Brilliant Lies (1996) User Reviews

Fast listeners only!

[gridoon · 7/10 · 29 February 2004]

As you might expect from a movie based on a stage play, this one is relentlessly talky, and the heavy Australian accents create an extra problem, at least if you're not from Down Under. But it's very well-acted (hard to believe LaPaglia and Carides are a real-life couple when you see how convincingly they hate each other here!) and, in its best moments, utterly engrossing; depending mostly on your sex, you may find yourself rooting for either of the two main characters while still having your doubts about him/her. The ending, however, is not very satisfying. (**1/2)

Good acting, mediocre script, LaPaglia spooked me!

[kacee4 · 6/10 · 14 October 2004]

This tale of workplace sexual harassment is an interesting study on how people lie, cajole, and manipulate in order to get what they want. Unfortunately, the script glosses over too many potential areas of deeper insight, leaving the audience somewhat unsatisfied. Perhaps this is because it is based on a play - indeed, the dialogue and staging often resembles theatre more than usual film structure - and therefore the audience is expected to provide more of their own interpretation to fill in gaps left by the writer. The family dynamic and examination of parental sexual abuse is particularly poorly done; it felt tacked on and shallow.

I found the opening music to be entirely wrong for setting the ambiance of the film; the music is silly and light, whereas the film is not.

LaPaglia and the Carides sisters are fabulous in this movie. Gia Carides is good as a party girl who is desperate to convince an arbitrator and tribunal that she really was victimized by her boss, playing out the old "whatever we wear, wherever we go, yes means yes and no means no" chant. Zoe Carides does a wonderful job portraying the feminist sister caught between being supportive and wondering just how much of the story really is true.

LaPaglia is the nasty boss, and so thoroughly wonderful in the role that I got chills. I'm a LaPaglia fan and generally prefer it when he plays nice but flawed guys, so in this case his loathsome character really got to me. It's a testament to his mastery of his craft that I found it hard to look at him by the end of the movie - and this is a guy I have as my desktop wallpaper! In particular, a line towards the end of the film was delivered with such malice that remembering it is making me uncomfortable even this many hours later. It's not an easy performance to watch, but I do recommend it nonetheless.

The greatest comfort to combat the on-screen unpleasantness is that LaPaglia and Gia Carides are a seemingly happy married couple!

I would say that this film is recommended for LaPaglia and Gia Carides fans, but not the best sample of either of their work. The two were also together in Paperback Romance, which is a completely different genre but much more entertaining.

Brilliant Lies?

[janet-55 · 7/10 · 11 September 2006]

This film was formulated out of a stage play and unfortunately its origins are all too obvious. Though there are some interesting camera and editing devices utilised I do not think that ultimately as a film this piece has worked. And nobody lied brilliantly! None of their scheming was accomplished with panache. The plot is that Suzy (Gia Carides) is claiming $40,000 Aussie dollars from her boss Gary (Anthony LaPaglia) on the grounds of his sexual harassment of her. As to be expected they both give differing versions of what happened and whereas the story according to Gary never really wavers (ie in his opinion he has done nothing amiss)Suzy changes her story nearly every time we hear it. The result being that though I think overall we are supposed to be more sympathetic for the wronged lass, in the event the scene in which Gary is eventually reduced to burying his head in his hands elicits for more sympathy from the viewer. I have to admit by the end of the film I loathed Suzy. I suppose my reaction has to be a good reflection on the part of the actors involved, in particular the two Carides sisters, and Anthony LaPaglia. The story is rather clichéd, though the scene where LaPaglia stands before his so-called victim undoing his flies was unusual, unexpected and more than a little scary. But alas the image was repeated a few times too many so it did lose its punch as the film progressed I fear. One good visual idea does not a brilliant movie make!!

A moral tale from the anti-discrimination tribunal

[Philby-3 · 15 March 1999]

Sexual harrassment, and films about it, may be last year's fashion, but it's still a good earner for the lawyers and bureaucrats administering our anti-discrimination laws. In this film, based on a play by David Williamson, Australia's premier commercial playwright, the "victim" manages to do quite well, and the "aggressor" is badly mauled.

Beautiful"victim" Susie Connor (Gia Caridies) comes to sympathetic anti-discrimination agency official Marion (Catherine Wilkin) to complain about the attentions of her handsome but piggish boss Gary (Anthony LaPaglia). She wants $40,000 in compensation. Conciliation is attempted but ends in acrimony. Marion starts to wonder if Susie is telling the truth, or is just a brilliant liar. The movies winds up as courtroom drama, with the truth strangely finding its way out through all the lies.

Interwoven with the legal proceedings is the unravelling of another set of lies and truths involving Susie, her equally beautiful lesbian/feminist sister Katy (Zoe Caridies) and their failed entrepreneur father Brian (Ray Barrett) who is in urgent need of an expensive heart by-pass operation.

It's all a bit like "Disclosure" (Demi Moore/Michael Douglas) meets "On Golden Pond" (the Fondas). Ray Barrett produces an ingratiating old rogue who even tries to persuade us that a little child molesting might not be so heinous, but might in fact stem from love. Anthony LaPaglia plays Gary the go-getter with plenty of suppressed rage and a general air of bewilderment. Gia Carides handles the ambiguity of her role - victim and sexpot - adroitly. Zoe (her sister in real life) does not succeed so well with sister Katy whose lesbianism come across as a lifestyle choice rather than basic sexual orientation. Pick of the performances really is Catherine Wilkin's Marion the anti-discrimination bureaucrat - a measured and fair portrait of a much maligned species.

The script seems a bit flat by Williamson standards. He is justly famous for his dialogue but here only the occasional line stands out. When Susie mentions that she only ever took Ecstacy (the drug) once, Marion remarks "Married women seldom get ecstacy and sex at the same time." There were two other scriptwriters including the director - perhaps that was the problem (I haven't read the play).

A filmed play, really, but an intelligent and moderately entertaining one. It's not likely to change anyone's attitudes - the war between the sexes will rage on regardless.

Good movie, but differs from the stage show

[danewport · 7/10 · 27 June 2005]

I did this play in 2000 here in New Zealand and had a great time.

Cast as Paul Connor, I got a chance to play a very different role to what i had been used to. I had not seen or heard of the movie before doing the play, so had no idea how different my portrayal of Paul was to the movie.

I chose to play Paul as a beaten down, almost wimpy character that had been endlessly picked on by his sisters when he was growing up, then to be stuck with his 'Christian' wife only added to the torment inflicted on him by his sisters.

As I said, I had immense fun with this play and as a result earned rave reviews from my direction who said I captured the essence of Paul magnificently.

I would love to direct this play one day as I believe the subject matter is timeless.

Slam, bam, give me $40,000.

[mark.waltz · 6/10 · 30 January 2022]

There will always be debates over why there should be a huge cash settlements for cases like this, here a claim of sexual harassment and wrongful termination, and it's pretty obvious that boss Anthony LaPaglia who fired secretary Gia Carides is guilty of something. Her fair-minded attorney, Catherine Wilkin, takes down the testimony, indicates that it will be her word against his, and in conversations with his boss, it's indicated that this is not the first time this issue has cropped up. "We all know that the man is always the villain. The system stinks.", LaPaglia exclaims when confronted with the settlement amount she wants, and Wilkin even indicates that only the cases with strong evidence have gotten a settlement like that. In fact, it was her that mentioned the amount in the first place, simply just as an example what has happened in the past.

There's a subplot concerning her family, with her lesbian sister, her very sexist father and the possiblity of sexual abuse in both of their pasts. Zoe Carides as the sister is a very difficult character to like or sympathize with her until she shows vulnerablity about the past, her extreme feminism often seeming misandrist. But I guess when you grow up in a family of misogynists, that reaction isn't an unrealistic response. There's also a brother they ridicule for his conversion to Christianity, an aspect of the plot I found rather unnecessary. It's trying to deal with too many issues, and it needed to Rob back on its extremist positions.

For the most part, I did not feel like I was being given a lecture, especially with how Wilkin handles the case, with impartiality and fairness and certainly no judgement as she investigates the charges. This is a film that deals with some uncomfortable truths from and towards both genders, and that made this better than what I had expected it to be. In light of the past 25 years having many changes on this subject, it's amazing how timely it is. After a while, I found it easy to not be on either side from the start, especially in certain aspects of Gina Carides' character who does lose some sympathy as sister Zoe gains it.

Very cliched, flat drama

[allyjack · 4/10 · 20 October 1999]

Very cliched, flat drama shows all its stagy origins while making you wonder how it ever hung together as a theatrical piece - nothing is subtle or implied; it all sits out in the open, almost instantly superficial and unnuanced (despite the ambiguity surrounding the ultimate truth of the case), and shot in a flat way that does nothing to elevate it. Carides' performance is hard to read, which in part is deliberate but in this context ultimately leaves you out in limbo; LaPaglia's role is largely reactive; Barrett is just awful (although awful in a way so common in Australian movies that it may - shudder the thought - be quite realistic) as the father, and the movie's echoes of Oleanna (in the issue of who's telling the truth, the overall staginess, and in the feeling that she may be crazy or unreasonable) are unhelpful in that they expose the unelevated language and general clunkiness of this version, to its considerable detriment. The film certainly doesn't contribute anything to the cinema of sexual politics (unless it be the modest benefit of an "Australian perspective").

Brilliant cast

[jldowsing · 8/10 · 18 April 2022]

The fabulous Carides sisters combine with a young Anthony La Paglia, a suitably wimpish Michael Veitch and Ray Barrett playing Ray Barrett to sleazy perfection in framing a superbly executed movie exploring sexual tension in the workforce whilst incorporating misogyny, family trauma and an LGBTI angle, albeit in a 1990's mindframe.

Despite a budget seemingly less than the $40,000 harassment/wrongful dismissal claim central to the story, this screen adaptation of David Williamson's play is an engaging insight into the fractious male/female dynamic and how they play their cards to advantage in order to get what they want. The two combatants Susy (Gia Carides) and Gary (Anthony La Paglia) may be married off screen, yet their seething animosity is key to the film's authenticity and ambiguous rendering of who indeed is the most brilliant liar.

My only gripe is the ultimate willingness of sisters Susy and Katy (Zoe Carides) to accept the unforgivable trespasses of their mostly awful father.

Nothing about this is brilliant.

[Spleen · 3/10 · 4 August 1999]

David Williamson has written some very good plays, but even the best of them can't be removed from the stage without wilting. This is not one of the best of them.

To be honest, it feels as though it's been cranked out. "Let me write a play (or script) about ..." Williamson thinks for a moment, fixes on "workplace sexual harassment", starts banging away that very instant at the typewriter, sticks to the scenic formula that's worked so well in the past, throws in a revelation of some kind every few pages, and it's done. The result is not at all brilliant. (Nor are the lies brilliant. Don't expect Baron Münchhausen, is all I'm saying.) Even so, it probably works well enough on stage.

But it's not on stage and it flat as a lilypad. Michael Veitch plays the part of the family Christian who no-one takes seriously in a manner that might also work on stage, but which is embarrassingly cartoony here. (It's possible to count and catalogue his mannerisms.) Principle leads are competent but don't shine. Direction is leaden. Now and then the action moves out of doors or down the corridor - as if that could possibly help matters.

If I were to say that it's boring I might mislead you. Williamson's craft ensures that it's not at all likely to induce sleep, and it's possibly worth watching as a way of passing an hour and a half; but any other film at all, provided it's one that's not positively bad, would serve just as well.

Compelling, if a little rough around the edges

[paulm-36 · 8/10 · 12 October 2005]

There are three facts which I believe will help those who have not yet seen the film make up their minds whether or not they will enjoy it. First, the film was shot in Melbourne, Australia which in itself makes the film a "must see" for anyone who lives there or who has lived there. Second, the film was shot on a small budget and a tight time frame (30 days, I believe) which means that the film is not 'about' special effects or complex action scenes. Third, the film is based closely on a stage play so the viewer's interest has to be in the characters and the storyline.

I felt that the film was unusual in that it presented the different (and often opposed) viewpoints of as many as four characters in a way that led you to sympathise, or at least empathise, with all of them. The film is not judgmental and does not present a black and white conclusion. The characters are compromised, not heroic, and I would describe them as realistic rather than merely stereotypical.

A poor treatment of an important issue

[=G= · 5/10 · 19 October 2001]

"Brilliant Lies", which seems to be trying to make a statement about the sexual assault of females, begins as a tale of workplace sex harassment and stumbles around somewhere between "All In the Family" and a soap opera by film's end. A journeyman Aussie flick farught with stereotypical superficial characters, "BL" is a mediocre watch at best with more to fault than favor. D+

Something went wrong

[MCMCMLXX · 5/10 · 19 January 2021]

It's a brilliant (see what I did there?) story by one of our best stage play writers David Williamson, but I think the others got hold of his story and stirred it a bit too much. The acting of Michael Vietch can't escape his comedic presence (as he is more known by), but the others are good at their stick. However the strange ending leaves you uneasy and I do think this was down to the production of the film. Knowing it was shot quickly and on a low budget - all of which should be commendable - this final episode of the film has a sudden terse without tense. It needed something else to end the film - a definite Brilliant Lie the whole family endured which should leave you unsettled in the "correct" way. But as said with said Veitch and the low budget which presumably lead to some bad editing here, it has a bewilderment to it that even in our Aussie senses of these days of "alternative" drama, this still had a bad taste that the writers, director and editor failed to grab you for a final gasp of WTF? moment.

A Brilliant Movie

[Sylviastel · 10/10 · 18 December 2001]

Brilliant Lies is truly a brilliant movie. There is terrific acting among the Carides sisters, Zoe & Gia. Anthony LaPaglia is surprisingly like any other Australian actor around. Just imagine that he and Gia are married to each other. But I was very surprised by Zoe's performance as the lesbian feminist sister. It is not patronizing or preachy but rather touching. This story has layers of depth for the above average movie. While it takes something like sexual harassment to a story worth telling, neither Gary nor Susy are truly innocent of each other. Maybe the depth of the story is truly worth brilliant and terrific Australian film. I still can't believe that Anthony is actually Australian than an American Italian New Yorker or from Jersey.

As the film unfolded, I enjoyed its multilayered story and insights.

[joseph777 · 8/10 · 16 December 2001]

The title, Brilliant Lies, created the obvious expectation of much lying. This was not too satisfying but I was soon rewarded by the uncovering of layers of lies in many areas of the lives of the characters. This conflict of lies and partial truths led to some surprising but plausible resolutions. The acting was excellent and served the plot very well.

Twin peaks of female glory

[edgeofreality · 9/10 · 10 September 2020]

Very well acted, especially Ray Barret in top form as an old sleaze with some redeeming features. Pic has good dialogue, coming in the early days of political correctness and men facing up to their chequered pasts. It will probably make any woman watching get on her high horse, but these two sisters end up being remarkably graceful and the film contains the ever elusive human note of forgiveness.