The Hard Word (2002)

If you watch The Hard Word expecting yet another heist/caper flick in the vein of The Bank Job, you're going to be frustrated. At first, the film feels like it's all setup, with no payoff. Then you realize: this IS the film. It's not about some sort of grandiose criminal scheme. It's about these *people,* and their very individual outlook on life. And on that basis, it's really quite brilliant.The three brothers each have their own peculiar point of view. There's the tough guy (Pearce), the oddball (who strikes up an out-of-the-blue love affair with his prison counselor), and the soulful butcher (who gleefully slaughters pigs, but wouldn't hurt a fly). Then there's Frank: the criminal jerk who just can't seen anything but the next big score, and thinks he can manipulate everyone. And, right in the middle, Rachel Griffiths' character -- a somewhat unwilling and perhaps incompetent femme fatale.There's plenty of action in the film, including a climactic heist, but these events are surprisingly low-key. The movie isn't about who gets away with how much. It's just as much about blood sausage, and unusual uses for a lava lamp, and sticking things in a cow, and a dyslexic hit-man... a whole string of strange events that might have been enough for several movies.I found myself puzzled by the film at first, then swept along by its endless stream of remarkable occurrences. And, in the end, I became absolutely enchanted by the three incorrigible brothers, and their optimistic motto: "Nobody gets hurt." The ending, when it arrived, was exactly what I was by then hoping it would be. It left me with a big grin that took hours to wear off.Don't go into this expecting a down under version of Ocean's 11. This is much more like The Ice Harvest, or Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead -- a sort of existentialist film noir fable. And a pure delight, provided you're in a receptive frame of mind.

The Australian film, `The Hard Word,' is little more than a wan cross between `The Usual Suspects' and `Oceans 11.' In it, Guy Pearce, almost unrecognizable beneath a scraggly beard, plays one of four criminals discharged from prison in order to help mastermind a heist at the famed Melbourne Cup horse race. There's very little that's original or new in this film, with all the generic cliches falling dutifully into place: the release from prison, the inevitable double crosses, the unfaithful wife, the trigger-happy outsider who almost bungles the entire operation with his impetuosity and brashness, and the innocent bystander who, sensing the excitement of life on the dark side, helps the robbers with their getaway. Surprisingly little time is spent on the planning and execution of the heist, and an inordinate amount on getting the men out of prison (they get out once and then, inexplicably for plot purposes, get sent back in again). The performers are good, but their thick Australian accents make much of the dialogue virtually incomprehensible (for non-Aussies that is). That doesn't do much to enhance the clarity of the film. The real problem with `The Hard Word,' though, is that we've seen it all countless times before, only better.

In a time that has seen so many crime movies and romances, a movie must present something original to be memorable. While everything about this movie is solid, it is underdone, unoriginal, and pretty much forgettable.

This film, though it succeeds in digressing from the standard "Heist Movie" formula (worn down to an imperceptible nub of its once original splendor), makes no effort to be what one would term "good". It seems that Scott Roberts got so caught up in his efforts to avoid convention, that he forgot to give the plot any direction, or make the movie remotely entertaining. There were times when it was clear that he was going out of his way to disappoint expectations, but without results that were worth the effort. More than once a character was introduced that played an important part of the story, that would then disappear completely without apology. If this were to in some way improve the story or the point, I would understand; but instead it came off as a juvenile device. "Look at how unexpected that was. Did you see, nobody ever does that." Well, nobody (at least not anyone that produces a film for public consumption) has put a gerbil in a blender and filmed it, but I'm not gonna expect people to be impressed if I'm the first.While I am tired of the same movie coming out over and over again under different titles, with different superstars playing the same role, I do think that there are conventions in writing that are necessary for all but the few geniuses who know how to break the rules (and usually, they follow others). Certain conventions (creating characters about whom we care and fleshing them out; creating a discernable and engaging plot; moving naturally from event to event) can be utilized in original screenplays. I know. I've seen it done.There is nothing more wrong with convention than there is with originatily. It is only quality that matters. And it is there that this movie fell shorter than legless munchkin.