charmS-1

Recently "Wanderlust" was screened at the Melbourne International Film Festival. Sounded good in the Festival Program. The LA Times and The New York Times had had great things to say about it. The film makers ("Damaged Californians") who introduced the movie seemed like nice guys. I was all set to enjoy an "off-beat mix of romantic comedy, family drama, surrealism, folklore etc". Well, yeah, I lasted 35 minutes- a new minimum record for me. Problem is that the movie is amateurish beyond belief. It looks like the budget was about $40,000 to $50,000 tops. Which wouldn't have been so bad if the film makers weren't so obviously trying for a big movie look. It would have been better for them to have worked within their limitations. What kind of film can we make if we can't afford to go on location? (The island off the coast of Chile in the movie looks like some-one's beach house and back yard). What kind of film should we make if we can't afford a good scriptwriter, professional actors and an editor and a director?

Let this film be a lesson to all you wannabees. Look at the films being made in Iran for example- using authentic locations and brilliant scripts which don't make too many demands on non-professional actors.

No point telling you all too much about the film seeing as how I walked out not long after the opening credit sequence (which, actually, is where all the creativity and budget went).

But for those who've seen the movie, Aunt Clara's slide show of her mobile home holiday, which features somewhat throughout the film deserved it's few (intentional) laughs.

I watched this film with a group of friends at the 1999 Melbourne International Film Festival and no-one had a good word for it.

I happen to love Bluegrass and Country Music so it's not as if I'm unsympathetic to the subject matter. But the problem is that at heart it's a very conservative movie- little more than a filmed Mills and Boon story. A bodice-ripper of the most simple-minded and soppy kind.

It's not just that the love story at its heart, that between Reece and Dr. Lily Penleric is more than a tad unbelievable. (Why any male would be attracted to the nostril-flaring man-devouring Lily is beyond me, and frankly, Mike Harding as Reece seems to be just going through the motions).

It's simply that the whole movie is too tame and well-mannered for its own good. There is precious little danger, dirt or drama. Sure there's a moment of "excitement" involving a school run by Lily's younger sister, but this whole episode is funnier than it is dramatic (it's just so poorly written and acted). And the movie betrays its conservative agenda in the manner in which this subplot is resolved.

As for good old Reece Kinkaid (now, what's wrong with a name like Eberneezer Bumpass?) I ask you! Is the ending of this film believable? Fitting in with the character this film had earlier constructed? I think not...