Three Dollars (2005) User Reviews

An entertaining modern fable

[Philby-3 · 7/10 · 1 May 2005]

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-and–a–half 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.

brave new Aussie film, but....

[polatheat · 6/10 · 21 April 2005]

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 point—where 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

[keith-283 · 5/10 · 1 June 2005]

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.

Talented acting in a script that requires attention

[raymond-15 · 6/10 · 14 November 2005]

The film recounts at a very slow pace events in the life of a chemical engineer. He's down on his luck from beginning to end. Each day brings new problems. The musical score ever so dreary heightens the pessimistic atmosphere.

David Wenham in the leading role as Eddie gives us a convincing character that becomes more interesting when in thorough despair he heads towards a hopeless future. With a wife, a child, no job and the inability to pay the mortgage on his home, he feels useless and unwanted. Always ready to help others in trouble, he seems to find very few who are willing to help him. Only those who have suffered likewise seem to be ready to offer a hand. He meets a man who lives on the streets and he learns from him how to survive. There is some black humour here on how to get a meal at no cost (If you can believe it!) Mild mannered Eddie creates his own downfall when he reports on dangerous DDT contamination of an area reserved for building blocks to higher authorities, much to the annoyance of his departmental head. Many employees will recognize similar circumstances in their own working lives. There are many incidents in the film that re-echo the day-to-day happenings in the workplace and the manner they affect the lives of both the worker and his family.

The characters and the content of the film are great. They are convincing and they leave us with a certain uneasiness that there is the possibility that we could find ourselves in this situation. The only problem I have of this film is that it needs some severe editing. It is too drawn out and the music could well lull us off to dreamland.

Pretty good effort

[u2theedge · 7/10 · 28 March 2007]

Three dollars is quite clever it had great Aussie locations and an excellent cast. the cinematography was very Amateur but i quite liked it. David Wenham who plays eddie done a A class performance. people thought his movie had no story line but it did it was simple. it was about a man who used to have a good life but is now in a state of financial difficulties and is struggling to pay for his families meals. i can believe people didn't like this it was incredible!....the film had other meanings behind it such as homeless people in Australia, having a good job and people taking it away from you. filmmakers should make more films like this

Sign of the times

[sirfire · 7/10 · 30 October 2014]

Interesting story of two educated well meaning couple who meet at University who instead of joining the group of money worshipers they wanted to do something good for society (Shame not many other reviewers noticed). In other words educate and make sure evil companies and men do not get their way..... They live a humble life with a little home which they are paying off then things go awry. He stops to help poor street people that others ignore and even when he is down on his own luck (due to his integrity and doing the right thing) he still helps others when no-one else will help him. There is a political statement in this story in terms of how governmental environment Dept's budgets are being reduced yearly, and how big business manipulates these to get their way all the time and it was kind of mirroring real life in terms of the good guys don't win these days.... I believe this made many viewers uncomfortable and they really like to see good guys win but to me this was more real life.

Aside from this it shows how quickly depression sets in and how even working class families are struggling and many people believe street people have only themselves to blame .... well it showed just how quickly another victim of society can join them ....

I didn't tell you too much but enough to hopefully make you watch it.... ignore the haters as they are ignorant at best.

I also have empathy to this as i went through the stages of losing my job, not being able to find a job then losing my house however i have come out the other side myself and i know the answer to the ending the movie. As long as you have love and each other you can be happy .... the same is for me.... so I guess I am one of the few who do appreciate the ending (it was not pointless) PS: I am at peace with myself and i am totally debt free with a nice new job now :) and never assume it won't happen to you it can and it moves in fast on you.

So its well worth a watch, even if only to learn a life lesson.

Very hopeful but bitterly disappointed

[futari99 · 5/10 · 9 May 2005]

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.

Worth more than the title

[pbluck · 9/10 · 17 May 2005]

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.

a non-Australian (and puzzled) response

[ymklein · 5/10 · 29 August 2005]

I found this film, despite the very attractive performance by David Wenham, to be quite puzzling, as it was difficult to decipher precisely what the filmmaker was up to. Was it a moral fable, divorced from the real world? (Thus Amanda, the dogs, and so on, not to speak of the very poor return that the main character got on his acts of kindness which seemed a bit obsessive.) Or did it have a social theme? If so, does not Australia have some minimum social programs, like unemployment insurance, wrongful dismissal labour tribunals or, at the very minimum, the dole? Chemical engineer to dumpster diver in 24 hours does seem a bit hard to swallow.

Another fine Aussie flick that won't get any attention

[benturkalj · 9/10 · 7 January 2006]

It's a real shame that films like 'Three Dollars' don't get any recognition in there own countries, because it definitely shows what a great industry we have hear. The premise is quite simple: a tale about an honest man, trying to support a family who loses his job and nearly collapses. Throughout the film, we learn about how he met his wife, and what it really means to be down on luck.

It's hard to explain why this is such a great film, but it is undoubtedly a fantastic story that is well acted and directed, with an as usual great performance for leading man Wehnam. All I can say is that it is well worth seeing, one of the best movies I've seen this year, yet no one will ever know about it. See it if you get a chance.

Three Dollars not worth One Dollar

[frank-513 · 1/10 · 4 October 2005]

Half way through watching this film on DVD (which we hired for a dollar) at home my wife turned to me and said, "It must be an inside job." I turned to her and said "What do you mean?" I thought she was talking about the plot or lack of plot. No, she meant getting this film financed in the first place. The tax payer funded AFC, Film Vic and FFC all put money into making this film. Why? How could they get it so wrong? The script based on some novel is very unengaging story with the overrated David Wenham in the lead role. I like David as Johnny Spitari in "Getting Square" and thought he was great in "The Boys" but oddly in "Three Dollars" we have a film that goes nowhere. Each scene in the film should earn it's keep and offer some insight into the character's dilemma. What we get instead is a shuffled deck of scenes that in the end explain nothing and fail to offer any genuine insight. We have Wenham as a chemical scientist checking poisoned land. Does this story arc ever get resolved? So many loose ends...I thought filmmakers were story-tellers. The film never really starts until two thirds of the story is over by then I've lost interest and wandered off for another beer. Stuff like this is a worry for the Australian Film Industry.

A terrible movie

[admr · 1/10 · 20 December 2006]

One of the worst movies ever made.

The family scenes were excessively sweet or unnecessarily volatile. The wife seems to lose her job just so that the main character's subsequent job loss would seem more serious. The daughter experiences a seizure also just for dramatic effect. The main character has a brief romantic encounter with his wife's friend. It comes from nowhere and disappears unexplained and unexpected just as quickly. The childhood friend who keeps appearing every 9 1/2 years is a forced attempt at an intertwined story and could have been left out with no adverse effect on the story.

The movie seems to attempt social commentary on a range of issues but doesn't manage to increase understanding or empathy for the characters it portrays. It suggests that the screenwriters have only ever experienced the world they are trying to portray from a long distance and have opinions but no insight to bring to the movie.

The dialogue is terrible, pseudo-intellectual and dull. The acting is generally second rate apart from a few standout performances. The movie looks like the result of a first draft of a script which should have been polished, trimmed, and adapted much further before being unleashed upon the public. I suffered through this movie hoping that it would redeem itself by the end. Unfortunately it resolved nothing and was as implausible and uninspired in its ending as it was for its entire interminable duration.

Thoughtful. Authentic. Moving. Brave. The tale of a man who loses his livelihood and finds himself.

[The Mogul · 9/10 · 7 February 2006]

A man discovers how close he is to homeless, and what dignity really means. We watch him take the first step to solving his predicament: admitting it to himself and to those he loves.

The man is David Wenham (in the role of Eddie Harnovey) and what a performance he gives: an unexciting environmental chemist never evoked such pathos. His altruism, his silly kindnesses, endear him too us; they seem a truly authentic response from a man accustomed to being the charity-giver, and who's sense of himself won't let him admit that the tables have now turned. Living that lie, just for a little while longer, to postpone a hard decision or realisation: this is an experience we've all had, and Wenham plays it so well, subtly hinting at deeper more honest feelings.

Molokai, Getting Square, The Boys, The Proposition, Dust: Wenham has demonstrated an impressive acting range across his oeuvre thus far. Any fan must watch Three Dollars to see yet another thing this man can do with aplomb. His principal companions in this film, Frances O'Connor and Robert Menzies, also turn in fine performances.

I really appreciated Three Dollars' subtle character development. Robert Connolly's screenplay is a fine one, and his unobtrusive visual style really worked for the material. Others on IMDb have criticised this film for being slow, and possessing some pointless episodes; the phrase which best describes these bits is character development! No, this film doesn't have the steroidal plot of your average Hollywood blockbuster. But, by the same token, your average Hollywood blockbuster never comes close to the complex, unglamorous emotional journey depicted here. If you can appreciate a film which doesn't consist of a series of Indiana Jones style trials, you've found a winner. If you don't have an art house sensibility then you might find this film a little diffuse, but I still recommend the challenge.

One only has to read this site's negative reviews to discover this film has a credibility problem. I found it very authentic; two close friends in the employ of Australia's social welfare provider (Centrelink) agree with me. So why is it that people don't believe the events of this film could reasonably happen? The answer is that people expressing such opinions have an unrealistic faith in their employment protections and social welfare system; if one has never lived on the edge, or been in close contact with people who have, one often has such misapprehensions.

Australian corporations regularly lay off large numbers of people: a process euphemistically called 'restructuring'. In Australia, sacking one person is legally fraught: sacking many is legally painless. Companies will announce there intention to do so well in advance, but, in my company at least, you are told you've been sacked on the day that you finish. It's happened twice at my office, and a couple of people have been very surprised.

If your one of those people who didn't really plan for the eventuality, even if you run to the welfare office (Centrelink), you'll run into several weeks delay while your case gets processed; how do you feed your family in the mean time? Most people resort to credit, but not everyone has the luxury; David Wenham's character probably has a ten thousand dollar Amex debt from his recent 'unapproved' business travel.

I have seen a former director, sacked without notice, march into my Fortune 500 company's office, with his entire family, demanding that his entitlements be processed for payment then and there; he forcefully proclaimed for all in the open plan office to hear, "I have to feed these people you know!" How improbable? How true! A sole bread-winner who is absorbed in their work, who is impractical, in debt, and manages his finances from week to week (a character which David Wenham convincingly inhabits) could easily find himself in the Three Dollars situation.

What is so sad about this film is that some people reject it as unrealistic when, in fact, a similar thing happens to an Australian every day. Very soon in Australia there will be no protection against unfair dismissal for employees of companies with up to one hundred people. None whatsoever. This isn't forecasting on my part, but a matter which has already been passed into law. It's easy to see from other comments relating to this film how such laws succeed; our prime minister, 'Honest' John Howard, couldn't possibly sponsor such a bill? Could he? The problem of the disjunction between what is actually true and what people are prepared to believe is a problem faced by better films all the time. The only solution, I suppose, is to keep making them, and thereby change peoples' misconceptions. I encourage overseas watchers to give this story the benefit of the doubt; it is really quite a truthful one, I assure you.

To make an analogy, few Australians would be aware that a pistol with a silencer makes a noise of 110 decibels or more (that's louder than a pneumatic drill or someone shouting in your ear). Many would wonder where the noise came from if Kiefer Sutherland ever used anything like the real thing; and, sure enough, comments would appear on IMDb saying, "How unrealistic was that!" Those reviews that proclaim Three Dollars to be unrealistic are making the same mistake: their point of reference is not reality.

Take the leap with this film, even if what happens offends your belief in the justice of your society: your belief may well be unjustified.

It's good to see a film tackling this unpopular but important subject.

Three Dollars is an affecting character-driven drama. The central performances are truly excellent. It is a melancholy film, but a certain wry humour keeps it afloat. It is saddest in its comment on society; more than a little optimism can be found in Eddie's final situation: provided you value self-realisation over money.

Prepare to be dissatisfied

[stanofspace · 2/10 · 9 April 2013]

I watched this movie for a second time tonight, the first time was when it was released at the cinema. I have a very good memory, but when I came across this in the library I knew I had seen it but could not remember anything about it except for a few minor details.

It turns out the reason I could not remember the story is that there is no story. Story's begin to develop but then get forgotten, by the end of the movie, you are left feeling that there was no point at all. The last half hour feels extremely forced and the previous hour or so spends to much time in the past rather than setting up the ending.

Sure, movies don't always have to follow the three act structure, but they need to be good in some aspect, perhaps amazingly shot, or fantastic dialogue, something.

David was the one shining light, as he always gives a great performance, but towards the end, you feel his character is wondering what the point of this movie is just as the viewer is.

If that was the directors intent , then brilliant, unfortunately, it was not.

The Ian Curtis impersonation on the dance floor is fantastic!

so moving!!!!!

[pcr597 · 9/10 · 20 October 2005]

"Three Dollars" is one of the best films I have seen this year. I was not sure what to expect because I had never before seen David Wenham in a dramatic role. I had enjoyed him in comedies especially the television series "Sea Change".

The intricacies of his performance made this movie memorable, moving and fascinating. Other actors are believable and involving. The story is unusual but can easily be identified with. The direction allows the story to flow and makes the most of the emotions.

I can thoroughly recommend this film to anyone who likes to examine the morality behind decisions we make and the effects the decisions have on our futures.

Poor movie, but I couldn't look away

[velutha1 · 2/10 · 4 April 2010]

This movie I found to be cringeworthily poor, but it was something that I couldn't look away from and due to its slow pace, fast-forwarded through until the end.

I think it was because I was hoping for some kind of payoff for investing time with these characters and a story that rings true to many adults.

Instead all this is is a purely emotionally manipulative film, catering to the audience's basic fears of unemployment and being poor - the fact that this successful couple could be so under "stress" after 2 days in which (however unlikely in real life) they both lose their jobs despite having family and friend support networks (and like a poster-er above said, Australia's welfare state to rely on) and wind up digging in garbage bins is just laughable. Even as a metaphor it's just pathetic and manipulative.

What was the point of this film? I just wasted 2 hours of my life on it and there was little redeeming quality.

Plus, the flashbacks were very bad in terms of clothes and using the same actors. Also the timeline just didn't work as Joy Division came out in the late 70's until 1980 (bonded over by the 2 main actors couple who looked like they were in university) and the movie takes place in 2004 which would mean they were together for 25 or so years by that point and yet only in their mid-30's?? The movie seemed like a big advert for mental health services as it's supposed to be about the changing nature of society and how it's "okay" to be a little stressed and depressed, just get some professional help.