Lantana (2001) User Reviews

Australian cinema, but not as we know it.

[samelsby · 8/10 · 22 May 2005]

Most successful Australian films are quintessentially Australian. From Walkabout in 1970 via Peter Weir's pictures such as Picnic at Hanging Rock; The Last Wave and Gallipoli, right up to releases around Lantana such as The Tracker; Dirty Deeds; Rabbit-Proof Fence; Aussie Rules; The Dish and the Steve Irwin vehicle, The Crocodile Hunter Collision Course. Their appeal is partly based on an exploration of Australian culture or rather a contrast of cultures either within Australia or with the rest of the world. Like much of British Cinema, Australian Cinema has taken refuge in nationhood.

Lantana is different. Although it is set in present day Sydney it could, with the exception of the film's metaphorical title, be set in any Western urban conurbation. The film does not depend on either supposed Aussie character traits or well-known locations. Postcard Sydney is eschewed in favour of suburbia and mid-town. It is also bold as, although it contains a crime detection story, the film is primarily about an interwoven set of relationships gone wrong. The police investigation does not begin until halfway through the film, and this allows the relationships to be explored in detail before the more conventional narrative begins.

Leon (Anthony LaPaglia) is a morose police detective whose marriage to Sonja (the excellent Kerry Armstrong) is failing. His brief affair with Jane (Rachael Blake) in the opening sequence, is a symptom not a cause. Sonja confides her worries of the affair to Dr. Somers (Barbara Hershey), whose own relationship is soured by suspicion and tragedy. The only solid relationship is that of Jane's neighbours, whose domestic circumstances are the most difficult. This background unfolds in the first half of the film and the individual relationships are then laid over the plot allowing both an intertwining and explanation. The strength of the film is that as the characters have already been well realised, so their actions and emotions can be understood in the second half of the film. This is territory often reserved to a good novel, and is rarely brought off in the cinema and it is so well done here that a couple of narrative co-incidences can be forgiven.

The lantana is a large native Australian flowering plant, whose attractive and benign appearance conceals a thorny interior. The shrub is cleverly threaded into the plot and serves as a reminder that in relationships, things might not be all they seem and that care is needed to prevent hurt. In keeping with the film's realistic style there are no feel-good resolutions but the emotional intensity carries it to an ending of some hope rather than desolation.

Lantana: an under rated and overlooked gem of a movie

[ragingbull_2005 · 8/10 · 28 October 2012]

This is one of those rarities, a movie which walks the tightrope between being a perfect drama and an absorbing mystery and does it spectacularly well. The first hour is dedicated to establishing the various characters like the cop, his wife, the woman he is fooling around with, her estranged husband, the neighbors of the women etc. The interplay between the characters and the different situations are very fascinating. The second half is about the disappearance of one of the characters and how the others interact and react. The acting is brilliant with Anthony Lapaglia surprisingly getting a meatier role and performing much better than Geoffrey Rush. The screenplay is simply fantastic. It is a travesty that this was not nominated for any of the major awards. perhaps it being from Australia was a reason. This is a must watch movie for buffs who love their drama with a touch of intrigue. 4 out of 5. Very well made movie.

Tangled and strangled

[tomsview · 7/10 · 20 February 2016]

This is a complex drama. Although the film involves a murder, the story is more the exploration of a number of interconnected relationships.

The film starts with a woman's body lying in a lantana bush, but we don't know who it is until the end. The story builds up to that point, and centres on a quartet of families starting with Leon Zat (Anthony La Paglia), a police detective, and his wife Sonja (Kerry Armstrong).

"Lantana", the title of the film, refers to the noxious weed that grows like crazy and eventually strangles and entangles everything else in the garden - it's the perfect metaphor for the way all the various relationships are being strangled and entangled by infidelity, deception and unhappiness.

The structure of the film is similar to Robert Altman's "Short Cuts" where different stories intersect at critical times.

Although the film has a sense of mystery, I found "Lantana" just too serious and humourless. Unlike "Short Cuts", there really isn't a light touch in the whole thing. Anthony La Paglia's Leon Zat makes the characters played by Nicholas Cage seem deliriously happy by comparison. I am also wary in Australian movies of scenes set in psychiatrist's offices; it often allows the 'meaningful' dialogue to be delivered in very large chunks.

After a while, for me at any rate, the interconnectivity - where no meeting is random - comes across as just a little too laboured. What saves "Lantana" is that everyone plays it low-key - the actors give the movie class.

The brilliant Barbara Hershey has competition for attention from two other women: Kerry Armstrong and Rachael Blake. Kerry Armstrong is one of the most interesting actors in Australian film and television, and she ages beautifully.

The film steps up a notch when the mystery kicks in about halfway through, and it becomes partly a police procedural.

"Lantana" was loved up by the critics and won every Australian film award going at the time it was released. It is the sort of smart, multi-layered film that the cognoscenti could discuss at some length over lattes on Sunday morning.

The film is well made and the acting is flawless, but it seems interminably stretched out, an effect aided by the chilled out score. My main problem with "Lantana" is that it seems to self-consciously scream out "How clever is my script?" I can see the gears turning.

An insightful Australian film with adult sensibilities for a change.

[TheVid · 28 May 2002]

This well-delivered ensemble piece is a film version of Andrew Bovell's play SPEAKING IN TONGUES. It deals with adult relationships, particularly the sexual tension and anxiety that eventually develops in mature relationships. The plot and interaction between characters depends heavily on coincidence, but this isn't a major flaw in a film that really concerns itself with adult behavior patterns. That aspect of the film is sophisticated and honest; well worth the viewer's time. Brooding, subtle and smart are the words for LANTANA and I highly recommend it.

I was hoping for better!

[live4eva · 7/10 · 28 April 2002]

I think it's been pointed out enough that there are obvious similarities in styles between this and PTA's magnolia but lantana greatly dissapointed me. The critic's loved it and so did all my friends and i was absolutely dying to see this film. I felt it missed the mark. It wasn't long enough. Somebody said that the film wasn't about characters but relationships. How can u have a film with no character development in a film about relationships.

I felt another our would have given the director more time to develop these characters and make us feel something for them.

The fact this film won so many AFI's shows the poor state of the film industry in Oz. That's not to say this is a bad movie, it's decent but got more credit than it deserved.

One of the year's most compelling character studies. **** (out of four)

[Movie-12 · 10/10 · 7 January 2002]

LANTANA (2001) **** (out of four)

"Lantana" does not embody a story like most movies; it isn't about anything in particular. It's a movie about characters. Not larger-than-life super heroes, but characters who succumb to temptation, cheat on their wives, doubt their spouses, make mistakes and suffer consequences. In other words, "Lantana" is about real people. Normal, imperfect people like all of us. Not that everyone behaves like the characters here, but few films capture transgression with such compassion and sympathy.

Set in Australia, a colorful pallet of characters paints a vivid, coherent psychological portrait of infidelity, deceit, and estrangement. At the center of the film is four couples, immersed in guilt and depravity for different reasons. Everybody has something to hide. The conflicts of these people illuminate the personal crisis of a police detective (Anthony LaPaglia) as he investigates the disappearance of a local woman.

Apart from the investigation, the couples have little connection with each other. They do have one thing in common, however, that none of them communicates with their loved ones. "Lantana" proves communication enforces commitment, but a lack thereof results in disaster. This sincere, uncompromising picture places the lack of communication at the center of family problems.

The film won various Australian Film Awards for its performances, screenplay, and direction by Ray Lawrence. Lawrence clearly intended the title-referring to a tropical shrub with beautiful flowers that hide dense, thorny undergrowth-to represent the characters' private lives hidden behind an outward appearance. He's got the wrong metaphor. These characters do not appear sunny on the inside, outside, front or back. They don't wear masks or attempt to cover their frowning states of mind. They are unhappy people, and the movie never pretends otherwise.

Those qualities make the characters absorbing. Instead of providing them with outlets and opportunities to hide their faults, the film pokes, prods, and starves them of their happiness until they reach a breaking point. For some, the breaking point results in an explosion of anger. For others, it's subtle and personal. "Lantana" investigates real people who deal with real situations and encounter real consequences.

None of the characters are model citizens, yet we care deeply about each of them. When someone cries, we feel sorry for them. When someone begs for forgiveness, we try to forgive them. When someone questions their spouse, we are concerned with both sides of the marriage. These people make big mistakes; the results of their mistakes are never certain. The movie does not neatly pull things together at the end. It doesn't allow the characters an easy way out. These characters must dig themselves out of their problems.

"Lantana" is one of the most compelling, involving films of the year. It's based on a play called "Speaking in Tongues" by Andrew Bovell, who also wrote the fluid screenplay. I want to see this play. If these characters feel so alive, so real, so tormented on screen, think of their power in person.

Lantana

[pontifikator · 7/10 · 26 June 2009]

This is an excellent film, with great characters and surprising twists. The movie opens with Valerie dead, lying in the thorny brush known locally as lantana - a metaphor, of course, for what life is like for the characters in the tangled plot. Valerie Somers is played by Barbara Hershey, and her husband John Knox by Geoffrey Rush. Anthony LaPaglia plays the police detective Leon Zat investigating her death. We see Valerie and John in flashbacks, showing a deteriorating relationship, and we see Leon in the present, cheating on his wife. Although none of the characters knows each other, their lives are intertwined nonetheless. It's a thicket of relationships that scratches and draws blood.

LaPaglia and Rush are outstanding. John is a major suspect, as all husbands are in the deaths of their wives, and John and Leon spar as the investigation shows the bad blood between John and Valerie. We learn, finally, that John is factually innocent, but he is morally guilty of her death all the same. Leon at first sneers at John and his naked emotion, but events turn on Leon, wrenching from him his manly self esteem.

This is an adult film, dealing with adult themes. No action, no gunfights, no superheroes. Just us humans muddling through. Director Ray Lawrence and writer Andrew Bovell give us much to chew over, moments of understanding, and finally acceptance of our condition.

Something close to a masterpiece

[DennisLittrell · 10/10 · 8 May 2003]

In this starkly realistic examination of love and infidelity among the thirtysomething crowd from down under we learn that you may desire to cheat on your spouse, but it's better if you don't.

Leon Zat, a police detective played with an original and striking demeanor by Anthony LaPaglia, cheats on his wife and finds that his adultery compromises not only his marriage but his performance on the job. He becomes irritable and flies off the handle at things of little importance, and becomes consumed with guilt.

He is not alone. The marriage of John Knox (Geoffrey Rush) and psychiatrist Valerie Somers (Barbara Hershey) is falling apart as Knox seeks something from the outside and Somers is torn apart with the suspicion that he is having a homosexual affair, perhaps with one of her clients. Meanwhile Jane O'May (Zat's adulteress played by Rachael Blake) finds that she needs a man, or maybe two, other than her estranged husband. Even Sonja Zat (Kerry Armstrong) feels the pressure and yearns to feel attractive, perhaps with younger men.

More than halfway through we have an apparent murder and an investigation during the course of which some of the adulteries come to light and cause the participants to examine themselves and their lives closely.

Andrew Dovell wrote the subtle, richly attired script, full of penetrating dialogue and an uncompromising veracity, adapting it from his play Speaking in Tongues. Ray Lawrence directed in an unusual but compelling manner in which the scenes are sharply focused and cut to linger in our minds. Again and again I was startled with just how exactly right was something a character said or did. Lawrence's exacting attention to detail gives the film a textured and deeply layered feel so that one has the sense of real life fully lived. The cast is uniformly excellent although LaPaglia stands out because of his most demanding role. His performance is one of the best I have seen in recent years. The only weakness in the film is a somewhat lethargic start, partially caused by Lawrence's cinéma vérité scene construction and editing. What he likes to do is lead us to a realization along with the characters and then punctuate the experience by lingering on the scene, or in other cases by cutting quickly away. Often what other directors might show, he leaves to our imagination, and at other times he shows something seemingly trivial which nonetheless stays in our mind. John Knox's affair, for example, is not shown. Jane O'May and her husband's reconciliation is left to our mind's eye. Yet the scene with Valerie Somers in the lighted telephone booth (with graffiti) is shown at length and then what happens next is not. These are interesting directorial choices.

The ending comes upon us, as it sometimes should, unexpectedly, but then resonates so that we can see and feel the resolution. Not everything is tied up. Again we are left in some cases to use our own imagination.

This original film, one of the best of the new millennium I have seen, stayed with me long after they ran the closing credits. It is well worth the two hours.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)

Wake me up when it's over

[sdl-2 · 6/10 · 14 July 2002]

A foreign-film-hater's stereotype come to life, Lantana is a well-made but painfully boring soap opera that avoids the Hollywood cliche's at the price of zero entertainment value. It's a shame to see great actors like Geoffrey Rush waste their time on an uninspired yawn-fest like this. Rent Quills, Shine, or anything else with Rush and see what he's capable of given a halfway inspired script.

A valuable, sensitive and brilliant Australian thriller.

[blearyeyes · 10/10 · 14 October 2001]

What struck me the most about Lantana was not the well-laid plot, more the thoroughly realistic characters and performances. The classic 'mystery' thread was really only the setting for the several different relationships and couples featured in the film.

But having said that, the story itself was gutsy and twisting to keep you guessing till the end, all without the need for non-essential narrative or the need to keep spelling things out. The questions were all answered so far as the story was concerned, but because of the complexity and realism in all the principle characters, i still left the cinema rolling plenty of the emotional issues through my mind for hours after.

La Paglia was fantastic. His character, though shown as an adulterer from the very beginning, captured so many of the current male 'indentities' with great subtlety instead of a stereotyped 'hug session' which most recent films dealing with the subject matter inevitably lead to. He so easily showed the internal conflicts which most normal Australian men deal with day-to-day while still keeping up the brave face we all do.

I also enjoyed the quirky way the relatively small number of characters were all drawn together by fairly consequential links, and without a huge big statement of it in the end - no matter how many people there are on the planet, it still amazes me how small and incestual problem-circles end up becoming :)

This film has the potential to appeal to so many different audiences - works as a mystery, cop-drama, "chick flick", and to anyone who could ever relate to the 'feel' of Australia, which the film captures perfectly through great ambient audio and natural-looking lighting.

Well written, directed, photographed and cast give this one an easy full marks.

No good deed goes unpunished

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 30 November 2008]

"Lantana" refers to a tropical shrub, and lantana grows along the waysides in Australia. The 2001 film "Lantana" goes underneath the shrubs and takes a look at the lives of several couples whose lives are intertwined by the disappearance of a psychiatrist, Valerie Somers (Barbara Hershey). There's a police officer Leon Zat (Anthony LaPaglia) who is taking dance lessons with his wife Sonja (Kerry Armstrong) and has an affair with another student, Jane (Rachel Blake); Jane's neighbors, with a husband (Manu Bennett) out of work; and the psychiatrist's own dysfunctional marriage to John Knox (Geoffrey Rush) after their daughter is murdered. When Valerie goes missing, Zat investigates, suspecting her husband. He then learns that his own wife was Valerie's client. Then Jane reports seeing her neighbor throw a woman's shoe into the underbrush.

These lives intertwined stories are the fashion nowadays. There was a complaint that this film is "slow." This is because filmgoers today are not used to the art of the buildup. My two favorite opposing examples of this are the classic film "San Francisco," where the earthquake happens in the last half hour of the movie, and "Poseidon" where stock characters have a line each before the ship sinks in the first five minutes of the movie.

"Lantana" is an intriguing film that will keep the audience wondering and guessing - does Valerie suspect her client of an involvement with her husband? How did the neighbor get the woman's shoe? Can the Zats find one another again? The three "names" in "Lantana" - LaPaglia, Hershey, and Rush - give excellent performances. It's unknown to me why LaPaglia isn't right up there with Robert de Niro. Perhaps it's his willingness or need to do television - at any rate, the dark, sad character of Zat can't possibly be being played by the same man who was Daphne's drunken Cockney cousin on "Frasier"! He is a magnificent actor and creates here a tortured man who loves his wife and family but has lost the ability to feel anything. His scene in the car at the end of the film is gut-wrenching. Hershey is effective as a psychiatrist forced to listen to people's problems while disturbed about her own dead marriage, and Rush's frozen face displays no emotion, yet we know he's dying inside.

A really fine movie, well worth seeing. A note to you young folks - try being patient with a story that builds.

Intelligent Test of Loyalty and Love Among Adults

[noralee · 10/10 · 20 December 2005]

If Miramax had been distributing "Lantana," you'd have heard as much about this movie as "In the Bedroom."

Anthony LaPaglia matches Tom Wilkinson for a low-burning but implosive performance. New to U.S. audiences, Kerry Armstrong is captivating.

While it's absolutely fascinating to see how screenwriter Andrew Bovell opened up his play "Speaking in Tongues," though both stand on their own, particularly for their frank look at the issue of the frailty of trust and betrayal, between husbands and wives, lovers, families and friends.

The movie makes much better thematic use of a cinematic technique of visual coincidences that other films have used as a gimmick. Here the coincidences provide crucial, ever more difficult tests, leading to either sins of omission or sins of commission as those without trust jump to conclusions or hold on to their love and faith in their partner.

The music is by Paul Kelly and is superbly atmospheric, creating a noir atmosphere and building up the tension with a continuing theme that alternates with sexy salsa music. In particular, a leit motif plays ominously whenever the titular, tropical plant fills the screen.

The crowded audience interpreted ironic comments as high comedy, which was annoying, but perhaps helped to break the tension. There was a lot of audience talking as the story was half-told visually --a particularly neat change from the original play--and the coincidences would be revealed to the audience.

This is a sophisticated film for grown-ups that absolutely respects the intelligence of its viewers.

(originally written 1/21/2002)

Too Pretentious Too Self Absorbed

[lloyd219 · 6/10 · 22 October 2001]

It's been some time since I last saw an Oz film. Now I know why. A lot of films, especially art house, character pieces can take some time to get up a head of steam. For me Lantana never developed enough steam to iron a hankie, let alone keep me engaged for approx 2 hours. It chose to allow it's characters to internalise ad nauseam. Like LaPaglia's character I began to feel numb midway through this flick, making furtive glances at my watch to see how much time had elapsed.

To be honest I felt no empathy for his character. A burnt out cop having a mid life crisis. Please!!! Spare me the clichés. Maybe if there had been some progression in the character but no. We discover he feels numb with no explanation as to why. His character appears to undergo no journey as such, however miraculously at the end of the film it's happy families. Give me a break!!

And what an original device, using the psychologist. Gee, do you reckon the writer might have seen an episode of two of the Sopranos? Then there's a scene where LaPaglia hugs a fellow jogger who wails cathartically. Wanky new age dross at it's finest. And what's the story when Hershey yells out at the character of Pete in the street for no apparent reason? No doubt she has some deep and meaningful motivation for such action like the rest of the characters.

I admit I have a low tolerance for films like this that take themselves so damn seriously. There's one scene where LaPaglia tells 'a friend' repeatedly that she shouldn't have picked up a piece of evidence and it's very funny. Pity the whole piece wasn't lightened up more. I actually thought the crime plot as it was was quite good. It's a pity that it was treated as an after thought near the end of the film. It's not a crime to introduce a plot earlier in a film you know.

I thought Latana was visually impressive and I actually enjoyed most of the performances, in spite of their generally angst ridden states. Personally I'd nominate Rachel Blake as the pick of the performers. Hopefully she can pop up again in another movie soon.

Cliches dressed up to be taken seriously

[Rod-54 · 4/10 · 27 November 2001]

After reading rave reviews of this film I was very disappointed. The first hour is hard work as it serves up numerous disparate characters with no clear plot line. The characters do become embroiled in the second half, however, and the story is then more engrossing. The short sequences and the quick changes of scene and circumstance, particularly in the first half, along with the overall filming style all flatter the audience for its intelligence. Yet what is there in this film that is intelligent? It offers no philosophical nor any sociological insight that is not better provided in other films. The only thing approaching insight is the wife's complaint in the central relationship that, when her husband has an affair the true betrayal is that he doesn't tell her about it. Nothing here that you won't find in a prime time sitcom or a thousand hollywood romances. But is it true or representative? I doubt it. The film proudly displays ethnic diversity amongst its characters. But there is no ethnic diversity in their attitudes to marital behaviour and loyalty. This is complete garbage. More Hollywood via a "cultural cringe" from a non-Hollywood film. Southern European attitudes, for example, were done much better in the Godfather series. All this said, the performances are strong. They tell us to take the story and the ideas seriously. But at that level the film is vacuous. A great disappointment.

B'rer Rabbit

[tedg · 11 August 2002]

Spoilers herein.

I hate it when a film shoots high and fails. The notion behind the writer's mind is great: turn the mystery form (a cop, a body, many clues, ample suspects) on its head, rather like `Twin Peaks' and suspend us in the world of the involved by changing the whole focus of the thing. Build the fabric of relationships around four (and a half) interlocking partnerships. Use a particularly subtle piece of whodunit misdirection to imply that no one is at fault with all these marital crimes. Be very clever in smoothly taking us to the logically unexpected. Employ some accomplished actors.

And then the problems begin. This is artistically placed in the center of a triangle defined by `Short Cuts,' `Lone Star,' and `Ice Storm.' (The score in particular is very similar to Sayles'.) But it has none of the deftness of any of these. The central problem, I think, is that when you depend on the small subtlties of the relationship and the nuances of the actors, the camera has to be there. We have to be engaged through our eye. This camera isn't as effective as it needs to be. It isn't where it can convey the undercurrents. The actors and environment are not lit to emphasize the clarity of the situation, which in fact is quite abstract. This is why Altman can do this sort of thing and others, Andersen included, cannot. Altman is a master of placing the camera where he thinks he needs to be to curiously, slightly intrusively explore the emotional space the actors create.

Sayles works the other way by anchoring the camera and staging the actors in a similar, exceedingly well engineered frame. The storytelling is sculpted by these frames. Lee works less with the camera than the lighting, but to the same effect. None of that is managed here. Instead, we have a TeeVee perspective. The camera is always external and unattentive. The world of light doesn't believe these characters exist (except for the few scenes in the brush).

A related problem is that when it came to actually creating the characters, the writer wasn't as clever as he was in conceiving the situation. These characters -- with one exception -- aren't full people. They are instead tokens of attributes, and the interactions we see are not so much the rubbing of skin and sharing of breath but the bumping together of personality traits. All we get are effects, never causes. This isn't quite at the level of `What's Cooking?' but it is dangerously close.

The one exception is Jane, who really works hard to fill in a whole person, apparently against the will of the director. Is Rachael Blake going to be one of our very fine Australian-trained actresses like Kate or Cate?

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 4: Has some interesting elements.

broken marriages ... weak relationships.

[afterdarkpak · 7/10 · 4 August 2020]

Movie has solid performance , good production quality. with some decent ending. movie is about husband wife relationship and their problems.

Even the movie a bit far from reality , because once there is a crack in marriage, a huge crack, then its over for good. and adultery / cheating is a huge crack. so no matter how hard the couple try to get back again , it wont. a broken marriage never stays longer n stronger.

-----------------------spoilers------------------------

when the detective was cheating , he got regret n remorse and reconcile with wife. the movie shows later.

But , when his wife trying to have sex with her dance partner in parking lot , she didnt expressed that to husband. thats a little flaw in movie which is missed.

One of the best films from Down Under...

[jotix100 · 10/10 · 21 March 2002]

Why are the people that don't have a thing to say about this film think that it is so slow? Also, for that matter, why are they comparing it to Short Cuts and Magnolia?

Lantana is a fine film thanks to the sure direction of Ray Lawrence and the fine script by Andrew Bovell. This was certainly a nice surprise coming from Australia, which has given us a great many interesting films and that keeps telling world wide audiences there sure is life after Hollywood and the formula styled fare that has been coming from the La-La Land in the last years.

To begin with, the cast is first rate. Anthony Lapaglia keeps getting better and better all the time. Aside from his work on stage, namely, The Rose Tatoo and A View from the Bridge, on Broadway, his appearances in films are always convincing. He's the kind of actor that doesn't repeat himself. He has such a presence and magnetism that we can't take our eyes from him throughout the duration of Lantana.

His character here is full of anger. He's at the point in his life where a mistake will make him lose his wife and children by straying to an area where he shouldn't have gone in the first place. His wife beautifully played by Kerry Armstrong is incredible. She has an integrity and dignity that many women should envy. She's sure of herself and her life with even a husband that might have and affair but who comes running back to her when he realizes what's at stake.

Barbara Hershey is another actress that always gives us a new dimension to her craft. She's never been better in her last appearances under the direction of Mr. Lawrence. Even Geoffrey Rush, an actor who could go off the top in many of his roles, plays the right note here.

The rest of the cast is excellent. Lantana is a great film. The best thing is to relax and enjoy this well crafted drama.

Sponsored by the Ministry for a Better Coupledom

[vostf · 7/10 · 3 August 2002]

Coupledoom coupledull and coupleboom are on board of a ship. Where goes the ship?

About half a dozen couples are matched and mismatched during 2hrs-Lantana. With more fun this could have been a good plot for some TV-series. No way! This is damn serious. I can't believe some people can be so damn serious. Do they have so much time to spare?

Ok, I'll be serious for a while: Lantana was too much of a patchwork of coupledom situations to me. Encompassing all this is nothing really thrilling. Directing/editing/photography/score are average at best. I admire Geoffrey Rush; all the actresses were really good but... far too serious goes near fake and stiff. I mean a compilation is supposed to cater for all tastes, yet Lantana has been praised for being far from such market-writing practices. Originality doesn't necessary mean great movie (aahhh thou over-rated painful memento!). It doesn't help to be indulgent with this stuff just because it looks different from Hollywood's products. Apparently different is not surely more intelligent, but it definitely helps to save on brain activity to think that way.

12 million australopitheci rushed to see this? They seem to badly need a Ministry for a Better Coupledom out there.

Sometimes love isn't enough

[mattrochman · 10/10 · 20 September 2006]

Australian cinema has gone through many phases - more downs than ups. Out of nowhere emerged this absolute gem of a film. The popularity and critical acclaim encouraged the director to follow up with Jindabyne - another gem, but probably just didn't hit the heights of this one.

As with Jindabyne, this film is high metaphorical and to some degree, open to interpretation. But much like Woody Allen, there is a reluctance to dumb it down; instead allowing the audience to discover the so-called "underlying" themes and messages of the film upon reflection. Really good study for high school English students in my view.

Unfortunately, in the pursuit of not dumbing it down, many people don't get it or don't get it entirely. For this reason, I just thought i'd throw you a couple of insights (spoilers below):

DANCING - METAPHOR At the start, they are learning to dance. Now dancing symbolises unity of a man and woman in harmonious coordination (marriage). The fact that they are "learning" to dance at the start of the film indicates that they need guidance or further development. They are unable to dance together, indicating problems with marriages is a theme of this film. Perhaps love got it started, but isn't sustaining it. Shortly after, he starts his affair with another dancing class member.

LACK OF COMMUNICATION - THEME This was the major point of the film. Relationships do not survive where communication is lacking. When he returns home with blood on his shirt (following the accident during his morning jog) his wife attempts to help and comfort, but he doesn't say what happens and sternly brushes her off. She never tells him that she was going to allow their son to smoke pot at home.

Obviously the fact that he is having an affair plays a role in their problems, but as she revealed to the psychologist 'it's not that he's (having an affair), it's that he won't tell if he was.' Ironically, it would appear that honesty and open communication will forgive his infidelity, but non-disclosure is crossing the "relationship-ending" line.

Rush and his wife similarly have communication problems. His failure to answer the phone and simply listen to her pleas on the answering machine shows that communication between them is broken - as is the fact that he cannot look at her face while he makes love to her. Yet, her failure to completely confront Rush with here suspicions (that he's having a gay affair with one of her patients) is equally paralysing to their relationship.

Interestingly, the gay patient plays two extremely important roles. First, he indicates that his married lover tells him things about his marriage that he would never tell his wife. Again, communication breakdown. Second, when he speaks about the comments made by his lover about his lover's wife, the psychologist interprets them to be comments made by her husband about her, even though we later learn that she was mistaken. Though while she was mistaken in fact (ie.. Rush was not that patient's lover), it hardly matters as we come to realise that this is the sort of honesty that Rush does not provide to his wife. In fact, when she mentions that she's having difficulty with this patient in the restaurant, his solution is "refer him one." This probably reflects the dealing of problems in their marriage: if it's difficult of complicated, get rid of it, disregard it, palm it off to someone else, don't confront it or solve it yourself.... just "refer him on."

Then there is the issue of their daughter's tragic death. This has invariably distorted the marriage to the point where it is simply "held together by grief." But again - communication becomes an issue. She felt that she had to communicate her grief to the world (she wrote a book) while he was very much against it and didn't tell his wife that he frequently visited the site of their daughter's death. The communication mismatch is astounding and is why their relationship is in crisis mode.

Interestingly, all this is contrasted with couple who live next door to the cop's mistress. HE's unemployed, she works long shifts, they have several children and are financially battling. All the hallmarks are there for a strained marriage. But surprisingly, this is the strongest marriage in the film. They are a loving happy couple for one reason: they communicate openly. He told his wife that the neighbour invited him in for coffee after she left for work. Full disclosure keeps this marriage happy, no matter what external pressures are at play. In a way, the director is basically saying that while most people think that financial difficulties, work pressures, unemployment and so on bring down marriages, that isn't the case. Their communication keeps it alive and this is contrasted with the cop, who has a stable home-life, but their marriage is suffering due to their failure to communicate openly with each other.

THE POINT The film leaves us with conflicting feelings. Rush lost his wife, the cop's mistress has not repaired her marriage with her ex, but the cop's marriage appears to survive.

The fact that the cop confessed to his infidelity may have thrown his marriage off the rails temporarily, but it forced him to open up to his wife and for his wife to openly communicate with him... and at the end, it appears that they are dancing in perfect harmony - communication and disclosure of his affair actually saved their marriage.

However, Rush's stirring words are just as revealing: sometimes love isn't enough. This is very true when relationships encounter difficulties and obscure patches. Love will get it started and keep it going for a while, but communication breakdowns will eventually overcome the love that holds marriages together. This was what the director was trying to say in my view.

Not THAT good

[tonyhic · 7/10 · 22 October 2001]

I'm always worried when I go to a film that everyone raves about, which was the case with Lantana. As usual, it was a bit disappointing.

Yes, the acting was excellent, from a fine cast, and the story was interesting as well as believable.

However, there was nothing in the film which really grabbed me, nothing to make me laugh or cry. Perhaps I'm too bitter and twisted.

I object to those people who say this is the best Australian film to come along for years. Perhaps they haven't seen Chopper or Mallboy. Now those two films really got to me. And if you compare this to Soft Fruit, it looks really feeble.

incredible acting by the cast

[weezie625 · 9/10 · 30 March 2003]

I thought this movie was very good. It moved slowly at the beginning and you jumped to a lot of conclusions but as the story unfolded, I found myself trying to figure out which way the writers were going. The storyline was surprising. As for the acting, I can honestly say that all of the actors were superb, especially Anthony LaPaglia, who is an incredible actor and who did an amazing job with his character. You felt as if you were right there with him. kudos to the whole cast on this fine movie.

An engaging character study

[mattymatt4ever · 7/10 · 17 January 2003]

"Lantana" is a well-made film with good performances all-around and a fine script. It's nice seeing Anthony LaPaglia, a damn fine actor, using his native accent. I was really hoping to see more of Geoffrey Rush, since he's one of my favorite actors, but it's an ensemble effort and he puts more than his own two cents into the film. I can't say much about the movie, other than it was engrossing and kept my attention. However, the plot is not completely original. I've seen other movies about infidelity in different relationships, and the different characters interlocking through their infidelities (I think that's the plot of every Edward Burns' film). So I didn't feel as compelled by the film as I expected to be. But it's still, by no means, a bad film. And I'd recommend it to anyone in the mood for a well-acted character drama.

My score: 7 (out of 10)

Surprised Me

[Purity_of_Essence87 · 10/10 · 1 April 2005]

The movie surprised me not in that it was good, which it was but I was expecting that, but the dynamics of all the characters.

The intertwining plot was played out beautifully on screen and all the characters were portrayed brilliantly by all the actors. I didn't realize for the longest time that Anthony LaPahglia was NOT American and in fact an Aussie. Go him!

Love Geoffrey Rush anyway and he did a great job as the mysterious and suspected husband. The relationships portrayed in the film come across as so real and true that it's sometimes difficult to remember that none of the people are ACTUALLY married.

All in all, great film, great ensemble cast, great writing, directing, etc. View and be happy.

A gripping drama, yet not as complex as it initially promises to be...

[moonspinner55 · 7/10 · 22 March 2007]

Psychological crime-drama from Australia has married police detective Anthony LaPaglia, who's been having an extra-marital affair, investigating the disappearance of a woman who had suspected her husband of cheating on her. Well-directed film from Ray Lawrence builds steadily in intensity, while screenwriter Andrew Bovell, who adapted his own play, has a nice ear for realistic dialogue exchanges and gritty character conflict. Bovell unfortunately isn't quite as adept at bringing this case study to a satisfying full-circle, and by the finale some viewers may find it has all been a lot of hot air. Either way, the performers cannot be faulted, as LaPaglia and Barbara Hershey are both terrific. Tightly-wound and absorbing, "Lantana" is a real sleeper and worth a rental for mystery buffs. *** from ****

Most men hold something back.

[film-critic · 4/10 · 21 June 2006]

Nearly a full sweep at the Australian version of the Oscars, Lantana does boast a beautiful cast and an emotional subject, but it is the delivery of the core roots of this film that quickly take Lantana's kneecaps out. This is a film about trust. Lantana builds its premise and focus around characters that are untrustworthy, that have no reason to be trusted, and finally asks us to forget what we "think we know" or have heard to discover a killer among them. We are given strangers. Strangers, like in Anderson's Magnolia, are twisted together haphazardly in hopes that their random stories will bring the film closure as well as evoke a conversation about trust around the office water-cooler. What transforms Lantana from classic noir film to another chatty film with a disappointing conclusion is the misdirection of the characters. Lantana boasts amazing acting, and it did just that. Lantana boasted a mystery that needed to be solved, and it did just that. Lantana boasted flawed characters which would evoke emotion, and it did just that. The issues begin as the film nears the center that these elements, while good on their own, do not allow for a strong enough overall film. The confusing circumstances that reach sporadically at the weak threads of this film are painful to watch, and will eventually transform an avid viewer into a dulled participant.

Where did Anthony LaPaglia come from? Sure, I had seen him in other films like Empire Records and The Salton Sea and the television series Without A Trace, but it wasn't until this film was I able to witness his true acting ability. After watching Lantana, I must admit, LaPaglia needs to get more work. While I didn't see him as the center of this film (that goes to Hershey's character), I did think that he out shined even the great Geoffrey Rush. He was intense and intimidating while powerfully giving us a very conflicted human character. Rush was my second favorite of the film, his toned performance gave me goosebumps as I questioned his motives and logic. Hershey was adequate. Her character provided very little (outside of the central plot) and required even less. Her chemistry was disjoined, while her delivery seemed unmotivated. The same could be said for most the other characters outside of Rush and LaPaglia. These two tremendous actors stapled the film, while the rest seemed to simply move the plot closer to the ending credits.

With such powerful acting, why didn't this movie succeed in my mind? For me, it was the flawed story. Director Ray Lawrence needed to define this film better. What was the overall message? Was it sympathy for our characters or was it an entire film about the power of trust? I could see both, but they were blurry. It was obvious that trust was the underlying moment in Lantana, but it was so blazingly pushed in your face that it became tedious quickly. I see the value of building distrust around your central characters only to demonstrate the power of trust overall, but in this film it just didn't work. Lawrence's pacing destroyed any chances of this being a strong theme. From the beginning we are pushed with this idea of trust in so many main directions such as Leon's adultery, the flirtatious neighbor, the openly gay affair, and the death of a child, that when it is provided to us in short verse, aka the son smoking weed and the wife's confused moment in the car, it just seemed overwhelming. I needed, alas wanted, a stronger story. I did not want to have to wait for nearly an hour for the plot-point to happen. Lawrence painfully made us wait, under developing characters that we fully understood early in the film, and focusing lengthily on minute details, forgetting the overall picture that this film could have accomplished.

Lantana had every element for success. The emotional characters, the Magnolia connection, a disturbing murder, a plant (actually a weed) that only waxed the surface of symbolism; these were all synonymous with success, but Lawrence could not put the puzzle pieces together with ease. It nearly drives you to the brink of madness when you realize that everything was in place, it was the mind behind the camera that could not control it. I wanted the story to work, the characters were engrossing enough, I just felt that overall the haphazard themes and overplayed obstacle of "trust" was just chaotic. There wasn't enough rhythm, there wasn't enough balance, and there wasn't enough honest connections to make Lantana worth a second viewing. One scene the immediately comes to mind was that when LaPaglia was running down his street and accidentally hits a random stranger. Later, we learn that person is not as random as we thought, but by that point our apathy towards the film is already in full swing. Director Ray Lawrence tried to mimic what Paul Thomas cornered in Magnolia, but the end result was like tasting boxed wine instead of vintage.

Grade: ** out of *****