Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

In the only act of commonsense they have ever made, the NSW Film & Television Office refused to fund this film. The Producers kicked up a big stink & in a blaze of publicity took their production to Victoria. Apart from the lost work for technicians, NSW were lucky not to have been involved...The film fails on just about every level. The post modernism fails, the casting fails (what is Rose Byrne's character all about ? which 1 dimensional snarling nasty did Hugo Weaving channel ? what the hell is Pia Miranda's character doing?) and the story is a clichéd mess of contradictions. In fact, the story runs like a dragged out prelude rather than a complete plot line.It might have had a chance if the "pop culture meets depression" style was better thought out and executed. If the casting was quirkier, if the style was less serious ... if just about everything was different. Apart from the usual excellence in costume, design & cinematography (like most Australian films), the film is just a total miscue. At a reported budget in excess of $7m, "The Tender Hook" is a symptom of the malaise of the Australian film industry - the wrong people and the wrong projects are getting funded. Compare this mess with "Noise" (under $2m), or "Cedar Boys" (under $1m) and you get the idea. The tough, interesting films are struggling for funding and the flabby, overblown projects with name casts are getting the bucks.The funding bodies who invested in this deserve to go the same way as Hugo Weaving's character at the end of the film.

Ogilvie's big movie shows his exceptional craft in film making. The visuals alone are stunning, combined with top end editing, sets, and sound. The support players were almost better than the stars. the movie is flawed in other areas, a couple of slightly off performances noticeably from Hugo Weaving (what accent was he going for?) and Nevez (unconvinced of why we should care about him), and the story was so low key "small time crooks" that maybe the production values were just too good for it. Weaving was a little unconvincing as a tough guy although he could easily pull off scary. The violent scenes conflicted with him being a reasonably nice guy to his gf and taking sh!t from his underlings.It's hard to know exactly why it didn't blow minds, but it certainly didn't blow. Some great lines and ideas going down in the script. Ogilvie shows class and control, craft and art, and I'd like to see where he goes next. Most definitely an art film rather than a big budget affair but with the look and feel it alludes to much more.

In 1920s' post war transitional period, a chauvinist gang in Australia institutes a wagering federation for middle-weight boxing championship. Beside with their drug and beer smuggling activities, they also rig walkover horse races. Hugo Weaving plays the chief of the gang and Rose Byrne does his fiancée.My reason of seeing this film was because I follow Hugo Weaving's career since 1999's Matrix, and Rose Byrne's career since her appearance in Troy(2004). When the characters are all introduced to us, we found ourselves in the middle of crime chains. Absolutely, there is no mystery here, since we feel like we're part of the gang. Then the only lonely good guy of the movie came to the spot: Art Walker, a young and promising boxer. He defeats one of the former champions by the arbitration board decision. Resembling Scorsese's Raging Bull, the boxer is forced to throw the game. To get the title shot, he obeys to the chief. At the end, he has to make a choice between his honor and his goal to become a champion.There are no outstanding performances from the actors, yet I liked the cinematography and art direction a lot. Originally written for the screen, the techniques used for passing from one scene to the next is so impressive. The editing has been dished out very expediently that holds viewers' attention continuously, even though the storyline is very simple and unassuming.This one is originally a good sample of a crime/action genre. Not exactly a family movie for its scenes of drug usage and female nudity, but it's very entertaining for the purpose of watching with friends.

I was swept away with the look and feel of this film. It reminds me of those glam film noir films - a mix of romance and violence. Rose Byrne is so gorgeous. The beautiful 20s costumes and look really suit her. Whoever did the costumes should be congratulated. Her scenes with that young Aussie guy are HOT. Hugo Weaving is great as always - his controlled violence is scary. Like good film noir you have to pay attention to the plot, but I didn't have a problem. And I really liked the music -a mix of jazzy numbers by Chris Abrahams and some modern songs. I hope they put out a soundtrack. The whole film was an interesting mix of period film with some modern touches - like the music.