The hard word my movies

‘The Hard Word’ is an excellent, well-paced Australian movie, straddling the genres of the American noir caper film and the British thick-ear crime drama. Some of the sequences in this movie remind me of scenes in ‘The Asphalt Jungle’, ‘The Killing’, ‘La Jetee’, the Peter Sellers comedy ‘Two-Way Stretch’ and even ‘Eating Raoul’ … but ‘The Hard Word’ is definitely a one-off original, and it’s very good.

The early scenes in this film take place in the Australian prison system. I’ve done some prison time Down Under (in my original name, before I changed it), and I found these scenes extremely realistic. Seppos and Poms (Yanks and Brits) will have difficulty understanding the Strine slang in this movie; for instance, when an inmate shouts ‘Half yer (expletive) luck!’, it’s not instantly clear to non-Australians that this means ‘I wish I was half as lucky as you.’ Also, American audiences will be confused by this movie’s references to racetrack ‘bookies’. In Australia (as in Britain, but unlike in the States), bookies are lawful businessmen (‘turf accountants’) who privately take bets at sporting events, as independent contractors.

And most confusing of all for audiences outside Australia: some of the dialogue in ‘The Hard Word’ is spoken in ‘butcher talk’. This is never explained in the movie, so I’ll reveal that butcher talk (or ‘rehctub klat’) is the dialect used by (real-life) Australian criminals for covert conversations in public … in which every word is spoken BACKWARDS, very rapidly. Even if you know the secret, you won’t understand a conversation in ‘butcher’ unless you’ve practised a lot. (In Britain, criminals have a gimmick called ‘backslang’ which is a simpler version of the same thing.) Several times in ‘The Hard Word’, the dialogue is brilliantly ambiguous, carrying two meanings at the same go.

Three felons are released on the same day: violent Dale, easy-going Malcolm and Pepsi-swilling mother-obsessed Shane. (The dialogue identifies them as brothers; they don’t look remotely alike, but that line explains why they stick together no matter what.) As soon as they get out, our lads participate in an armoured-car robbery that’s been set up by their crooked lawyer Frank … but Frank might be setting them up for a fall. And while the lads were ‘inside’, Frank has been having a go with Dale’s sexy wife Carol. Rachel Griffiths, who plays Dale’s wife, is not conventionally beautiful … but in this film she gives one of the sexiest performances I’ve ever seen on screen.

SLIGHT SPOILERS COMING. There are some eye-catching frame compositions in this film; all credit to director/scripter Scott Roberts. But several pieces of business seem to be set up only to create odd images on screen. A rival gangster lures Dale into a trap by disguising himself as Dale’s wife and then hiding in their bed with a gun; I found this wildly unlikely. Frank kills another gangster by cramming a lava lamp into his mouth: no blood, no broken teeth; just an interesting visual composition. One long sequence takes place inside a restaurant shaped like a giant cow.

An actor named Robert Taylor (doesn’t he know that this name’s been used before?) is very good as Frank, the brothers’ crooked lawyer. Frank dies a horrible death. How to get rid of the corpse? We know that Malcolm is handy with a sausage-grinder, and in the next scene we see him grilling some FRANK-furters on the barbie. That pun is no coincidence. (Damien Richardson is a revelation as Malcolm.)

On several occasions, the crooks jeopardise their own well-planned caper by brawling or arguing; I found this a very accurate depiction of criminal behaviour. Yet there’s one very implausible plot twist during the robbery at the Melbourne Cup, when Shane is supposed to open a locked door by typing a 4-figure number into a numeric keypad … but a henchman named Tarzan insists on doing it himself, even though he’s dyslexic. Doesn’t Tarzan realise that his dyslexia disqualifies him from this job? Sure enough, he mucks it up.

During the caper sequences, I kept expecting to see the cliché shot from every caper film … when a swag-bag rips open, and banknotes go flying in all directions. Blessedly, that hackneyed image never came. For most of its length, ‘The Hard Word’ commendably avoids clichés. I thought Rhondda Findleton quite sexy as an anger-management counsellor with a semi-Louise Brooks hairbob, but I was annoyed when her character became that prison-movie cliché: the sexy female prison staffer who goes home every night and can get any man she wants on the outside, yet who becomes sexually involved with one of the inmates a few minutes after she meets him! I couldn’t believe that this woman would be having sex with Shane … it would have been much more plausible if she had merely **led him on**, arousing herself with his sexual frustration while offering him no release.

At the very end of this flick, the three brothers and Carol are striding purposefully towards the camera. ‘Please’, I thought, ‘please do NOT commit that horrible cliché of freeze-framing the final shot.’ Instead of a freeze-frame, the final image went into a slo-mo … which is also a cliché, but not quite so hackneyed yet. Despite a few complaints, I’m vastly impressed with this highly entertaining movie. I’ll rate ‘The Hard Word’ 8 points out of 10. Nice one, cobber!

«The Hard Word» is a gritty, sexy, Australian take on the double-crossing heist movie.

We get to hear Guy Pearce (long-haired and greasy) and Rachel Griffiths (blonde and wet) go native in their accents in an entertainingly original script by first-time director Scott Roberts.

While not the first film to have quirky brothers-in-crime as the comfortable loyalty fulcrum, the familial psychological pathologies make for a nice counterpoint to the friends’, foes’, and femme fatale’s twists and turns. There’s more jokes and ironic humor than even the violence, which helps to block out some quizzical plot turns.

The movie never tells us that the title is Ozzie slang, among other blunt phrases used throughout (such as the tendency of Ozzie blokes to affectionately call each other the «c» word). My Down Under friend Bronwyn translates (used with her permission): «In it’s ‘ultimate’ usage it means to pressure someone for sex. If you were talking to a girlfriend who went out on a date with someone new, you might ask ‘did he put the hard word on?’ However, it is sometimes also used just in a general sense of exerting pressure. In fact, it was in a headline in our local suburban paper («The Leader») yesterday: ‘Minister puts the hard word on district pollies [politicians].’ An article about the State Minister for Local Government pushing the local councils to sort out boundary reforms.»

This was a really enjoyable film. While it may not have had the most original script, it certainly shines when compared to other, much more lackluster, heist films. I enjoyed this from start to finish and did not find it as formulaic and predictable as many other films in the genre. It’s sort of like an Australian version of the film «Confidence,» only with better acting and more interesting characters. Guy Pearce throws himself into the role and does not waver.

Even when the focus is on another actor his presence commands the attention of the audience. Few actors are as skilled in stealing a scene without ever saying a word. The female characters are rather one dimensional, but it’s a detail that’s easily overlooked as they are not the central focus. Definitely worth a visit to the video store.

This film demonstrates a larrikin-ness that differentiates Australian films within a genre from their American equivalents. There are some scenes that are Tarantino-like, but I don’t think that there is meant to be any real comparison. There is a lightness here and what appears to be a refusal to take itself seriously as a genre piece.

The main performances are stand-out, especially Guy Pearce and Rachel Griffiths. However, some of the minor characters appear to be there only to support plot movement. The best of these is Kate Atkinson as a ditzy blonde, but the rest are cardboard-cutout caricatures.

From an Australian perspective, it was nice to see Paul Sonkilla reprising his police hardman roles from some of my favourite TV series, although he appears to be slightly typecast.

I found the cinematography and the sound production quite well done and overall I really enjoyed this regardless of the small flaws, which end up looking more like positive traits — keeping the feel of the movie real and not produced to death, which is a problem I find with so many Hollywood films.

One of those films I found myself liking a lot, but it’s difficult to say exactly why. The Hard Word has a little bit of everything going at once — heist film, love story, comedy, and drama. It could be (and was) marketed as a thriller about lowlife criminals, double crosses and crime not paying — in other words an obvious Australian-style Tarantino rip-off like the boring and derivative «Two Hands». However it seems to take its cues more from the kind of slower paced, character-based crime movies that were popular from the 70’s.

Often movies like this one choose style over substance, and skitter along on simplistic scripts and dumb dialogue. Not the case here at all-The Hard Word has enough going in both departments to keep you more than interested and entertained, a credit to writer/director Scott Roberts. The music in this film is also worth mentioning — it’s very good and matches the style of the film perfectly.

What makes the movie special is an amazing, low-key performance from Guy Pearce, whose talent becomes more evident every time he graces the screen. Playing one of three incorrigible but non-violent bank robbing brothers, he manages to make his character watchable, interesting and original. Co-star Rachel Griffiths plays his sneaky, trashy, two-timing wife; her performance is not quite up to Pearce’s, but doesn’t do anything to weigh the film down, and most of the other actors are top-notch.

I don’t think this film did much business in the US (yet another indie that probably played on about three screens and no one heard about), but I predict it will find an audience on video and could even become a bona fide cult classic.

In my time, I have seen many films that have shown the bad side of people’s lives, with The Hard Word being no exception. This film has it all. The tough guys using, aussie language, committing major crimes and misdemeanors and most importantly, they are having a ‘bloody’ good time while they are doing it. If I was to be part of thieving gang, then I would ask for a ticket to join in with the close-nit robbers known as the `Twentyman’s’.

Meet the Twentyman brothers, Dale, Shane and Mal: hard bitten thieves with a self imposed honour code that demands nobody gets hurt. The three are languishing in a Sydney prison on remand for armed robbery. Dale, the level-headed leader of the Twentyman pack, is helping the trio focus their life beyond crime, while he focuses on his wife Carol. Middle child Mal is affable sort, whose love for butchery helps him while away hours behind bars. Shane, the youngest, is a loveable lunatic with a short fuse. When word comes that their corrupt and well connected lawyer frank has secured them bail, the boys whisked off to perform a ‘job’ and all goes well. Frank has greased the appropriate wheels, ensuring the local cops don’t cause trouble, yet the brother’s find themselves back in the slammer all too quickly. Frank bullies the brother’s into one last heist; a grandiose scheme that will either liberate or kill them, once and for all!

I really enjoyed this Australian piece of cinematography. The cast of this film was big, but extremely good. The three ‘Twentyman brothers’, were played well by there acting talent. I really feel that Guy Pearce has been a breath of fresh in the movie industry, whether it be in his home country, or overseas. He played the careful and leading Dale. I really liked what Pearce did in this role. He was extremely intense, but in way a seriously dangerous character, though his chosen life would say otherwise. All he wanted was to do the ‘jobs’ and be able to live comfortably. Guy has some impressive movies on the CV, including the brilliant L.A. Confidential, Memento and the very feminine `Priscilla, Queen Of the Desert’ . The other star of this show is another Australia acting talents, Rachel Griffith. Like Guy Pearce, she lightens up the screen as only she can, and has been refreshing to the movie industry. She played the ‘tart’, Carol, wife of our leading crime man. She was perfect for this role. I feel that no other actress could have got it better. Griffiths has had a good time of late and is about to star in the upcoming movie on the famous Australian bushranger, Ned Kelly, and has been in the recent movie hit, Blow, starring Johnny Depp and Penelope Cruise.

Dale’s younger brother Shane, is played by ‘Secret Life of Us’ star Joel Edgerton. Shane is a very angry criminal, but is also very cheeky in what he does, to help his jail-ridden brothers, taste freedom once again. His character, is I am sure what young people are like when they dabble in crime. Joel has starred in other movies like Erskinville Kings, Star Wars Episode II and Ned Kelly. The other Twentyman brother was played by actor Damien Richardson. I enjoyed how he acted in this character immensely. He was so typically ‘Australian’ in almost everything he did and said. Yet he was also like Dale in that he was in it for the ‘cash’, and to not hurt anyone. Look I could on about the cast of this film, with good roles from Robert Taylor, who played the scheming lawyer Frank, comedian Kym Gyngell, Russell Dykstra, Rhondda Findleton and Vince Colosmo.

Yet this film also had a wonderful story and showed off the landscape that it had beautifully. The film’s story was written by its director Scott Roberts. I feel he put the right amount of Aussie colloquialisms in it, to make me feel like it is a part of my everyday life. Yet this story, while it might be simple in parts, was an extremely clever in how it was written, with the premise of three brother’s being in jail for crimes they have committed, very ingenious. A mention of the language that this film has is important. Swearing is now being accepted more than ever by society, yet in the movies it seems to still shock many people. The Hard word had plenty of ‘Hard words’, but were used in a suitable context. What do you expect from harden criminals anyway? However, the work of the cinematographer also needs a mention here. This role was taken on by Brian J. Beheny, who showed off the attractions of both Sydney and Melbourne well in this film. As a former Melbournian resident, the way this film used Melbourne was really rewarding for me personally.

For me, living a life of crime would be a an extremely difficult choice, as I feel the tag ‘crime does not pay’, is good motivation not to experiment in unlawful activities. In a way, this movie shows that tag to be true. Yet this film shows the other side to crime well. To see how these bad guys stick together and are so faithful towards each other is exceptional. When you are about to watch this film, you could be mistaken for knowing what to except, but let me assure you, that once you have viewed ‘the Hard Word’, the characters’ and most of their actions will amaze you, to the point that you would never have imagined or forget. This is another positive step forward for the Australian movie industry.

CMRS gives ‘The Hard Word’: 5 (Brilliant film)

This Aussie crime caper starts promisingly. It introduces an offbeat cast of villains, a clinically-executed heist and a foul smell of duplicity emanating from our heroes’ slick lawyer, Frank, aka the world’s shiftiest man. So far so ‘Lock-Stock’, but the film fails to live up to these early expectations.

All apparent intricacies within the plot are then swiftly abandoned. Frank, it transpires, is a very bad man indeed, just as our hero-criminals are rather good-humoured, decent sorts. And so our three goodies (Dale, Shane and Mal) go off to work for baddie Frank, knowing full well that he’s a baddie and don’t seem too astonished when Frank rips them off, stealing their $10 million and Dale’s wife. Eventually everyone gets fed up with Frank, and in a truly bizarre final scene, they turn him into a sausage.

The underlying flaw in the film is that it fails to explore the characters or situations in a new or interesting way. Furthermore, there is no suspense after the first hour — the tension seems to decrease as the film progresses. And although the brothers interact very entertainingly, we learn next to nothing about their lives together, making it hard to empathise with them, or to feel that they even deserve their final happy end.

Stellar performances from Guy Pierce (thankfully redeeming himself here after Time Machine) and Joel Edgerton — (best known for playing lovable Will on the TV show Secret Life of Us).

It’s a smart, funny movie that keeps the action moving along at a satisfyingly snappy pace. However, the ending is somewhat disjointed and throughout the film you get the feeling that Scott Roberts had lots of good scenes in his head (and they ARE good) that he wanted to put on screen, but that they don’t necessarily all work together.

Nonetheless it’s a highly enjoyable movie in the Chopperesque genre of darkly funny gritty dramas that Australia is beginning to earn a well-deserved reputation for.

I loved The Hard Word and was wrapped in the totality of the experience that showed none of the shortcomings as related by others who commented on this film.

I thought that the scripting and direction of Scott Roberts was very good: the inevitability of the consequences that unraveled as the script progressed had a Shakespearian inevitability about it As a viewer I sat watching this all too real story unfold knowing nothing good was going to happen for any player in this strange dance of death but being powerless to change any of the pieces that formed the inescapable conclusion to all that would befall the players.

The script worked itself out without being forced through the Hollywood funnel which can do little but transform reality into something palatable

for the mid-American diet: movies as a metaphor for fast food.

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 Hard Word is the result of what happens when you take a bunch of OK ideas, string them together and just hope the rest falls into place. Unfortunately it doesn’t. the film tries to be a character driven piece, but never bothers developing its characters. This film is hard to connect with. At no point does it actively engage its audience. A bunch of stuff happens, but you just don’t care.

The script is second rate at best. More often than not, trite contrivances drive the story and characters do completely illogical things (often going out of their way to do so) for no reason. I’ve heard more better conceived and more logical storylines from my 6 year old nephew. Half the characters could easily be written out of the film without affecting the film in any negative way (take Rachel Griffiths character; half her involvement in the film seems like an afterthought — something they came up with when the producers realised they had a «real» actress on board).

Acting is a highly mixed bag. Most of the characters aren’t too bad, but some are awful. The character «Frank» had the worst timing for delivering lines I’ve ever come across in a major character. Many of the extras or minor characters are crap.

A poorly directed mess, which at the same time is not unwatchable. wait until it’s on TV, or if you’re really keen to see it video. Certainly not worth the time or money on the big screen. 4/10

I am glad that there were sub-titles available for this Australian heist & chase film, as the accents nearly made it hard to understand the dialog.

Guy Pierce & Rachel Griffisth are the stars & they do well.Joel Edgerton, Damien Richardson & Robert Taylor are on hand as well & they too do a fine job,.

However, we have seen this tale ( 3 likable Brothers are released from prison—one of their wives is sleeping with their lawyer,) We have seen variations of this too many times to be taken in,.. There are heists, chases, double crosses romances etc..

The settings are locations (some very beautiful) in the Sydney & Melbourne area,

Even though the story is familiar, It is too convoluted to sustain much interest.

Ratings **1/2 (out of 4) 71 points (out of 100) IMDb 6 (out of 10)

With lots of holiday time on my hands, decided to tape this and watch later. Didn’t particularly want to see it, but figured it was worth a chance.

The story is about 3 bank-robbing brothers, caught up in a mess with a bunch of crooked cops. They basically keep spending time between robbing banks and prison. When a huge heist opportunity comes their way, revolving around the Melbourne Cup, they see their chance to get out for good with a nice lump sum of cash money.

The cast is solid, featuring Guy Pearce (Mike from «Neighbours»), Joel Edgerton and Rachel Griffiths, the storyline is OK, but the story just bugged me. The language is pretty rough, there’s some odd sexual content and the movie really starts to drag. A lot more effort should have gone into the heist scenes than some of the stuff they dabbled in (eg relationships, mental health, salmonella) with no depth, making it pointless.

Had potential, but went nowhere.

My only reason for watching this is because I caught the tail end of it on cable and saw the ending before I saw the re-run of the film starring GUY PEARCE, an actor whom I liked in L.A. CONFIDENTIAL and MEMENTO. It’s no more than an average crime caper movie but watchable enough to pass the time.

It’s one of those hard to define flicks about a trio of hoodlums (brothers, actually) who are exploited by a crooked lawyer and, in the end, decide to take revenge. That’s the basic plot in a nutshell, with some equally corrupt cops thrown into the mix. But first time Aussie director Scott Roberts has taken some very far out material with lots of quirky potential and turned it into a fairly interesting heist film that moves swiftly toward a most unlikely ending. Along the way there are a lot of twists and turns—watch especially for the crucial scene where Pearce decides to take care of the corrupt lawyer all by himself until the unexpected happens.

RACHEL GRIFFITHS is effectively cunning as Pearce’s blonde and trashy wife, and JOEL EDGERTON has fun with his role as the wildest brother who is most brazen about his prison behavior with a counselor. A guy by the name of ROBERT TAYLOR is apparently unaware of his moniker’s use by an already famous classic star.

With a serious/comic flavor, it starts out promisingly but turns into an average thriller aided and abetted by an upbeat musical score.

Warning: Lots of profanity, sexual doings and coarse lingo make it unacceptable for the kiddies. A major flaw are the heavy Australian accents which blur much of the dialog.

Summary:

Script: Very poor. Plot doesn’t know where it’s going; proves uneventful.

Cast: Wonderful cast, but they are wasted in this travesty of a film.

Verdict: I resented wasting $12.80 on this piece of garbage. The only good news was it was probably the pick of the films I saw that weekend. It was better than the Mothman Prophecies, and Kikujuro was so sickly sachharin I was almost spewing in the aisle.

I know, we’re told to go along, and are encouraged to support the Australian film industry, but with films like The Hard Word coming out, every now and then, I think we shouldn’t have a film industry. Thank god for films like Lantana and Alibrandi, which are films which prove we have at least some good directors and actors in Australia, still.

I love Guy Pearce, with or without nose putty, so I picked up The Hard Word from 2002. It also stars Rachel Griffiths of «Six Feet Under» fame, Robert Taylor, Joel Edgerton, and Damien Richardson.

Pearce, Richardson, and Edgerton play the Twentyman brothers, Dale, Mal, and Shane. They’re experienced armed robbers. They are currently in prison, but when they’re released on bail, they have time for one job until they need to return to prison due to a «paperwork» problem.

Their attorney, Frank (Robert Taylor) is in love with Dale’s wife Carol (Griffiths), and Dale suspects. He wants to run away with her. Frank arranges for them to pull off a multi-million dollar heist in Melbourne, though Dale questions his motives.

Frank has some locals to work with them — and Dale sees how this is going to play out. The locals will work with them, all right, then kill them. Frank will then have Carol to himself.

The heist portion of this film was definitely the best part, very exciting, moved quickly, with a lot of suspense and cleverness. As for the rest of it, I didn’t care for it as I did’t like any of the characters, nor do I like pig slaughter, a description of it, and talk of blood sausages. Yuk.

As a blond, Griffiths looked terrific and did a good job as Dale’s sexy and cool wife.

The rest of the acting was good — Pearce, Edgerton, Richardson, and Taylor are all familiar faces. Pearce is a true chameleon and pulled off the low-rent Dale very well, and Taylor was handsome and smooth as their manipulative attorney.

Not a favorite. I think men will like it, though.

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.