Redundant and unnecessary.

Pretty Good

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

I have not been so supremely pi$$ed at a movie for a long, long time...I was REALLY drawn into this one. The writing, acting, and especially the direction was beautifully done. Even the soundtrack was excellent.BUT...This is the kind of film where right from the beginning you just KNOW that things are not going to turn out well. But, as step by step, scene by scene, things develop along quite surprising lines, you actually begin to think that just MAYBE things might turn out in a positive way. Well, they WERE... until at the very last moment when the director or whoever decided to end the movie in the completely pointless way that they did. For NO reason that I could see, they pull out the rug from under us and COMPLETELY defeat the clever, and extremely entertaining and thrilling suspense that has been artfully built, layer upon layer throughout the entire movie. In a moment, it's all just gone, for nothing... I can understand IF you start out with the purpose of making a Noirish film where you show how people making the wrong decisions or acting selfishly lead them to a quagmire of self-destruction. Fine... Classic FILM NOIR is full of excellent stories like that. BUT... in this case, they take all this time, care, and effort to build such a complex web of circumstances that you really start to get amped that they just MIGHT get away with it. And then, in just the passage of literally a moment, they completely destroy EVERYTHING that they have painstakingly built up throughout the movie. To me, that is just about THE most stupid and utterly disappointing thing you can possibly do to an audience... We are left with the feeling of, 'What the hell was the point of all that?'That is not what I call an effective film. Certainly NOT an entertaining one... Sure, a lot of the circumstances and events that happen to them are VERY implausible; that is true. But that is the point. Why build up all these almost impossible breaks and chances that they get and deliberately slant the film towards building up all this expectation, just to smash it all by some completely random, senseless action...? Why...? You either build a Classic Noir morality tale where the audience KNOWS that the characters are doomed from the start. Or, you create a film where all these wildly improbable things happen where they get away with it, leaving the audience entertained from the sheer amazingness of it. But, you don't build it up one way just deliberately to play with the audience and destroy their expectations because of some random, meaningless thing that happens at the last moment. I just do NOT see the entertainment value of doing it that way at all. You either present these doomed characters from the beginning where at the end the audience feels, 'well, they brought it on themselves', thus the morality tale, or you construct it in a way that seems to build up the expectation that these guys are going to beat fate after all. Either one or the other, but not some disappointing B@stardized version of both.That just leaves the audience with a totally pointless and VERY unsatisfied feeling.Just my lowly and wretched opinion...

The SquareIt would be nice to say we need another movie about a small group of working class types all gritty and overflowing with vernacular realism as they get involved in a crime that gets the better of them. "The Square" tries to use this common situation and lift it into something we want to watch, and it has the odds against them from the get-go.Put another way--a movie along these lines that does really rise above the expected and penetrate the personalities and the facts might be the movie of the year. Why not? It's not that the material is doomed, but that the things that really matter in a movie--like the writing, the acting, the filming--all have to be spot on and special to make it click. That simply doesn't happen here. As much as you want it to work, you see little plot tricks, small (or large) problems with the script, and decent but routine camera-work and editing bring it crashing down. And the story, because it is so "usual" in movie terms, doesn't rescue thing.That's an analysis that avoids the plot, which is about two concurrent money scams. One is apparently very criminal and dangerous, probably drug related, and a bag of money is hidden in the attic. The other is a kickback on a construction job. They connect because the wife of the bag-o-money guy is having an affair with the kickback construction supervisor. After lots of dramatics, some of it nicely done but poorly integrated (I like the picnic scene, which is sixty seconds of good shooting and smart editing), the key protagonists have one final showdown. And a stray bullet makes a mockery of the realism of the rest of it (smack in the forehead).Maybe there is no protagonist. Can you have a movie with three antagonists? It's hard to quite identify with anyone, even the main man running the construction project. This is partly acting and writing, but it's partly just the slightly clunky gluing together of all the parts. The milieu is interesting, the problem dramatic (if a little too obviously sensational), and the intentions sterling. It just doesn't pull together all around. I wish.

In a tradition that began with the French back in 1938, Nash and Joel Edgerton have written, produced, directed and edited a truly gritty film noir – replete with the requisite femme fatale – within a typical Australian setting, in around the outer suburbs of Sydney. While the story is fiction, there is nothing fake about the mise-en-scene, the culture of the Australian male, the everyday corruption in personal and business life and so on...Because it's all so ordinary. That's what makes it so interesting, evoking a comparison with the more famous Cohen brothers who have delighted us with Blood Simple (1984), Fargo (1996), No Country for Old Men (2007) and others – all of which showed us how ordinary, decent, criminal people get involved in nefarious activities which, ultimately, resulted in mayhem, chaos and death, for some.So, in a typical suburban setting, a couple (both married) are having a torrid affair, with the woman urging her lover to run away with her. When she finds a bag of money in the upper crawl space of her house, hidden by her husband, she steals it and convinces her lover to burn the house down, thus covering the loss of the money. Or, so they think...As always, though, the unexpected arrives: when the house burns, so also an old woman who was at the wrong place at the wrong time. And, from there on, the lives of those involved in the dirty business spiral completely out of control as, inevitably, one thing leads to another and the bodies begin to pile up. But, that's not all.Meshing with the lover's attempts to scarper with the money is a twisted sub-plot and mystery that totally muddy the main story and will leave most – maybe all – viewers uncertain about the expected outcome to the whole story. Oh, you intuitively know that, in film noir, there'll be dramatic irony; in this one, however, everybody does get what they deserve, but for the wrong reasons. Maybe that's what happens in real life, more often than not? As the lovers, David Roberts (as Raymond) and Claire van der Bloom (as Carla) are near perfect: he as the reluctant, uncertain cuckold, she as the relentless pragmatist doing whatever it takes. Against them, there is Anthony Hayes (as Greg) and Joel Edgerton (as Billy) but these two men know nothing of the other until the final shootout – a meeting to be savored for its terrific pacing, editing and irony. In the background, murkily adding to the mix, there is the always-riveting Bill Hunter (as the construction boss, Gil), Paul Caesar (as the very surprising Sgt. Miles), Kieran Darcy-Smith (as Barney) and Brendan Donoghue (as Leonard).This is a mature and superbly produced film by two brothers who, in my opinion, will just get better and better. Foreign viewers might have some difficulty with strong Aussie accents from some characters – but no worse than some accents from some other countries. Do persevere with The Square, however: you won't be disappointed.My only real quibble is that a quote in the advertising material compares this one to Body Heat (1981). That's a stretch, I think: the two stories are quite different in substance, style and outcome. So, if you've seen that great film noir from Lawrence Kasdan, don't be mislead going in to see The Square.As to the actual square, well, there's no doubt that Raymond is a pretty dull sort of bloke who fumbles and bumbles his way into trouble fairly easily. But, he's also in construction and he's trying to get a large square of concrete poured to hide one of his biggest mistakes - buried there - before somebody finds out (I'm reminded of William H. Macy's bumbling Jerry in Fargo). Unhappily for Raymond, somebody does find out...Highly recommended.

'THE SQUARE': Three and a Half Stars (Out of Five) Intrigued by Harry Knowles (popular film critic for 'Ain't It Cool News') promise that this is "One of the best films of the year. The best film noir since 'BODY HEAT'" (Which is plastered all over the DVD case) I decided to check out this low budget Australian thriller. It's directed by Nash Edgerton and written by his brother Joel, with some help from Matthew Dabner. The Edgerton brothers have a diverse range of film experience from stunts (Nash is well known in Australia for this) to editing to acting (Joel played Owen Lars in 'STAR WARS: EPISODE II' and 'III'). This is the brothers first feature together in which they're writer and director (Joel also has a decent sized acting role in the film). While I don't think it's one of the very best films of the year or the best film noir since 'BODY HEAT' (I sometimes agree with Knowles and sometimes don't) I do think it's a very well made and entertaining film, especially for such a low budget one.Experienced character actor David Roberts stars as Raymond Yale, a construction worker who's become bored with marriage and has started a heated affair with the young hairdresser Carla (played by the beautiful Claire van der Boom) who lives next door. Carla has recently discovered a blood stained bag filled with money hidden in her home by her criminal husband Greg (played by Anthony Hayes). She talks the reluctant Raymond into helping her stealing it by burning down their home and with it the apparent bag of money but things of course don't go as planned. Greg becomes aware that the money wasn't in the house and the two lovers become entangled in much bigger crimes as things get worse and worse.The film takes one depressing twist after another and the hero digs himself even deeper and deeper into trouble which leaves the viewer kind of mad. In a lot of film noir this is the point but in this film the events that take place are so ridiculously over the top and unbelievable that the film doesn't quite work on the level it should. It's still a beautifully moody and well acted film and like I said impressive for such a low budget one. Despite the film's fall from reality I still found myself wrapped up in the characters and really wanted things to work out for them. Be warned this movie is pretty gloomy and depressing but due to it's mild foray into campy-ness it's also darkly comedic. Not a great film but a well made and memorable one all the same.Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8w-4xZ94ZU