Why so much hype?

Absolutely brilliant

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

There's a certain sub genre of film drama that sits somewhere between the conventional scripted narrative and an observational documentary. A sort of flirtatious experiment with layers of realism, hand held cameras and a very loose approach to what feels like a lot of semi improvised dialogue. The question inevitably, on everyone's mind, "does it work or does it collapse under its own alternative cleverness?"Scenes play out in almost teal time and dialogue flows, stops, does a few twists and turns as it tends to in real conversations between people, not in the short hand of movie dialogue.The question inevitably, on everyone's mind, "does it work or does it collapse under its own alternative cleverness?"We meet three young seaman on the town for a spree without a single sighting of Gene Kelly - it's the classic set up of one last night of innocence and shenanigans before being shipped off to a war zone in the cold light of day.Director / Writer / Actor, Matthew Newton in a trifecta of effort plays high spirited and repeatedly reckless Harry; Toby Schmitz as the contemplative and responsible Dean; and Ewen Leslie as the somewhat lost lamb Sam. In the confines of a rather bland hotel room, in semi whispers, Dean and Harry are treading on egg shells concerning something that has happened to Sam... and the teasing out of what it is and why it has happened is beautifully infused into the developing story line. Now, the extent of naturalistic, real time conversation isn't everyone's cup of tea... a five minute exchange between two characters takes five minutes to play out... and by TV soap opera standards, with their 90 second scenes, this will feel as slow as molasses in January, but it has a function - the protracted time scale allows the actors to really inhabit their character and for us, as an audience, to absorb nuances that otherwise would slip by unnoticed when playing a scene in some contrived short hand. That said, there are some scenes that might have fared better with some heavy handed pruning at the film editing stage. In particular a card game featuring Newton, Schmitz, Alex Dimitrades, Marcus Graham and Clayton Watson. While the actors I'm sure were having a wonderful time reaching to the very core of their "he man" bravado, it goes on so long that it starts to feel like an acting improvisation class rather than an integral part of the developing problems for our heroes. I'm not saying it has NO function, but in terms of screen time compared to the payload it delivers, it feels rather disproportionate... In another sequence, Barry Otto and Heather Mitchell as Dean's prospective in-laws, play out a painful bickering, drunken aversion of all the reality about them -- Again, fascinating character stuff but ultimately, like the card game, is it helping to drive the plot and impact our main characters? So filming is over. It's eight weeks later, here we are in the editing room and it's time to look at what's in front of us, objectively, and ask that very important question, repeatedly... "Would the audience miss that moment or that moment, if the scene was half the length? Would cutting it down that much actually make the intent of the scene more concentrated and effective in communicating it's intention? More isn't always more... discuss. While there are those somewhat bloated legatos scenes, there are also tighter, leaner and more focused moments that really demand our attention.Sam's visit to his Mother and Grandfather is a multi layered glimpse into not just Sam's background but the expectations of Grandad - Bud Tingwell in his last film appearance - and Jacki Weaver in a fascinating and multidimensional characterisation. Her conflicting disappointment, fear, criticism and love for her son are barely fleeting hints of a very rich and detailed back story. And Tina Bursill, just perfect, as a tired prostitute who, in just a few lines of dialogue, sums up an entire life.In an Interview with Stuart O'Connor of The Guardian, Newton has said of the film, "I guess I also wanted to show what young men should be doing with their evenings as opposed to going and getting killed or having to kill someone else - making mistakes, getting in trouble, meeting girls, playing cards, trying to figure out what it is to be a man." The themes of loyalty, commitment, honesty and the abuse of power are all knocked squarely and firmly into their respective pockets... with a surprise twist in the final moments surrounding Sam and Harry's personal decisions. This is no gimmicky twist - not at all - it that feels absolutely right given what they have been through over the course of the evening. Despite some significant film festival wins, the release of the film in its native Australia, and beyond, was very limited and it was difficult to track it down on DVD six years later. Three Blind Mice deserved better. It's a brave little film - its rawness and honesty show a real freshness and spirit - Newton and his cast, they really do deliver.

Rented this on DVD in Canada, was enticed by the numerous festival designations on the box. What I found was a surprisingly engaging independent film. As has been mentioned, the plot involves three young naval officers on a last night of leave at home before returning to duty in the Persian Gulf. There is the expected camaraderie, misadventure and a certain amount of conflict, but also a surprisingly rich palette of emotions and open-ended subplots. Slowly the details of an earlier incident at sea are revealed as we come to learn more about each of the sailors. The dialogue is complex, smart and realistic, and drives the film. You may want to turn on the captions, as the Aussie accents are thick and the lines sometimes tossed on top of each other in the style of Cassavetes and Altman. Defects include a certain lack of focus and an uncertainty as to how to end the story, characteristics shared with many independent films. However, there is an underlying intelligence and understanding of human character that raises it well above average and makes it worth seeking out. Writer/director Matthew Newton, who also plays one of the sailors, has made a worthy second effort.

I saw this as part of the World Tour sidebar of the 33rd Cleveland International Film Festival. It starts with some pretty compelling mix of plot elements: the last shore leave, the rascal who wants to have as much wine, women and song as possible, the soon to be married mate who wants dinner with the in-laws and the sailor who's obviously come up against some debatable military "discipline".Unfortunately, the director chose not to have subtitles turned on for this.I became more and more lost as the movie progressed. Scenes around a card table with three Aussies yelling, one talking and one sub-vocalizing left me with little to go on for critical plot points.I expect to rent this if possible and re-rate it. But if you have trouble with this sort of dialect at all do check to see if sub-titles are available. This movie had more than enough promise to give it another chance.

This is simply a poor film.Cinematography: Annoying and painful as a drunken home made wedding video.Writing: Shallow and incoherent with painfully unfunny jokes.Directing: Attempted by a poor first time actor who hasn't realised that it takes real talent to be able to direct and a unique talent to direct from in front of the camera.Acting: This is just a film of random people reciting lines with the exception of Charles 'Bud' Tingwell and Heather Mitchell.Editing: The inept editing makes the film drag on with no sense of purpose or structure which makes for painful and uselessly long scenes.This film leaves you with the impression that none of those involved in making it actually watched it before its release.It should have been a twenty minute short if made at all.