely froth. Inlike the handles the actors give us, the filmmaker gives us none. There is no shape to this as a film, no engagement as a story apart from what the actors give: parts.I saw this with "Bongwater," which was a minor success in that the film was broken in the same way the heroine was. That's true here as well, the difference being heroin instead of pot, and a much higher level of skill all around. Cate played much this same role in the recent "Notes on a Scandal." Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

Camera Obscura The subject didn't sound very appealing to me but Cate Blanchett's in it and a whole cast of Aussie/NZ celebrities. Worth a peek, I thought, but sadly, it's disappointing. Cate Blanchett is Tracy, a former heroin addict trying to set up her own business and stay (emotionally) clear from a bunch of ne'er-do wells surrounding her. It's all misery in this film. For me it only works if the story is connected to a certain time and place. There's contemporary Sydney, but it merely serves as background music, it could have been anywhere anytime. It just doesn't come off as very authentic. Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Dustin Nguyen, Sam Neill, everyone acts their head off, but to no avail. There's little in the way of a story or direction to guide them. Blanchett is probably the most respected actress of her generation, and again she is very good. It's all her show. As a moodpiece it succeeds in a way, as drama is less rewarding. Director Rowan Woods tries hard to make this engaging but the characters, including Blanchett's, are mildly interesting at first, simply off-putting later. There's just too little to keep things afloat till the end, literally. It's all downhill and we have to slide with them.Camera Obscura --- 5/10

pookey56 i really really wanted to like this film. i sought it out in no small part because of the wonderful Cate Blanchett, the enigmatic Hugo Weaving, and the usually amicable Sam Neill. I also admit to mostly loving Australian films; there have been so many good ones. I had to watch this film twice.here were liars, losers, drug addicts, oddly irrelevant dialogue, and lots and lots of boredom. In fairness, i was especially happy to see Hugo's work as a human being. And Cate can do no wrong as far as i'm concerned. And Mr. Neill? He looks to me like he's on medication(s), and i found him less recognizable than Hugo. His bloated appearance doesn't look like the result of over-eating to me. I often watch films more than once, but i don't enjoy re-watching one because i want to make sure i didn't miss something, or because perhaps i didn't "get it" the first time, and then finding that neither was the case. this isn't the worst film i've ever seen, but it was one of the most boring. And no, i'm not one to need car chases, gun play, lots of sex, nor non-stop action to be interested in a movie. But a screenplay helps. I didn't notice one in Little Fish. Little fish are often prey to bigger ones, but in this case, these little fish are so non descript, the bigger ones would probably swim right by them.....