Wake in Fright

What started out as what could of been a great 2 part storyline quickly turned into what can only come across as they ran out of budget or forgot what they was doing!

There was no real ending, no meaning to any of it!

Your left debating if the actions were his or the towns! The storyline of his girlfriend in the end played no relevance! nor did any of the storyline in the end!

With that it keeps you thinking and your eyes open just wondering what will happen next, but it just somehow feels unfinished!

This remake of a classic really does work...for the most part. I was reluctant to watch this new TV adaptation having recently seen the 1971 film again. The story meanders considerably from the original novel and screenplay...primarily I would think to cater for more recent generations. It does not detract... although minor irritations become more than obvious..For instance, John Grants cell 'phone continually displays "No Signal" even when he is located in the middle of a fairly sizeable mining town in 2016!

The cinematography is splendid, certainly rivalling the original movie. The sun-bright, yet dark, landscape and decaying town paints a delicious background for Grants seemingly endless nightmare. Part two of the mini series, with Grant on the run, is classic "edge of the seat" movie making, although, I found the frequent "speed of light" hangover and drug tinged collages to be rather too long and a distraction at times. Other viewers may feel the opposite...

The acting varied. Sean Keenan plays Grant with even more desolation and desperation than did Gary Bond whilst maintaining the characters basic personality. Highlight is David Wenham as the cop..playing a bigger role than did Chips Rafferty, and with an even larger degree of congeniality,descending into a sinister menace and back again! I feel the weakest role was the new character on the Wake In Fright block, Anna Samson, overacting to the hilt as the harridan Mick Jaffries, with a performance lifted straight from the 1970s series Prisoner!!! Similarly, Alex Dimitriades was no match for the slimy Donald Pleasance in the part of Doc Tydon. Overall, I recommend this remake.The good considerably outweighs any negatives. The spirit of the original remains very well intact despite most of the modernisation.

I just love this movie. It is a totally under rated and moving story. Really cool layered drama that is played beautifully by all of the actors and the end carries with it a certain guilt over your own judgment and delivers a sad empathy to the characters you previously dismissed as complete losers.

As usual, casting and directing by Aussie filmmakers is excellent.

But watching one episode of this was about as fun as being stabbed repeatedly in the throat .

I found it so incredibly depressing on every single level that I couldn't recommend it in any way for any reason, you know?

It was just so dark and so horrible.

Don't put this stuff in your head if you can help it.

Also :: strongly recommend people in alcoholism or recovery don't watch !!! Massive trigger warnings !!

I'm not entirely convinced that the original Wake In Fright is quite the timeless classic some movie historians deem it to be. Nevertheless, it was atmospheric and haunting, and, if nothing else, remains interesting as a scathing critique of a certain type of toxic Aussie masculinity. So the first thing one has to wonder about this TV re-make is why in up-dating the story they felt the need to convert so many of the key characters from male to female. I've nothing against positive discrimination where it works for the story, or where it makes absolutely no difference. But since masculinity is central to Wake In Fright, it seems rather a strange decision. It dilutes the theme almost to the point where it no longer really asserts itself. And it undermines the drama in other ways too. The original is set in the kind of remote outback town where men massively outnumber women, and that explains some of what happens along the way. In this version it's a considerably bigger regional town, with enough women and suburban amenities to significantly change things. It also doesn't help that they've chosen to make John Grant even more gormless. This is partly Sean Keenan coming across more like a clueless teen than just a city bloke out of his element. But Grant is also infuriatingly spineless, especially in how he submits to alcohol and gambling, even though the pressure to do so is neither dramatised, nor a given. The reckless boozing makes much more sense in the 70s film, shot at a time when macho competitive drinking was still a thing. But is an educated twentysomething not being able to say "no" to another beer really as believable today? They could quite possibly have made it believable, but they didn't. It's just one of the ways in which this production sidesteps the problems that come with up- dating the story. (Like referring to the pokies being pulled out of the RSL - as if that's ever happened!) At best, Wake in Fright is pretty to look at - as is Sean Keenan. But the muddle-headed re-imagining of the story undermines believability and suspense at every turn.