Long Weekend (2009)

Simply A Masterpiece

hyped garbage

An Exercise In Nonsense

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

While on vacation at a secluded Australian beach, a couple's behavior toward the environment and to the animals living there eventually riles them up enough to force them to attack the couple, turning the vacation into a literal, waking nightmare.This was an utterly atrocious effort that really has very, very little going for it. The biggest issue with this is the most obvious, as what was supposed to be a horror film is instead much more of a drama about an Aussie couple heading for divorce at extreme odds with each other that tends to dominate the film to the point of forsaking most other elements and putting them in the background. By focusing on their issues during the first hour, which includes their behavior toward each other as well as how he reacts to her obvious and growing distress at what's going on around them, to him acting like a prick and her getting shot down because he's a prick, this almost tends to make it seem like the animals are after them merely for their marital problems almost as much as their disrespectful attitudes. This one just becomes intolerable because of this wasted time before the animals start attacking with all of this nonsense that's supposed to make us like and care for these people when it does the exact opposite at urging for their swift and utterly violent demise within seconds of meeting them, yet continues on for as long as we're here with the couple, and moreso this affects the pacing here by just not doing anything remotely interesting at all. None of this is appealing or enjoyable, no one is really all that exciting to be around, and this is just endless and excruciating because of that. While it's nothing to get worked up over, there's some good stuff there on a recurring gag with a sea animal, fantastic atmosphere with the noises around them and howling off in the distance as well as some harrowing chases through the overgrown undergrowth in the woods. Still, this is all too little too late to mean anything as this was a complete waste.Rated R: Graphic Language, Violence, sexual innuendo and rampant violence against animals.

*** This review may contain spoilers ***This is clearly one of the worst movies I have seen (and I have seen a lot of movies). Jim Caviezel is normally a very good actor and it isn't his fault that this movie sucks and not really the other actors either.The director and the person that wrote the script had to be on a pretty bad "trip" while doing this movie. I simply can't find anything positive to say about what they created.It's slow It doesn't make sense. The story is thinner than a piece of paper and the dialog, well not anything interesting either. The special effects. They really doesn't show anything, but still it's bad.It's a complete waste of time, see something else....anything really.

Carla and Peter whose relationship is on the rocks go on a surfing camping trip and upset nature. The movie is really not that interesting and has a weak plot. It's not scary either. I think it had a simple premise and it stuck strictly to the moral message it wanted to convey which made it quite bland and a little ridiculous at times. Spoiler alert - The movie is pro-life and is actually saying that abortion is against nature - I am not saying that's what I think, just what the movie is saying (I will also point out there are animals that can spontaneously abort their pregnancies and others that engage in infanticide that's nature weighing in.). Peter is the first to tick off nature by lampooning a sea cow (because that's the animal every woman wants to symbolize her) and orphaning its child. Which is representative of the fact that his wife Carla had been pregnant and didn't tell Peter about it. She had an abortion because she didn't think he could handle it or something like that. Basically, Carla is a would be mother feeling lampooned by Peter. Later, Carla destroys the egg of an eagle that attacked them (yes an eagle attacks them and somehow Carla obtains its egg, I dunno, call the director to complain) and well, it's pretty obvious that destroying a fertilized egg is representative of her own abortion. Nature goes haywire and Peter and Carla suffer the consequences. By the way, when an endangered eagle attacks you, who destroys its egg as revenge?

Sometimes you start watching a film, persevere and then ponder on some deep questions, such as: Was this made as a tax dodge? How come the dog is the best actor in the film? Why oh why did Claudia Karvan and David Caviezel get involved in this? Did they owe someone a favour?As I write David Caviezel's character has just been attacked by an eagle - providing at least some unintentional humour. I read here that this is a remake of a film from 30 years ago. In Australia, where the film industry is small and actors who elect to stay 'home' and look for work are often relegated to poor television and adverts - to decide to remake a film and then do it soooo badly, is tantamount to a crime. Having taught media at university in Australia, I know there are so many budding young film makers, script writers, camera people and actors out there, so to see precious money spent on this pile of kangaroo s**t made me genuinely angry.Australian films often share a thematic of 'whitey' struggling against a hostile, if stunningly beautiful landscape. ( For example: 'Picnic at Hanging Rock.' ) So, this could have been so much better than it is, drawing on that ambiguous relationship to the bush, the sea and isolation. At some point why didn't someone, ANYONE, connected to this film see the rushes and say: 'We need to rethink this don't we.' Even the bloke emptying the bins could have told them this.DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME ON THIS. IF I COULD GIVE THIS ZERO OUT OF 10 I WOULD.Unless you want proof that some actors really will do anything for a few bob.