I couldn't believe what I was reading about this film and decided that I would have to set the record straight somewhat, or at the very least add a little bit of balance to the comments index.
"Strange Bedfellows" is symptomatic of what is currently ailing the Australian film industry at the moment. It is a small film (has the feel of a film school assignment), with underdone production values, and a severely undercooked script. It's a raw, still bloody and pulpy, carrion of a script. The writer, excuse me, writers of this 'piece' would have done well to hire a professional to completely overhaul their basic concept paying special attention to the dialogue, as well as ramping up the joke to minute ratio (which was dire).
The film is a throwback to the 1950's, I have no problem with the use of stereotypes, but those pressed into service for this film were retired elsewhere on this planet approximately 40 years ago. I suppose the film was about two elderly gents who were masquerading as homosexual lovers so their innocence could, potentially have been genuine. But the stereotypes 'dug up' for this film lacked any form of comedic, or creative interest.
The lack of a creditable script and the uninspired use of stereotypes aside, this film could have been worthwhile had it been ripsnortingly funny, but alas, it was found lacking it that department also.
I have heard it before about a lot of Australian film and television product relating to the comedy genre. It is said by those in the industry that almost all Australian film and television comedies have one thing in common, "they're just not funny". "Strange Bedfellows" falls into that category, it just isn't funny.....enough. There are, admittedly a couple of funny happenings (the opening sequence when the mailman spins around and throws the mail sack at a newsagents was mildly amusing).
It was not a complete train wreck of an exercise (although it was pretty close), unlike a couple of other people, I actually thought Paul Hogan was one of the few protagonists who looked comfortable in his role. Glynn Nicholas, is also quite good as the towns hairdresser, in fact, as much as he could, I thought he stole the film.
As a long suffering Australian, please, in 2005 could we perhaps, instead of making five half-baked, insipid, quirky sleepers, could we pool the funds and make one decent tear-you-from-your-seat blockbuster.
"Strange Bedfellows" is symptomatic of what is currently ailing the Australian film industry at the moment. It is a small film (has the feel of a film school assignment), with underdone production values, and a severely undercooked script. It's a raw, still bloody and pulpy, carrion of a script. The writer, excuse me, writers of this 'piece' would have done well to hire a professional to completely overhaul their basic concept paying special attention to the dialogue, as well as ramping up the joke to minute ratio (which was dire).
The film is a throwback to the 1950's, I have no problem with the use of stereotypes, but those pressed into service for this film were retired elsewhere on this planet approximately 40 years ago. I suppose the film was about two elderly gents who were masquerading as homosexual lovers so their innocence could, potentially have been genuine. But the stereotypes 'dug up' for this film lacked any form of comedic, or creative interest.
The lack of a creditable script and the uninspired use of stereotypes aside, this film could have been worthwhile had it been ripsnortingly funny, but alas, it was found lacking it that department also.
I have heard it before about a lot of Australian film and television product relating to the comedy genre. It is said by those in the industry that almost all Australian film and television comedies have one thing in common, "they're just not funny". "Strange Bedfellows" falls into that category, it just isn't funny.....enough. There are, admittedly a couple of funny happenings (the opening sequence when the mailman spins around and throws the mail sack at a newsagents was mildly amusing).
It was not a complete train wreck of an exercise (although it was pretty close), unlike a couple of other people, I actually thought Paul Hogan was one of the few protagonists who looked comfortable in his role. Glynn Nicholas, is also quite good as the towns hairdresser, in fact, as much as he could, I thought he stole the film.
As a long suffering Australian, please, in 2005 could we perhaps, instead of making five half-baked, insipid, quirky sleepers, could we pool the funds and make one decent tear-you-from-your-seat blockbuster.