Little Fish (2006)

I found Little Fish way too slow and even turgid, it has a ponderousness which is at times nice, but frequently boring. The big problem is most of the dramatic action that is effecting the characters has already happened years before the film takes place, and at times when the various characters have intense moments about these long gone events it just makes the acting seem melodramatic because we haven't seen or felt the events they are talking about. In fact the whole piece comes across as a third act in a much larger story, and if we'd seen these original events the characters and their actions would seem much more natural.Unlike Animal Kingdom which has similar pacing but which only grows in intensity as the characters unravel because of things they are doing now, the pacing here just slows everything and waters down what interesting content there is. It's alright for the theme to be looking at people struggling with their lives after these big events, except there was way too much of them struggling with these past events rather than their lives now - all of the emotional and narrative action is centred around things we haven't seen and which aren't really explained clearly either.Hugo Weaving is brilliant and the film is worth seeing just for his performance alone. There was something about Cate Blanchett's performance I didn't like - it seemed just a bit too much of a one note take on her - there was lots of hair flicking and annoyance - but the character wasn't infused with any kind of nobility as she tried to overcome the effects of her past wrongs - that would have made for a much more engaging performance and given us some empathy for her. But then again maybe she really did hit the nail on the head because if she's selfish enough to become a drug addict in the first place there's no reason why some of those character traits wouldn't have carried over afterwards as well.Maybe as film maker myself I find it frustrating that a film that is clearly not ready to be made simply because of the script, can get made with a good budget and a good cast. The photography and music were very nice though.

I watched this on DVD and my finger was hovering over the Fast Forward button through most of the film. I managed to resist until the last twenty minutes and discovered that I understood about as much of it in fast forward as I did at normal speed -- nothing at all. It appears to be about some druggy people in a Chinatown area of Sydney, Australia. It's all very depressing, without really knowing why. It's a cliché, I know, but there are better ways to spend your time than watching this movie -- washing dishes or doing the ironing spring to mind.Despite having some top rate Australian talent in it (Sam Neill, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving) it starts nowhere and stays there right till the end. It didn't help that I didn't understand a lot of the dialogue and there were no subtitles to help me. This despite the fact that I lived in Sydney for a while, so it must be because a lot of the dialogue is muttered unintelligibly.I'd have ticked the spoiler box for this comment if I thought I'd understood what was happening enough to relay it to others. Sadly, I don't really know what happened to anybody at the end (bar one).My advice is to give it a miss. It's very frustrating, which is worse than boring.

There are two national traditions of a sort that are driving excellence in film today. One focuses on the nature of the long form in terms of structure that connects emotionally and through folds intellectually as well. Its Spanish filmmakers, though distributed around the world.So far as modern acting is concerned, it is the relatively small nation of Australia who so dominates it is a wonder. It must come down to a couple — or even one — influential teacher at the national acting school there, NIDA.Here we have the latter without the former, such a shame. Oh, the filmmaker is intelligent enough, let's say of the Frears type and intensity. He's put together a sad tale of tentacles into a woman's soul, that once touched is forever vulnerable.But its essentially actor-centric. The actors fill their spaces marvelously, and create a wonderful froth of interaction. But it is merely froth. Inlike the handles the actors give us, the filmmaker gives us none. There is no shape to this as a film, no engagement as a story apart from what the actors give: parts.I saw this with "Bongwater," which was a minor success in that the film was broken in the same way the heroine was. That's true here as well, the difference being heroin instead of pot, and a much higher level of skill all around. Cate played much this same role in the recent "Notes on a Scandal." Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

One of the users whose review I have just read wrote that he/she really wanted to like the movie... I had the same problem... Hugo Weaving whose amazing performance in V For Vendetta I saw just before,Cate Blanchett who is always worth watching and admiring, Sam Neill... And a trailer that intrigued me, promising an interesting story... Yes, yes, I know, I am naive... never judge a movie by a trailer... But I just couldn't help it... it reminded me of Me and You and Everyone we know, a movie that I really really liked... But, after watching Little fish, I felt nothing... Maybe a bit of confusion, because I wasn't sure what to think, after a movie that gives you nothing to think about... I felt empty, and sorry for the time I spent watching it... A movie with no story... I felt sorry for those great actors... They deserve better, cause they always give their best. So I have no objections to their job, brilliant as always... But that is definitely not enough to make me say this is a good movie...