Dust

`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.

If you look past some of the annoying factors (accents, gore, ect...) and let yourself get lured into the storyline of this this movie it is truly amazing. I rented this film thinking it would be just another filler of my time and I was blown away by the complexity of the story and quality of camera work. It was definitely a keeper in my book, I bought it immediately. I hope others will give this one a chance and also become enchanted in the storytelling aspect represented here. It is completely fulfilling to the end.

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.

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...