greygalah

What is so bad about Kraven? Is it the dialogue between friends and family that sounds so false it seems to be written by AI? Is it the inane plot that makes no sense other than employ animal motifs? Is it the need to suspend belief and enter this cartoon world? Is it the unnecessary hyper violence? Is it the exposition dumps because the writing and director have no idea what they're doing? Well yes, they add to the annoyance, but the overriding things is that this so called entertainment is boring that as it plods over the 2 hour length it becomes tiresome and exhausting. Predictably, the end suggest a sequel. This is entertainment swill.

This film is a throw-back to 80s crime-action films. The movie would be OK if in fact it was made in the 80s. Not bad, not good, just ok. But it was made in 2024. To put this in perspective, Die Hard was made in 1988. That's 36 years ago. So had Carry-On been make a third of a century ago, it'd be just ok. Times have change and expectations have grown. This film doesn't come up to scratch because the genre is extinct. It's a fussy film with a scattershot plot to create thrills and family ties to create tension. It's tired, dull, unimaginative and it's production is an act of desperation. Imagine you were alive in 1988 and watched Die Hard. What would you think of a 1952 crime-action film back then? I could name some, but none would be recognised. That's what this film's legacy will be - a forgotten tv movie that kept some actors in money.

An Australian made for TV film based on the wartime friendship between a nun and army nurse on an island east of New Guinea. This was a German colony before WW1, which explains the German bishop in the mission. In Australian culture, the opening newsreel is self-depreciating highlighting naivety when a small garrison was sent to hold the position against the onslaught of Imperial Japan. The film follows the growing respect and relationship between the two women who confront violent events and respond differently. The accents are quite thick with many older Australian slang words that will make it difficult to understand. Although this is not a war action film, episodes of brutality and friendly fire incidents occur and may upset sensitive viewers. From the women's perspective, they see suffering on both sides which changes their outlook. This suffering, however, is depicted softer than would've been portrayed in a cinema released film. The scenery, especially in the jungle location is realistic. The acting ranges from adequate to good. It's worthwhile to those who watch it realising its limitations and what kind of film it is. Stay to the end for images of the real people and a little of their history.