Wonderful character development!

the audience applauded

Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

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.

This film is full of beautiful atmospheric shots that keep it visually engaging. The acting is fine all round: Cate Blanchett is, as always, stellar, but the supporting cast is very strong and appealing. The intensity of the love between Cate B's 'Tracy' and Dustin Nguyen's 'Johnny' is riveting: you cannot look away when these 2 characters are working through their respective past hurts. Hugo Weaving's 'Lionel' portrays a convincingly wrenching vision of heroin withdrawal. The music and the pacing create a nearly unbearable tension.But, the narrative is full of holes. As a story, the left-out gaps can be filled in by later reflection, but it's a fairly straightforward tale, with no need for confusion had the right parts been left in and others lopped out. A long film, great acting, superb atmosphere, and some good dialogue, but a sketchy narrative.I'd recommend it anyway.

I gave this movie 4 out of 10...and it only got that because it is an Australian film and I am very patriotic. OI OI OI!This movie should have been released with a warning.... will cause drowsiness!!! What can I say about the plot?? Well to begin with, it didn't have much of one. The beginning is much the same as the ending....the story doesn't go anywhere and it doesn't go anywhere extremely slowly. That hour and a half felt like a week. This story could have been expanded, more could have been done with the characters. Instead, the characters were left to wallow, no growth or purpose at all. And by the time I was halfway through, I was praying for a door to door salesman to ring my doorbell to get away from it. I even started daydreaming about the housework I could have been doing instead of wasting time watching this movie. I admit to watching it right through to the end, only because I had hoped to see some kind of improvement in characters and script...and was not surprised to see nothing! Actors were mediocre and not very creditable. But with the script they were given, with no chance of making the characters come to life, I do not blame them. I just feel it was a waste of time and film. No redeeming qualities or anything nice I can comment on here.Now I know this is only my opinion and that others have commented on this movie favourably. All I can say is that I expect a movie to have characters, plot and to actually be entertaining. I must have higher standards in my movie choices and I only watched this one because of the reviews I read here on IMDb.If you are looking for an afternoon snooze movie,then this is the one you want.If you want to watch a movie and actually be entertained, then choose another movie.

Reading some through some of the reviews already posted, I began to wonder if my wife and I had seen an entirely different film called Little Fish. But no. Cate Blanchett was definitely in the one we saw. There she was, acting her little heart out with admirable skill and determination, but nothing could save the film from itself. It simply failed to engage.The script was unnecessarily meandering and complex and didn't move the story on at a satisfying pace. There is definitely a story to be told on this theme, but it struck us as though the director had used an early script draft by mistake. If the script did go through the usual very necessary rewrite-after-rewrite development then one can only speculate about just how awful the first couple of drafts must have been.Frankly, it is a dud that can best be summed up as "a film about losers who stay losers". And did we care? No, not one bit. Sorry guys!Andy Williams