This is not a comedy. The subject matter is somewhat dark; what it's like t grow up with a father who prefers a life of crime to his own children.
Are we grading movies from New Zealand on a curve? Almost every internationally distributed movie from New Zealand is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Only it isn't. What I have noticed is that they tend to have a dark streak to them, a sense of menace. Isn't this supposed to be a pretty benevolent place, free health care, a generous social welfare system, etc. The filmmaker spoke at the showing I went to. He was saying that in the eighties, they had ads on New Zealand television telling people not to leave their keys in their cars. I guess they save the darkness for their movies. The events in this movie did not happen to the filmmaker, who said he gets on just fine with his father.
This is a professionally produced movie. The acting is very good which is surprising because apparently none of the children were professional actors. The filmmaker played the role of the father, and he was very good. The filmmaker did a good job of portraying neglected children and their broken father. But it tends to get monotonous. Similar things happen over and over. The plot is layers of monotony and darkness.
The film changes genres three times. You get the feeling that was more lazy than anything, just throwing anything in there. At first it seems like a comedy, like a lighter, less creepy Wes Anderson and you are delighted. Very shortly it gets dark and monotonous but with touches of comedy. In the end there is a dance scene over the credits.
I didn't walk out of this movie but I would possibly not see it again if I knew what it was like. The filmmaker is pretty funny if you get the chance to hear him speak. This movie did not hold the attention of the pre-school children that were there and they were very disruptive. Had they been able to pay attention to it the subject matter would have been too dark for them. Leave the pre-school kids at home. I'm guessing 8 or 10 is the youngest age for this movie.
Are we grading movies from New Zealand on a curve? Almost every internationally distributed movie from New Zealand is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Only it isn't. What I have noticed is that they tend to have a dark streak to them, a sense of menace. Isn't this supposed to be a pretty benevolent place, free health care, a generous social welfare system, etc. The filmmaker spoke at the showing I went to. He was saying that in the eighties, they had ads on New Zealand television telling people not to leave their keys in their cars. I guess they save the darkness for their movies. The events in this movie did not happen to the filmmaker, who said he gets on just fine with his father.
This is a professionally produced movie. The acting is very good which is surprising because apparently none of the children were professional actors. The filmmaker played the role of the father, and he was very good. The filmmaker did a good job of portraying neglected children and their broken father. But it tends to get monotonous. Similar things happen over and over. The plot is layers of monotony and darkness.
The film changes genres three times. You get the feeling that was more lazy than anything, just throwing anything in there. At first it seems like a comedy, like a lighter, less creepy Wes Anderson and you are delighted. Very shortly it gets dark and monotonous but with touches of comedy. In the end there is a dance scene over the credits.
I didn't walk out of this movie but I would possibly not see it again if I knew what it was like. The filmmaker is pretty funny if you get the chance to hear him speak. This movie did not hold the attention of the pre-school children that were there and they were very disruptive. Had they been able to pay attention to it the subject matter would have been too dark for them. Leave the pre-school kids at home. I'm guessing 8 or 10 is the youngest age for this movie.