Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

A rip-snortingly good seriocomic Australian crime caper romp about Kev and Mick, who are a couple of slothful, shiftless, luckless, jobless, penniless, hopelessly dumb and perpetually beer-blasted couch potato twentysomething slacker meatheads who are constantly hard up for booze money. The dim-witted duo decide to reverse their misfortune by robbing a bank. Naturally, things don't go as planned, with a rival gang of clown-masked stick-up boys who've been holding up banks all over the city gumming up the works. This delightfully offbeat feature scores a 100% smack dab on the money bull's eye thanks to its engagingly off-kilter sense of raucously wiggy humor, keenly observant feel for and genuine sympathy towards miserably impoverished, just barely scraping by bottom-of-the-socioeconomic-ladder lower-class people, uniformly bang-up acting, fluid photography, and commendably unpredictable loosey-goosey narrative structure. Writer/director David Caesar tells the whole manic story with dynamic, barn-storming panache and punchy, pacy, rat-a-tat-tat bravura style to burn, adroitly pulling off a difficult balancing act of laugh-out-loud uproarious comedy and quietly affecting low-key drama (a subplot concerning the leader of the rival gang needing the stolen loot to support his junkie wife's drug habit proves to be especially poignant). The robbery itself is a marvelously tense and thrilling tour-de-force set piece. Best of all, Ben Mendelsohn as the hostile, dangerously temperamental Kev and Jeremy Simms as Kev's more laid-back, long-suffering bud Mick display a wonderfully edgy and oftentimes downright electric chemistry. While the main characters are unarguable losers, the film overall is a total winner.

What is needed for this film is a cultural reference point, that is some sort of experience/insight to suburban Australian life.As anyone who has ever lived or spent time in the western suburbs of Sydney will no doubt know, the options for fun and excitement are, to say the least, somewhat limited. All that exists is a cycle of bad straight tovideo movies, longnecks in the park, and conversations with a selection of dodgy blokes in pubs... Now with that background in place, we come to idiot box. The film, although a comedy, is no satire. It is more an accurate representation of the pointlessness and utter boredom of the Sydney suburbs an draws its humor from such. A feeling of subdued frustration prevails in this film, in fact it is the general theme of it. The characters plan to rob a bank, however woefully conceived, is an extension on this, a philosophy that it does not matter whether they succeed, fail or even try, it matters only that they have done SOMETHING. Idiot Box resonates with Sydneysiders, with Australians, it is an extremely relevant and poignant representation of a culture of boredom and frustration,a culture that lays its blame for this othersat the feet of others. It is not a film that translates well to other cultures.

David Caesar was obviously fueled by the energetic 90's film revolution of films like "Pulp Fiction" and "Trainspotting" to make an Aussie crime story/satire. Unfortunately, "Idiot Box" does not even deserve the mention of those two films in my review. The film's plot is awkward and unfocused. It chronicles the adventures of two hopeless losers Kev and Mick as they party and rebel against society. They seem to be always watching some kind of violent material on TV (hence the title), that leads to their decision to rob a bank. The events following are muddled and contrived. The dialogue is absolutely embarrassing. There is a scene where Mick makes his way home from getting some brew, when he sees an attractive, but lonely liquor shop owner waiting for business. He is somewhat familiar with her, but not enough to start conversation with her by saying "What's poetry?". Why Caesar felt the need to open the scene like that is beyond me. Was he trying to give Mick depth? Does he honestly think someone has ever initiated a relationship by asking "What's poetry?". What's worse than this touch is her reaction. A completely normal, unquestioning response! They call TV the idiot box because some believe watching enough of it leads to feeble-mindedness. Watching an hour and a half of this movie will do the same thing to you, so I would strongly recommend TV instead.

Both the style and content of this film (as previous reviewers have stated) are far from fresh, but I can't be too unkind to a film that at least doesn't pander to the PG-13 crowd with the usual doses of sitcom sensitivity and redemptive moralism. The performances are all well delivered, the look of the film is grimly realistic, and the only obligatory, sensationalistic aspect of the piece is the annoyingly typical song-track music (that gleefully exploits and sells the usual mishmash that adds up to a pop-muzak CD). There's some good dialogue here and some fine widescreen photography for those film enthusiasts who are interested in checking out the DVD release of this decent Aussie indie.