Dust

After having read some reviews of 'Dust' I was not sure if I wanted to see it or not. However, the "David Wenham infatuation" prevailed in the end, and I went as far as to actually purchase the film. It was money well spent, you could say. While the movie would not appeal to general audiences, it left me awestruck. I ended up watching it again, on the same night.

"Wow" is how I describe feeling after the credits rolled (the first and the second time). I don't want to spoil anything for those who have not seen the movie, so I'll just stick to my reactions to it. There was laughter, there were tears, there might have been an "eww" once or twice, there were definitely lustful thoughts of David Wenham (he's rather cute, you know). Acting was superb, though I'd like a few words with the 'dialect coach' (hint: the leads are not American). All in all, a great movie. I highly recommend seeing it at least once.

It's easy to miss what DUST does with the Western's clichés. The movie is a kind of rumination in modern, international terms on THE WILD BUNCH, with some problems (e.g., Joseph Fiennes's Southern accent and arguably too many bloodbaths) and with some remarkable achievements. Chief among these is Manchevski's managing to keep several threads hanging because he pays us the compliment of assuming that we are paying attention, waiting for culmination, like the youngster who finally proves to be the movie's protagonist. We need very few details to make the important connections. The lad is a low-class thief in hock to dirty cops; he confronts an old broad far tougher than he is, who sees his resemblance to the Luke of her memory, a mercenary cowboy who found it easier to kill than love. As she begins a sharp-witted decline to death, she tells Luke's story. The story is full of traps. We think Luke fled to Macedonia because he loves the prostitute his sinister, found-again brother (Fiennes) has married. But Luke and his life are more complicated than that, as we gradually learn, circling through past, present, and the minds of several participants. Manchevski values images, cutting to the old lady's photos from the past, mixing times and spaces within the frame. He insists that we are watching the old lady's story, not even a pretense at reality. At last the youngster takes up the challenge and Luke redeems himself in a final confrontation whose truth is in fiction's need to resolve the central issue: here, that memory is a story which makes time come round to emphasize the dark ironies and pains from which we keep trying to protect ourselves.

When we first put Dust into the DVD player and the film started, I wondered if maybe the video-rental store put the wrong dvd in the case. As the story progressed, I was enamored by the brilliant execution of story within story within story. The world needs more films like this, with semi-unfamiliar faces who don't need to work so hard convincing us that they are indeed this character they portray. This is one of those films people will still be talking about in 25 years; a monumental masterpiece that broke the grounds in straightforward plot-telling!!

`Dust' is a movie filled with blood, guts, death, doom and despair. In fact, one would be hard pressed to think of a movie with a more depressing story line than this one. The body count is very high, and you can believe it when I say no one dies pretty in this movie. So, you don't want to watch it during dinner.

The basic plot is that of two cowboy brothers during the late 1900s; one of a good heart, and one with not such a good heart. However, there are a multitude of sub stories which finally come together in the end. It's just getting to the ultimate tie in at the end of the movie, without getting somewhat confused, that's hard. The story is told from the point of view of an old woman, living in the present day, in flashback form, as she describes events that took place at the turn of the last century. Every few minutes, the story line shifts from character to character and time to time. These constant jumps make the movie a bit hard to keep up with, and is the main flaw in the film.

Even though the movie is confusing, it does all come together in the end. And at the end, one feels a certain satisfaction when that little `aw, now I get it' light comes on; and that little light makes `Dust' almost worth watching.

Firstly, I'm a huge David Wenham fan. Didn't read anything about the plot before renting it. I was really surprised by the film's beginning, having no cowboys or Macedonians in sight. This was an interesting Rashomon-like tale, but I really didn't care for two of the storytellers - the old lady and the burglar. I think the story would've worked better just told from the two brothers point of view; no silly subplot about gangsters and gold coins.

Joseph Fiennes is hardly in the movie, and when he is, he mostly quotes the Bible in a horrid accent. David Wenham's American accent was even worse. For me to say anything negative about Wenham...it must be really bad. He also screamed in anguish at the sky so much I could only think "Mendooooza!" (from the Simpsons' "McBain" movies). Visually, this film was very beautiful, not just because of a handsome lead either, but very engaging use of colors, costumes and landscape. The way images from the past and future collided was very cool. The gun-fight scenes were well choreographed, and pretty damn bloody. Perhaps that's why I found the old lady's section less interesting - less action, less exotic locations.

A few laughs, a few gasps, a bit of sex, a lot of violence, but just too thin of a story. If you arrange the brothers' tale minus the gimmicky time-jumps, the movie would be about an hour long, not 2+ hours. I can't figure why the director didn't just fatten the characters and context of their story and tell it straight through. This is a movie about storytelling, but viewers need a better story. And David Wenham deserves a better movie. Preferably one where he can speak more naturally.