SYNOPSICS
Three Dollars (2005) is a English movie. Robert Connolly has directed this movie. David Wenham,Frances O'Connor,Sarah Wynter,Robert Menzies are the starring of this movie. It was released in 2005. Three Dollars (2005) is considered one of the best Drama movie in India and around the world.
THREE DOLLARS is the story of Eddie, an honest, compassionate man who finds himself with a wife, a child, and three dollars. Eddie's world revolves around the three women in his life: his brilliant wife Tanya, a passionate academic, their six year old daughter Abby, who heightens the stakes on every decision Eddie makes, and his childhood sweetheart, the beautiful, privileged Amanda, who re-appears in his life with mathematical certainty every nine and a half years. Surviving with a blend of self-depreciating wit, spirited sensitivity and a big heart, his life is rich with the pleasures and pains of love, family, friendship and marriage. But with only three dollars to his name Eddie will be faced with a choice that will change the direction of his life forever.
More
Three Dollars (2005) Reviews
An entertaining modern fable
Although it has been suggested that "Three Dollars" is about the mind of the Australian Male, Melbourne version, (such as it is), it really could be set in almost any large Western city. Eddie (David Wenham), a genial thirty-something, works for a Government environmental testing agency as a chemical engineer. He is instructed to sign off on a dodgy developer's polluted project. He resists, and at the start of the film we see his reward, a forced march out the door. So much for fearless impartial regulators. Eddie is in a spot, no money (three dollars in fact) and his university tutor wife Tanya (Frances O'Connor) has also been laid off. They have a large mortgage and a cute six-year-old, Abby, to feed. Eddie gets a conducted tour by Nick, a derro (Australian for derelict) he once helped, of the mean streets that may await him, but at the end there is hope from a (possible) guardian angel in the form of Amanda (Sarah Wynter), Eddie's childhood sweetheart (and daughter of the dodgy developer) who in a coincidence worthy of Latin American magic realism, manages to pop up in Eddie's life every nine-andahalf years. David Wenham can do comedy ("Getting Straight") or drama ("The Boys") equally well, and here he does both splendidly. His Eddie is amiable, a bit of a duffer, but instinctively decent. Thus he cannot approve the dodgy development, despite being aware of the consequences. Wenham, who has great integrity as an actor, has no trouble evoking the pain that can come with doing the right thing. Frances does a fine job as his ambitious but frustrated academic wife, and Joanna Hunt-Prokhovnic (aged nine) as the six-year-old Abby nearly steals every scene she is in. Two minor roles are in the scene stealer category also, David Roberts as Eddie's loathsome boss Gerald and Robert Menzies, unrecognizable as Nick the derro. The plot leans heavily on coincidence. Not only do Sarah and Nick pop up so providentially, but Sarah is having an affair with Gerald, who happens to have once enticed Tanya away from Eddie with an offer to let her play a female Hamlet while they were all at University together. And of course there is the matter of Sarah's father being the dodgy developer. This all doesn't matter for the story is essentially a fable about keeping one's integrity even when everybody and everything seems to be conspiring to take it off you. The script is fine though the pace flags at times and one or two of the plot diversions (eg meet the parents) seem unnecessary. There are also some unnecessary flourishes such as the crop-dusting plane attack - an apparent tribute to Hitchcock's "North by North West". Robert Connolly's only previous outing as a feature director was another entertaining modern fable starring David Wenham, "The Bank". It's a long wait between watchable Australian films these days so naturally I hope this does as well. It is a little less slick and a little more tuned to real feeling.
Worth more than the title
I saw "Three Dollars" today, on a bleak Canberra day. It was not the best Australian movie I have ever seen (my heart belongs to "Picnic at Hanging Rock"). But it was the kind of movie that Australians ought to make (rather than being the location for explosion-based stuff from the US) and that Australians ought to queue to see. It was unerringly about us. Not the flatulent lies of nationalism or the chest-beating idiocies of economic rationalism. It was about how, faced with the second of those two catastrophes, a decent man emerged. He did not win (not in the film, anyway). His professional concern about a toxic land development did not stop it. He did not win Lotto, or write an award winning book. The most he may have done was change the perceptions of Amanda, a representative of those who succeed when goodness is a handicap. Like good men everywhere, since the Biblical Job, he tried throughout to act as a good man should. As is inevitable with screenplays adapted from literature, there were options that could have been taken and were not. One could quibble, but I'll leave that to others. Long scenes may have alienated some viewers, but were uncomfortably real - in my life at least, conversations don't end with the bit that advances the plot and events spill out in several directions at once. (Linearity is a curse!). The performances were uniformly sound. David Wenham showed versatility and a depth that was present in "The Boys". Frances O'Connor underplayed wonderfully, so that the Edam cheese scene became the strongest signal of her character. The child was unusually persuasive and thoughtful direction produced depth and colour from the more peripheral roles (the alcoholic, the creature made manager and Kate, the friend of Tracey). This is a film of lacerating honesty, and a work that asks whether society is advanced by blind progress. Eliot Perlman's book from which the film was adapted was a revelation - an epistle of decency written by a lawyer - and his second book ("Seven Types of Ambiguity") is even more challenging. I look forward to the film and am trying to predict the cast already.
brave new Aussie film, but....
There are many things to appreciate about Robert Connolly's Three Dollars, but the film could have been much better if it was dealt better with what I'd call its 2 main problems. These problems are: the unnecessary length of the film and the ambiguity of its main premise or what one's might call the distraction of the main dramatic problem in the storyline. Starting off its trailer, no one could get the slightest hint what 3 Dollars was going to be about; so why there was a trailer in the first place? However, Robert Connolly in his Q&A with the premier show of the film in Brisbane repeated more than one time in his answers to the audience that "the film is about a good man being tested in all aspects of his life. Tested in his relation with his wife and daughter. Tested in his morality about his work. Tested in his financial situation, and tested even in the streets he walks on!" The film, as Connolly puts it, is "an epic story of an ordinary man." This definition for the main plot line in 3 dollars took the filmmakers to kind of misleading direction. Do ordinary people make epics? Probably yes, but Three Dollars in fact is not an epic film. It's a film that was frilled with many details that made its interesting story less connection. The film finds its appropriate pace in the last 25 minutes and holds it firmly to the end, but the first 90 minutes were so long that I'm sure many people won't stay on their seats to reach those interesting 25 minutes. Scenes, takes and dialogs were all very long that it could have been shorten. I believe that 3 Dollars strongly needs to be reedited and take off no less than 20 minutes of its unnecessary scenes. Related to the problem of the film's length, one's could also points out to the problem of that the film spent very long time building up its frilled story just to reach its final pointwhere the ordinary man becomes a tramp for one night. On the way to reach that point, the film mixes many genres for no good reason. Sometimes it looks like black comedy whereas other times it was pure social realism story. Mixing genres, in fact, is good thing to reject Hollywood one-vision style of film-making, but it could be also dangerous exercise if it not done smartly. Mixing genres in 3 dollars seemed illogical and been done in a way that it didn't help the film a lot. Talking about mixing genres I just want to refer here to the homage Connolly had to Hitchcock's North By Northwest. I mean the famous scene where an airplane attacks/follows an unarmed man. This scene, though it was well done/remade in 3 dollars, is a good example for those sequences were audience's attention been drawn to something else rather than the main story. But 3 Dollars is also a brave Australian film that succeeded avoiding some of the market requirements such as action, gunfights and happy ending. In fact, there is a brave thing about 3 Dollars that deserve special salute: filming the harsh street life of beggars and tramps. I think it is the first Australian film that dealt in this depth with this issue, which most directors usually avoid. Why they avoid it? Because it's hard to be done. Filming the harsh life on poor streets is a harsh practice itself. The best parts of 3 Dollars are those last 25 minutes about the life on the street. While watching those sequences, I was recalling the Australian aboriginal singer Archie Roach's song, Move It On, where he painfully sings, "I was raised on the street/ I'm nobody's fool/ yeah I was raised on the street/ but street can be so cruel".
Down and Out
I so wanted to be positive about this film, but to be honest I cannot. Its just one of those films which leaves you, ultimately, totally dissatisfied. Just what was it all about? Its a film where nothing happens but at the same time so much. Its unrelenting in its depressive 'story' - an ordinary man, married with a child and who has a fairly successful job, who, by the end, is forced to go through the garbage bins on the streets of Melbourne to try and secure food for him and his family. Its the story of the downward spiral for a man who has scruples and where every character lies (or at best denies the truth)in some form or other. But just how much can you stand watching a man lose his job, watch his wife lose her job and then teeter on the edge of clinical depression, experience the first epileptic fit of his young daughter, know that his father is seriously ill and then witness his ultimate degradation of his experience of street-living? It ain't easy! Especially when the film runs for nearly 2 hours. The saving grace of the film is the performances. David Wenham, possibly Australia's best, gives a superbly understated performance. No histrionics to be seen - simply a man who in some ways is simply defeated by circumstance - a wife, a child, a mortgage, a job in the Public Sector that is under threat - and a sense of values that are in some ways alien to modern society. There was also always a sense of underlying humour in his character, which helped, in parts at least, to lighten the darkness of the film. Frances O'Connor as his wife provides a spunky supportive role. And Robert Menzies as down-and-out Nick is great for the short period he is on screen. I was somewhat puzzled, however, by 'Last time I saw Amanda I had $3' and the role she had in Nick's life. 'We see each other every nine and a half years....' Quick maths point out that the characters are in their mid-30s, but not sure about the basic premise of introducing the character Amanda! A pointer to the development of his life? Maybe. Emphasising the differences between them? Maybe. But take her and all references to her, and I don;t think that it would have had much impact on the film. Ultimately, very disappointing - I gave it 5 for the performances.
Very hopeful but bitterly disappointed
After reading most of the positive reviews and extended cinema release of this film I decided to see it tonight. I was hopeful and just like Somersault, when all the reviewers and company jumped on the bandwagon sprouting its wonders (forgetting that both Sydney and Melbourne film festival audiences weren't that impressed-ah! it's incredible how propaganda works!), I was bitterly disappointed. The cast were fine and anyone who can direct The Bank has talent. However, who were they kidding with this So contrived episodic odyssey (shades of Tom White). I can handle the symbolism of the recurring "three dollar" motif, the nine and half year reappearance of Amanda (Wenham and O'Connor as uni students was a big stretch), but please don't adopt such a bourgeois (geez! I haven't heard that word since the 70s) patronizing stance by having a chemical engineer who owns a house (the mortgage is not disclosed)in Melbourne and only has three dollars to his name trying to cut it on the streets with the homeless. The scene with Eddie trying to rummage through the rubbish is laughable in that it is so unreal. What were you thinking Robert? Furthermore, the "garlic bread for two chickens" scene -pull-eezze!!! Looking back over what i've written may sound a bit harsh. It was not intended that way as i will always support the local industry and want it to do so well. For such a small population we are an incredibly talented nation who have an infinite capacity to tell great stories and make wonderful films. But let's not fool ourselves that these films are ends in themselves but part of the process of making even better films.