Dust

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.

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 unusual a film will have as many good ideas as this and so many striking ideas and images and still not be a success. Perhaps it's because there are simply too many striking visuals and set-pieces - other directors would have built whole films around just one or two of the concepts contained here - for one film to cope with all of them. Essentially, the story is of a burglar (Lester) who breaks into a house of an old woman (Murphy) in New York and she tells him the story of American cowboys (Fiennes and Wenham) in the Ottoman Empire in Macedonia and their tangled fraternal love/hatred when confronted with a beautiful woman. It's a story that dips in and out of narrative timelines. Sometimes it's New York and sometimes it's the Old west and sometimes it's old Macedonia - and sometimes it's bits of all of them. And sometimes it's just fantasy. Reality, illusion, truth and cinematic deception are all part of the mix. Director Machevski is not here to give the viewer an easy ride. He is an intelligent man and he expects intelligence of his viewers. However, in return he offers some beautiful images that pay homage to spaghetti westerns while adding a sly twist of knowing humour. It's violent, but there's a blackly funny element to it that's closer to life than the comic-book stock-in-trade of such directors as Tarantino (and rightly so, Macedonians have seen more real-life warfare than most Hollywood filmmakers).And despite this, it's a movie that's life-affirming (not in the easy way - you really have to like life to have it affirmed here). The performances are variable. Wenham and Fiennes have both done better in the past and you have to hope they'll do better in the future. But in Lester and Murphy, there are two actors who are in full command of the camera. There's not an emotion you'll feel that they haven't carefully worked to create. Simply beautiful work. With a greater distribution, this is would have built a considerable cult following. Not easy-going, pop-corn-chomping stuff, but highly recommended.

In modern New York, a thief (Adrian Lester) breaks into an old woman's apartment. She surprises him and holds him at gunpoint. She tells him the story about two brothers in the turn of the century. Elijah (Joseph Fiennes) and Luke (David Wenham) have a breakdown in relationship. Luke is drawn to the wild east in Macedonia where the Ottoman is battling a local revolt. He joins a group of bandits pursuing the revolt leader known as The Teacher for the lucrative reward. He gets taken prisoner by the Turks who is joined by his hated brother.

Filmmaker Milcho Manchevski has taken on too much for one movie. It's trying to do too much and ends up stepping on each other. It may work better as an old style violent spaghetti western. Even taken separately, the narrative flow is a bit disjointed. The modern part only adds the trans-generational story. The robbery part isn't that compelling. Without knowing either character, there is nothing to root for or against. It's often problematic to have a character tell the story of the movie. The reliability of the telling is suspect. It's also trying to have some surreal poetry about flying. It's doing too much and gets muddled. This is definitely ambitious and probably too ambitious for its own good.