User Reviews (49)

Add a Review

  • 'Beneath Hill 60' is a true story based on a front-line campaign in Belgium in 1917. This is a war film unlike any other. Not at least that it is about Australian soldiers in a predominately British campaign. There were many others who fought in both World Wars, though you wouldn't know it from most big budget war films we are used to seeing.

    Oliver Woodward (Brendan Cowell) is a late inductee into the campaign on the front who must prove himself to his fellow Aussies who have been in the trenches for some time. It's literally hell on earth. But these soldiers belong to a special unit. The tunnelers. Their job, to subvert the enemy from beneath. They are soon sent to one of the great Fronts of WW1 in Belgium, to an area known Hill 60 which is currently dominated by the Germans. There is a plan in place, but can they pull it off? It's claustrophobic. It's tense. There is constant shelling. The guns shots come from nowhere. You can understand how many were driven mad by it. (Shell shock).

    This film works on so many levels. A brilliant taut script by David Roach based on the actual diaries of Woodward who shows us that there is more at stake here than gaining mere inches of ground. There is the tenacity of man. The blunt simple-mindedness which is required to get the job done, but which can also blind some men from the truth. War is stupid. It's a game. And yet they are not merely soldiers but ordinary people. We get an insight into their lives, predominately through Woodward himself, which juxtaposes how horrific war is. We get an idea of the German position too. Often they are faceless enemy's but here we get a little insight into the men on the other side of the muddy walls.

    It's a suspenseful film, directed with real flair and I'm surprised to say, mastery of the medium, by actor Jeremy Sims, whose first film, (Last Train to Freo), was rather an languid affair. Once again he works within an tight budget, (like all Australian films, except for that unmentionable one), but he puts you into the mud and the water and the darkness underground. You'll by yearning for your shower, dry bed and a cup of tea; privileges denied to most of these chaps for months at a time.

    My only criticism is that Brendan Cowell looks too old for the part. He' s supposed to be 25. I could have gone along with it if I'd been told much earlier. But really he is Australia's best actor (Noise, Love My Way) and plays Woodward to perfection.

    The supporting cast is also first class. Steve Le Marquand shows his depth and is totally believable. It's welcoming to see John Stanton back. We don't see him enough in Australian film. He has a strong presence and that amazing voice. He is an underused icon. I barely recognized Jacqueline McKenzie, who looks ten years younger than she is. She is always a pleasure to watch. Her on screen daughter played by Bella Heathcote is a real talent too though Aden Young's brief odd appearance seemed unconvincing. The tunnelers themselves, all work together to bring a on-screen camaraderie and presence. Credit must go to Sims and Roach for this collective working dynamic. Also noted are the chillingly effective 5.1 sound effects and a classy score by legendary composer Cezary Skubiszewski.

    If you are from outside Australia, and don't like war films, it is still effective as a thriller and even a love story. It's highly recommended. For Australians, it's a must own DVD for every household. Finally, an Australian film to be proud of. And an important one at that.
  • This film should be seen by all Australians. It is authentic and extremely well acted; no overacting and no gilding the lily. Take a box of tissues. As an indication of how special this movie was, at the end while the credits were playing, everyone except two people remained in their seats for the entire running time of the credits and the upper part of the theatre was full. I would like to encourage younger people to see it; young people like those who visit Gallipoli would appreciate its significance. It depicts the true nature of the first world war and also depicts the essence of the Australian character; free-spirited, somewhat disrespectful of officer ranks until said officers earn respect. WWI was not like other wars; though the very awfulness of the trenches is obvious, the movie dwells just enough but not too much on this aspect. I hope it is successful overseas though I cannot imagine the British going to see it in large numbers, nor the Americans. The British are gently lampooned once or twice and would not take kindly to this, and the Americans do not get a look in at all so they would not be likely to be motivated to see it. However, if they did, I think they would appreciate it.
  • A fine movie. Not a masterpiece, because such movies are non-existent; consequently, I don't go looking for such a thing. My test is that if a movie reaches or exceeds my expectations, it succeeds. In my book, this beats "The Hurt Locker" hands down-- which may not mean anything to those who disliked that Oscar winner. Perhaps foolishly, because of the Oscar hype, I had expectations of THL which were not met. So it failed. "Beneath Hill 60" does not. It's more realistic, more accurate, more tension-filled, and not at all pretentious. No need for me to repeat the plot outlines that others have mentioned. But I will declare that the above-ground battlefield and underground scenes-- the wet, the mud, the cold, the misery-- are amazing for their reality. And they were shot mostly in tropical north Queensland.
  • I have to disagree with the comments comparing this movie with 'Hurt Locker' which is a superior movie in nearly every day and deserves its Oscar credits. This is however an excellent war drama telling a fairly unknown true story of Oliver Woodward during World War One. I for one had never heard of Oliver Woodward until watching this movie. Yes, to some degree, I would compare it to 'My Boy Jack" and even 'Passchendale' and actually 'Tunnel Rats' the Vietnam war drama springs more to mind.

    There is also a love story thrown in for good measure and overall this is a very sensitive film with an unacceptable but seemingly necessary ending. The acting is superb throughout and the story fascinating in how it was told from beginning until the end.

    For those who like their dose of war dramas, this is clearly one not to be missed.
  • It's 1916 on the western front. The battle has stalemated by trench warfare. Australian miner Oliver Woodward is the new commander of an Australian tunnel platoon. He was courting 16 year old Marjorie Waddell, 10 years his junior, when he joined the new mine wars. The underground world is a rarely seen battlefield of intense paranoia and constant death.

    In many ways, this world reminds me of a wartime submarine. There is also plenty trench warfare and above-ground fighting. It would be great to have more delineated characters. A lot of time is spent on Woodward with his flashbacks. Brendan Cowell plays it with stoic heroism. The others tend to blend together. This is a compelling world of combat and takes the fighting to different places.
  • This is a great, sturdy film relying on good acting and story telling.

    There is nothing to get too excited about in the way of action or affects but the story is engaging and the characters feel very real and it is easy to empathise with them.

    The 'war is hell' motif is there but isn't forced down your throat.

    Production is high and the battlefield scenes look very real and the director made a great decision not to shoot everything in pitch blackness.

    I don't know how accurate the film is but the events are definitely plausible.

    Not quite Friday night material but definitely worth a watch.
  • First of all, I'd like to address the large number of reviews that mention Americans haven't seen/wouldn't't be interested in this film. There seems to be an assumption that Americans aren't interested in war films that don't feature Americans. Not sure where this is coming from, but I've never found that to be the case. Americans who like war movies, like war movies. Almost everyone I know has seen 'Gallipoli', 'The Odd Angry Shot', 'Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence', 'Mad Max' (OK, not a real 'war' movie, but just sayin'), in addition to many of the great British and German-made films. The issue isn't with interest, it's with distribution. If studios and theater owners don't think they'll make a zillion dollars by showing a movie, we don't get to see it unless it turns up on cable or Netflix. OK, I'll step off my tree-stump now and review this fine movie.

    WW1 certainly does not get the film-making attention it should, so to find one that's this excellent makes up for this a little bit. I was drawn in and kept there by the fine acting, attention to detail, and fluidity of story telling. In any war flick, I'm always waiting for that cheesy moment that breaks the rhythm and steals the credibility of the scene. Usually a 'why we fight' type of speech that you know never would have happened; soldiers fight to keep themselves and their buddies alive, and don't need any other reason. That type of dialog is obvious, useless, and clearly just there for the audience, and not for the benefit of the characters or story. None of that puffiness or foolishness here. Also, it wasn't one of those war films that was made just so someone could put it one their resume', or show off their special-effects prowess. It is first and foremost a great story about real characters and events. I got the feeling that everyone involved in making this film truly cared for what these men went through and brought their best effort as a way to honor that. As much as I like movies about the well-know people, places and events that took place in war, movies that give this much attention to the lesser-known stories can be a much more fulfilling experience. If done right, these types of movies can make the events much more personal and bring you uncomfortably close to the realities of war, which is what war movies should be doing. 'Beneath Hill 60' does this in spades, and this American appreciated every minute of it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This is based on the true story of how Australian coal miners were recruited during the First World War in order to develop tunnels under the trenches and to specialise in explosives as well. Captain Oliver Woodward (Brendan Cowell) must lead his men of various ages through a series of missions, such as blowing up a farmhouse where there is a planted machine gun and facing a German choke point with the notorious Hill 60. Between these battles are a series of flashbacks from eighteen months earlier where a romance between Woodward and Majorie Waddell (Bella Heathcote), a sixteen-year-old girl, emerges. Given that their love is interrupted by the war, Woodward must ask her father for permission to write to her while he is away.

    Although this has been labelled as an extraordinary story, this is thankfully not a film of self-congratulation and patriotic flag waving. To capture the grittiness of the terrible conditions of the tunnels, as well as the overwhelming sense of endangerment faced from the vulnerability of the trenches, director Jeremy Sims has concentrated much of his efforts on the aesthetic qualities of the picture. The opening scenes, staged with minimal sound and near darkness, are tremendously effective in creating a claustrophobic sense of terror in such an enclosed space. Woodward holds a candle in his hand as he searches almost blindly for an officer he's never met before, rarely whispering to other soldiers who have to give him directions through the shadows. The containment and quiet intensity of these scenes are juxtaposed with the exteriority of the trenches, as shells unrelentingly pummel the soldiers, leaving trails of bodies before Woodward and the audience. The mud, the dirty and the overall feeling of chaos suggest a difficult shoot for Sims but his attention to detail here is admirable. It is with this emphasis on realism in the battle scenes, rather than sentiment, which intelligently reminds the audience of the futility of war.

    As with the Australian film Kokoda from a number of years ago, it is frustrating to say that the technical accomplishments have been given far more emphasis than the screenplay. Beneath Hill 60 does not dedicate enough time to the characters and the audiences lack of involvement with many of them weakens the film's emotional impact. There is a heavy reliance on the use of stock characters and sketches here, like a father and son who signed up together and a sprint runner, rather than opting to fully develop these individuals. Although they do not have a very prominent part in the film it is also rather tiresome that a number of the British officers have been characterised as pompous and snobbish, leaving them as very familiar caricatures. Thankfully even though the audience does not learn a lot about Woodward's past, Cowell gives a likable performance, injecting his limited characterisation with humour, knowledge and courage. Gyton Grantely from Underbelly also has an underwritten part but he still offers very solid support. In just her second film Heathcote is beautiful but less impressive, with a largely superfluous role as the love interest. She shows her inexperience with a slightly cringing and silly entrance but there is little doubt that she will improve as an actress over time. The flashbacks to her romance with Woodward are part of a number of less interesting adventures that slow the pace of the film down, leaving the second half of the film in particular feeling sluggish and over-extended. It is a shame given how intense and exciting some of the early scenes are, most specifically the opening and the attack on the farmhouse.

    Beneath Hill 60 begins very strongly with a high degree of authentic attributed to displaying the horrors of war, in not just the combat, but the abysmal living conditions the soldiers faced as well. It is evident that a great deal of time was spent on the aesthetics of the film so that the intensity and immersion could be enhanced. The problems with the script though, from the pacing to the thin character development and characterisation, makes much of the film far less enjoyable than it should be, weakening the dramatic and emotional impact.
  • An outstanding portrayal of the Messines Ridge battles - a part of the overall series of battles in WWI around Ypres in Belgium. Anyone who knows anything about WWI will recognize the incredible fighting and human misery surrounding the 3 major Ypres battles. For a great depiction of these battles - read A Storm in Flanders - by Winston Groom -one of the best histories of the Great War.

    The movie works on all levels - some of the other reviews state that Aussies should see this - I disagree - everyone who is interested in how the free world defended against German aggression need to see this. I am a WWI junkie, but I believe this movie will appeal to a very wide audience.

    A few of the good points: Realism - this movie focuses on many small details which give it great credibility: clipping canaries nails; covering your coffee cup when there is an explosion (to keep dirt from falling in); continual rain and mud (can you say Passchendaele?) ; unbelievable living conditions; the cat and mouse game being played under ground where both sides were trying to discover the others mines; prejudice against the miners/sappers as not being real soldiers; and the death of the father (you'll see what I mean).

    This is one of the finest war movies I have seen (and I've seen a lot.) I really hope you will take this one in. Then, the next time you are in London - go to the Imperial War Museum for an in depth look at WWI & II. Cheers DonB
  • sol-25 April 2016
    Based on the true story of how a platoon of Australian soldiers tunneled under enemy soil during World War I, 'Beneath Hill 60' recounts a slice of wartime history not often told. Most noteworthy is how the film does not just depict battles and explosions, but also the squalid living conditions and claustrophobic surrounds of the soldiers. There is a particularly effective struggle as two Germans invade the tunnel; the scene takes place in pitch black darkness for nearly a whole minute after a lamp is knocked out. Another memorable sequence features disquieting sound effects as a soldier realises that an explosion has deafened him. The film is unusually structured with several flashbacks to the main soldier's pre-war life woven into the mix. Brendan Cowell is solid as the soldier in question and the flashbacks serve well to pinpoint why he felt a need to fight (pressure, expectations, etc), however, they also break up the intensity and immediacy of the trench/tunnel action. Cowell's romance with a teenage girl half his age also makes for an odd inclusion as their age disparity is very prominent (by all accounts this is accurate though). Whatever the case, 'Beneath Hill 60' works almost all the time when focused on the trench/tunnel action. A constant sense of danger lingers in the air, and yet at the same time the film portrays the ability of camaraderie to also develop in adverse conditions.
  • Do you remember, as a kid, watching stories of bravery and heroism set on a backdrop of war, and being fascinated by a kind of warfare you'd never even imagined before? Marveling at crafty allies and enemies alike pitting their wits as much as their weapons against each other to find each others weakness and foil the other's strategy? Well Beneath Hill 60 is just like that- an old fashioned no-nonsense look at a fascinating angle of WW1 never before properly explored- TUNNEL warfare. There are moments that leave you stunned to think of what dangers and precautions these men had to be ready for, above -and- below ground.

    Make no mistake though, unlike the coming of age tale Gallipoli or the military court drama Breaker Morant, this really is, at long last, an Australian WAR film. And quite possibly it is the best from this country so far (though I'm still yet to see The Odd Angry Shot so jury's still out) and I would say one of the top ten WW1 films I've ever seen (and I've seen a LOT).

    And it's all the more incredible because it's a true story. There was one moment which even almost made me tear up (unbelievable, right?) which I won't mention, suffice to say it involved a briefly shown, but dialogue-less revealing of just how much an experience had left a man broken and hollow.

    If I absolutely HAD to find fault with the film, it would NOT be the flashbacks (you can't go round saying the characters were one dimensional and then say the background story was unimportant!) but perhaps the soundtrack. It knows what it's doing on the battlefield, but in the flashbacks is unsure of itself, sometimes getting all melodramatic like an excited child.

    Really, that's it. The music seems slightly odd in one or two places. Everything else just WORKS. It's visually stunning, realistic, has great characters, action, suspense (and how!) and even humour. That's right, even in WW1 soldiers found time to crack the odd joke don't y'know.

    So do check this out pronto- you won't be disappointed. And remember- keep one eye closed when the flares go up- you'll see better once it goes out again. ;)
  • great touching movie. it does show the real face of the war that is dirt, clay, wet and so cold even if its august. It does show the foolish of human nature. the smart kid asked, why they could not go back for a 100 m. it would not be the end of the world, those were really the ugliest 100m, full of sh... but the answer of the sick pride human being was no, they should die for these meters. humanity needs more movies and pictures like this just to remember fresh images of lonely death that comes from the war.hope no one feels this terror again really sad and depressing images. honor to the fallen. by the way, his wife in reality as shown at the photos at the end of the film was not a fallen star as it is in the movie, she was too ugly.
  • Tcarts7617 September 2012
    I give it a 6. I am a huge war movie fan. I love war movies, and when I read a few reviews and the synopsis I truly wanted to like this movie. Word War I movies are few and far between. That being said, I found this one rather dull.

    I think if this movie had been 20 years ago I would have loved it. Because it was made in 2010, it failed to really grab my attention. I didn't think it was horrible and I surely have seen worse war movies, but Since Speilbergs "Saving Private Ryan" stepped up the game for the genre, movies like this just don't fit the bill anymore.

    The acting was fine. There were some good scenes that gave a bit of the claustrophobic sense, but again, as far as the genre go these days its not enough, and you still have a sense of watching a story instead of being there witnessing the story.
  • jaffaelf19 August 2010
    The over enthusiasm from 99% of the Australian viewers grading this film so highly is fundamental as to why Australian film making is not progressing in the right direction. Criticisms such as "better than Saving Private Ryan", really do not help portray the film in the correct light. And is probably why Australian film makers are falling behind similar counterparts in Europe, who can make moving films with correct sound underscores. Not to say this is a bad film in the slightest, just not the hyped up best Aussie War movie ever category it is being portrayed into. I think without the hype you would leave the cinema quite satisfied and overall it is well made and acted, but lets you down simultaneously. I give it a 4 simply because i went in expecting so much, and came out feeling every need from the film not being met.
  • This is my first film review on this site as a student, so bear with me.

    Being a massive fan of several modern war films, i was rather impressed with the production values on show here. This movie never felt like set design; the mud, the blood, the dirt and the trenches all instantly transported the viewer to the western front World War I. To see how far Australian film has come along in the last decade has really impressed me, to be able to move away from schlocky World War I television mini series of past years to a film of this caliber is truly an amazing thing, and the whole production crew for this film should be very proud of the final product that they have produced.

    The picture and sound would easily make it comparable to any Hollywood releases of this era in film, and it is nice to see Australia able to technically compete with the rest of the world in that regard.

    I think the script and cast were criticized perhaps too harshly by some, i found that the script perfectly mixed both the central love story of the main protagonist's sweetheart back home and the mess that was the war. Many movies (Pearl Harbor and Saving Private Ryan for instance) often make the mistake of having sequences of reflection/discussion that last too long, often bringing out an unfortunate feeling of Hollywood plot cheesiness. The former film indeed swamped so much romance into the film it felt the war was lost in the final product. There is enough flashes to the protagonists home, to his sweetheart and happier times to help the audience not be "war wearied" by the continuous darkness of the trenches without detracting from the point that this is a movie about war. At no time did any individuals musings of home, tears for the lost or moments of weakness feel out of character or like it was just added into the story in an effort to reach audiences. At the same time there is not too much of these scenes to remove the viewer from the war front long enough for the tension of the situation to be removed. I think the director has masterfully combined the two in a way that many better known directors often don't succeed at doing.

    It was very interesting to see also the interactions between the Australian and British troops in this movie, and I think one of the testament scenes in this movie would be the passing of a bottle of wine to the moving Australians to the remaining British troops on the line in a sign of solidarity. There have been some opinions that this film brings into light the British rather unfavorably but I don't think this was the intention of the director. If anything this film is very much about mate ship, and how in the end its not the officers keeping you and your men alive through this war, but each other.

    I would encourage all Australians to see this movie and support its work, but I would also encourage foreigners to view this movie, it is a tense and exciting story well worth your time.

    In closing, to be honest i never really viewed this as an "Aussie Movie" the whole time i viewed it, but simply as a movie. And i think that is the biggest triumph of Australian film to be able to remove a nationality from a film and to make it universally enjoyable by all.
  • grantss1 May 2023
    1916, the Western Front. Australian tunnellers are digging under the German lines in order to detonate a large amount of explosives. Leading them is Lieutenant Oliver Woodward. The task is a very daunting one with the biggest threat being not the enemy but their own explosives.

    Good Australian war-drama, based on a true story. Quite gritty and certainly doesn't glamorize war. Very gripping and intriguing as we have a deadly game of cat-and-mouse between the Germans and Australians. Solid performances, especially from Brendan Cowell in the lead role.

    On the negative side, the non-war back-home sequences are the weak point in that they are fairly flat, drawn out and, to a degree, inconsequential.
  • "Beneath Hill 60" is about an Australian military company that dug a mine beneath the German position known as Hill 60 in order to detonate a cache of explosives. The operation was led by a mining man named Oliver Woodward (Brendan Cowell).

    This movie was an atmospheric one, meaning the setting and the conditions of the setting established the mood. It was always dark, muddy, and dreary. Pretty much what war is. There was very little action which made the little action there was more poignant. The movie moved slow at times and could've benefited from some trimming. It was based upon true events and real people, and you could see they were trying to recognize Oliver for what he'd done.
  • There's been so many quality period films and TV series of both the first and second World Wars now that you'd think directors would have got the details down to perfection. IN this film they did in most aspects... the mud and claustrophobia we're well illustrated but I kept being distracted by on glaring (literally!) aesthetic detail they'd decided not to bother with. All these WW1 troops had gleaming white teeth - and full sets at that.

    Dental care certainly wasn't close to creating celebrity smiles in 1916 - even more so after a few years in the trenches eating bully beef and putting up with bad daily hygiene conditions. When you're spending a few million on filming a realistic era of history - why skip on elements such as these?! The little details help the viewer to suspend disbelief and for me - once I saw the first soldier with a full white set - I found myself watching all the others in comparison when I should have been starting to feel transported to their plight.
  • There are many war films, but some stand out. This is definitely one of them.

    The story builds slowly in the first part of the film, and we get an insight into the main characters and the conditions they had to endure. The latter part develops further as they head towards the Battle of Messines Ridge.

    The battle scenes were made as realistic as possible, intermingled with flashbacks to Capt. Woodwards life back home, and the circumstances surrounding his enlistment into the mining battalion.

    An outstanding movie....!
  • This story is insane. The Australian soldiers are digging so incredibly deep beneath the battlefield, rigging everything with massive explosives in order to bomb the Nazis from underground. Based on a true story!

    Any bad? Not really, it is a kind of a slowburning war movie, with more attention of the suffering of the soldiers then focussing on straight forward war fare, although there are quite a few violent battlefield scenes, but the main focus of this war movie is about the characters, the Australian soldiers, who try to outcon the nazis.
  • This is a movie that every Australian must watch. It's a story about the unforgotten heroes, who went and did their bit for the Great War. Amazingly it's based on a true story of miners who, went to the Western Front and dug a network of tunnels deep beneath the Germans. Implanted within the labyrinth of tunnels, is millions of explosives waiting to be set off.

    What makes this film is the human side of emotion. There is mate ship and bonds which can never be set aside; experiences that only the men can relate to. There is the love story between Oliver Woodward (Brendan Cowell) and young Marjorie Waddell (Bella Heathcote). And you see the youthful innocence of young men, in particular Frank Tiffin, played by Harrison Gilbertson and Walter Sneddon (Alex Thompson).

    The contrast between the Queensland and the war is reflected in the use of colour and lighting. Queensland is bathed in sunlight, warm clean colours and in the costumes. While the Western Front is portrayed in constant bleak colours where bright colours don't exist. It's cold, wet and rain(for some reason, it's not a war movie until is has the element of rain and coldness).

    The English accent of the British troops are not great, they sound more like upper crust Australians. But apart from that comment, this is a gem of a movie. It will have you hooked until the very last second.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    And there officer, who treats his men well even letting one go in to the officers bunker when he gets injured to the annoyance of the British army officer who thinks private soldiers should be in there own dug out any way so it is the australlians vs the Germanys in a cat and mouse like way underground also the British are up in the trenches with them doing the fighting with there comrades in arms good film and well worth the watch
  • My husband and I saw this movie yesterday and I have to say the acting was brilliant.

    This is a very good war movie, showing comradeship, caring for your fellow man, and depicts what a serviceman in war would go through. So it was very hard to understand why civilians were involved, and young ones at that.

    It was very graphic, to the point where I felt a need to look away at times. Australia has done us proud. It is definitely not a pretty movie and quite dark, but then again war isn't pretty. I would say definitely go and see it.
  • It's very hard for any film to follow in the wake of Gallipoli and Breaker Morant, both of which I consider the best Australian war films ever made.

    Beneath Hill 60 is a nice effort. The story is laid out for us all, the characters are likable and there are a couple of good tense moments I found challenging.

    Probably would have been a better mini-series so we could get to know the characters a little better and the writers may have been able to expand on them some more.

    Good on the producers and all concerned for their effort..... now where's my Breaker Morant DVD????
  • Promising so much and delivering very little is the current crop of Australian cinema. Having so many ideas and stories to tell, Australians should take the lead in creating well developed movies. Lacking the same financial support as larger countries does indeed hinder the films production qualities. But it's the WAY you tell the story that is compelling. ALL is lost in Beneath Hill 60. (Firstly, I am a lover-Encourager-Partipant of Australian films) The Film began in the dullest of all dulls with a tedious & cheap score to the exposition that is blurted out in such raw form you cringe at the actors who have given what they must try and perform.

    The story is unbelievable in history and yet completely lifeless in this production. Instead of focusing on the event we are dragged through a watch-checking *Aussie Story*. the characters are skin deep, we know streaky is a good runner but thats the obvious set up- there is no exploration in the script. It's sad to think of the money spent to show us such tripe which in a simple form with a director that could have the balls to put together his own cut of the film, instead of this reduced(90min) version, we miss vital scenes that would actually keep us from staring endlessly at the clock. But then again, if the director added more *Dinkum* footy songs/ Crying of the Young Diggers / Extremely Clichéd "Army general" characters, then I must thank you. Thankyou for not destroying money nor time. I think we both know you have destroyed your fair share- along with Australian Director Reputations.

    (Also - Why on Earth would you cast the voice over guy for Village Cinemas in your movie??? This idiotic decision creates a huge problem taking the character seriously-when all you think the next line will be "THIS SUMMER..." (movieguy voice)
An error has occured. Please try again.