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.

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.

I do not understand why people try to comprehend this movie as a real-life story, because there are many "hints" telling viewers not to do so - photographs with characters from different epochs together, modern airplane flying over Macedonia at the beginning of twentieth century, etc. - even the sarcastic homage to spaghetti-western tradition ("hero" killing six or seven people with a single bullet)... In my opinion, it should be viewed as a story about human souls, their connection through time and space, about human fate, where main character, although ill-natured, was "sent by destiny" to a far-away land to do the good deed of his life (Elijah's decision to save life of Macedonian rebel's child at the end of the movie looks more like being driven by some irrational then rational force).

The movie also has its point picturing the way westerns see (and saw) Balkan area - as a confusing battleground where everyone have there objectively justifiable reasons to think they are right - making the whole picture far from "black and white". Still, the "western people" come to do their own business (collect the gold), but end up in a completely different connection with people and territory... Personally, I did not like characters of Edge and Angela, in my opinion they are built as clichés with no good reason. On the other hand, characters of two cowboys, as well as Turkish gang-soldiers and Corto Maltese (comic-book figure well known in Europe), built as stereotypes, perfectly fill the sarcastic, humorous attitude of Filmmaker on profane observance of life...