Sweet Country (2017) User Reviews

a visually stunning outback tale with a message that resonates today

[CineMuseFilms · 8/10 · 23 January 2018]

Using the Hollywood label 'western' for an Australian outback drama casts an odd cultural shadow over the achievements of Sweet Country (2017). At a Q & A preview in Sydney, director Warwick Thornton told the audience "people think in boxes so we need to call it something". However, 'western' is an awkward box for an Australian tale of such contemporary relevance and cinematic beauty.

Set in 1920s outback Northern Territory, the narrative is deceptively simple. Indigenous farm hand Sam Kelly (Hamilton Morris) and his wife are lucky to work for god-fearing landowner Fred Smith (Sam Neill) who believes that all are created equal. Fred allows Sam to help his unstable war-veteran neighbour Harry March (Ewan Leslie) for a few days but it sours quickly and Sam kills Harry in self-defence. The rest of the story tracks the hunt led by Sergeant Fletcher (Bryan Brown) through treacherous country that is home for Sam. Eventually white man's justice must be faced.

This is an outstanding film for many reasons. In terms of visual impact, it is stunning. The cinematography shows a deep love of country with majestic panoramas that dwarf humans. Rich red colour palettes evoke the hot, dry, heartland of an ancient land. The camera tracks seamlessly from wide-screen images to small details like a balletic sand scorpion or a cold hard bullet being loaded into a chamber. Scene after scene, we find symbols of the conflicted relationship between white man and nature; there are no words more jarring than to hear Indigenous people being referred to as "black stock".

In terms of aural impact, silence has never been so beautiful. It takes some time into the film before we notice there is no musical score, and none is needed. As Thornton put it, when you stand in the desert there are no orchestral violins to tell you what to feel. Silence conveys the outback. You hear the rustle of leaves in the wind, the sound of a flowing river, horses' hooves pounding the ground, and most confronting: the sound of a heavy chain being dragged across desert sand, manacled to the black hand of a fleeing Indigenous youth.

The casting is excellent. Bryan Brown and Sam Neill are almost cameo performers in their roles as hard-core outback characters. The emotional centre of the film, however, is Hamilton Morris. He speaks little and emotes even less. His face is a wide, impassive, deeply etched, and painful canvas that speaks of Indigenous people's dispossession and barbaric mistreatment by armed invaders. Views will differ over whether the Johnny Cash cowboy ballad during the credits makes this more or less of an Australian story. This powerful but disturbing film reminds Australians of our history and need to reconcile with the past.

Built with imposing emotional depth, Sweet Country is an angry discourse on racism.

[LloydBayer · 8/10 · 9 December 2017]

In the ever widening divide between colour, cast and creed, director Warwick Thornton takes the traditional setting of a frontier western and builds the foundation for a brutal and angry discourse on racism and savagery. But unlike a typical Hollywood western, the savages here are not the indigenous people who fight for the preservation of their ancestral land-dwelling. Set in 1920s Australia, and just a few decades after independence, Sweet Country seeks to echo the haunting wails of the founding fathers of modern Australia.

Both haunting and tragic, the film is politically provocative and poetically proverbial in narrating a dark era when Australia's justice system was still in its infancy. On the run for killing a cruel white settler, Aboriginal Sam (Hamilton Morris) and his wife have little chance of escaping the law, especially during a time when lawmakers were the laugh of the town. It doesn't help either that a frontier soldier (played by Bryan Brown) is out for blood as a self- proclaimed lawman. Sam's only aid is his charitable employer and preacher Fred (Sam Neil). But there's something about the whole incident that Sam and his wife have kept to themselves and the only way for any sliver of redemption is to get caught.

Although deliberately paced (the very first scene is a symbolic pot on the boil), the final showdown is suspenseful but also gut- wrenching and ultimately heartbreaking. An Aboriginal himself, Thornton (who is also the cinematographer) uses gorgeous vistas of the Australian landscape to juxtapose the ugly nature of this story with the sheer beauty of his land. And amongst all this beauty there is suffering, trauma, barbaric colonialism, and absolute disregard for human life. As impressive as the visuals is Thornton's meticulously composed storytelling and it's a power structure with imposing breath, width and emotional depth.

great story, great plot, great cinematography

[hsb_455 · 8/10 · 20 December 2018]

This movie is very well made, specially very well cutted, very clever use of flashbacks and flashforwards takes you wisely through the story that never lets you guess the end and get bored, got a bit of dark history of Australia as well, last but not least beautiful cinematography and unique locations make this movie a must see, strongly suggested

Barren

[Groverdox · 6/10 · 30 December 2018]

It's tempting to say that I wanted to like "Sweet Country" more than I did, but I have used that line before, and I think it should kind of go without saying: of course I wanted to like it. I don't watch movies wanting to hate them.

However, the line seems relevant in this case because "Sweet Country" starts so promisingly. It's well shot and located, and features Sam Neill, Bryan Brown, and the long absent Matt Day (remember him?).

Trouble is, the movie seriously lost me in its middle section. I stopped paying attention to it. It needed more... something on the screen to focus on during all the silence and loose activity. It was overlong, like every other movie made these days.

The plot is, of course, about the trial of an Aborginal man who kills a "whitefella" in self defense. Something similar has already been done, and better, in "The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith", which is a masterpiece. This one is too long and empty, like the part of the country it's set in.

Racism and injustice in the outback.

[deloudelouvain · 6/10 · 23 August 2018]

There is no doubt in my mind that this was the way things were happening in the early days in the outback. The white man considering the Aboriginals as their slaves with no rights whatsoever. In Sweet Country they couldn't portray it better. Luckily it's not like that anymore, or at least not as bad. It's a good story, well shot and with a good cast. The 'black' shooting the 'whitefoalks' and the whole story around it oozes racism and injustice. It's a bit predictable as you know that when there is racism involved there will be injustice. The movie is a bit slow but the beautiful sceneries compensate this. It's a movie worth watching once.

Visually Impressive, Riveting, Yet Very Pretentious!

[AhmedSpielberg99 · 7/10 · 6 August 2018]

The movie has a familiar story and simple dialogue, and this is not a problem by any means, yet it's technically impressive. Sweet Country is a visually stunning film. The cinematography in this movie is similar to Mudbound's, but it's even more beautiful! Actually, it has the best cinematography of the year, so far! And while the movie looks poetic, the same goes for the storytelling. It reminded me of Days of Heaven. As a matter of fact, you may feel if you're watching a Terrence Malick film, except it's more fast-paced.

The similarity between Sweet Country and Malick's movies don't stop there. As Warwick Thornton used symbolism in Sweet Country in a way that resembles Malick's use of symbolism. By that I mean the use of allegories and symbols in a beautiful way that feels literary or poetic. Unfortunately, the use of symbols in Sweet Country often feels superfluous, and completely unnecessary.

Sweet Country is masterly edited, and I think that what makes it very watchable, and often enjoyable despite its poetic style that may indispose some people.

Thornton used intercut flash-forwards and flashbacks heavily. And while sometimes they help us understanding some events that happened, or will happen, therefore build tension, they often seem like nothing but artistic frippery, specially when they are used to make the movie seem if it has a non-linear storytelling.

Sweet Country also should be praised for its non-sentimental approach to its message. Unlike other movies that tackle the same subject matter, Sweet Country doesn't dramatize any aspect of its story. The movie even doesn't have a soundtrack, and that makes it feel more realistic. The movie relies on its bleak and dreary atmosphere to imply its subject matter and moral instead of presenting them in the usual manner.

All the performances are good. Hamilton Morris' performance is impressive because it feels genuine. Sam Neill is also very good even if his character, Fred Smith, is underdeveloped. Fred Smith is a very important character and should have been more developed, but unfortunately, it's a very flat character.

In general, the movie has some issues in terms of its characters. The movie has too many characters for its own good. And the movie tries to give almost every character its fair share of importance.

In the end, Sweet Country a movie of visuals first and foremost, it could hardly be more visually impressive. But, to be honest, it's a very pretentious work.

(7/10)

A must see

[AdamChapman1996 · 9/10 · 7 February 2018]

This movie is an absolute masterpiece of Australian cinema. The way it tells the story is nothing short of amazing. The Cinemaphotography is a joy to take in, it really shows the Australian outback in all of its glory. This film is a must see for anyone looking for a film that will impact your life in a very real way. This is real cinema in all of its glory

beautiful to look at

[ferguson-6 · 7/10 · 20 April 2018]

Greetings again from the darkness. For whatever reason, Australia and Westerns seem to go together quite well. Perhaps it's the naturally beautiful vistas that seem to stretch forever. Maybe it's the slower pace and the accent that provide the perfect blend of comfort and danger. What matters is that director Warwick Thornton has delivered another gem from the Outback genre.

That previously mentioned blend of slow pace and danger is evident in the opening scene. Fred Smith (Sam Neil) is napping in a rocking chair on his front porch until being startled awake by the snorting of a stranger's horse only a few feet away. The Harry March (played by Ewen Leslie) is an ornery war vet who drinks too much and is racist to his core.

The film is set in the 1920's, although it doesn't really matter when. It's more about the what, the why and the who. The racism on display would be just as believable in contemporary times, though this Outback seems very far out. Neighbors are rarely seen, and the town is so small, they watch movies and hold court outside on the dusty main street.

Co-writers Steven McGregor and David Tranter have created a story that likely has played out in real life, although hopefully not to this extreme. A series of events: indigenous Australian Sam Kelly (played exceptionally well by non-actor Hamilton Morris) is coerced into helping March put up a fence, March crosses the line with Sam's wife, a young boy Philomac (played by twins Tremayne and Trevon Doolan) is always stirring up trouble and pilfering things. A drunk March accuses Sam of hiding the boy and violence erupts leaving the "white fella" dead and Sam and his wife on the run.

Sergeant Fletcher (Bryan Brown) is the local law - he even proclaims "I am the law" - and he forms a posse to track down Sam so he can stand trial. The posse includes March's friend Kennedy (Thomas M Wright), Sam's employer Fred Smith (Mr. Neil), and Archie (Gibson John), an indigenous Aussie employed by Kennedy. Director Thornton uses this chase sequence to paint some extraordinary visions on screen. The natural land is beautiful, and then we come across a stunning and deadly desert in the salt flats. Mr. Thornton acts as co-cinematographer with Dylan River, and the result is a movie that's a thing of beauty to look at.

Director Thornton uses an array of flashbacks and flash-forwards, sometimes in quick cut form. This approach keeps us on our toes, sometimes foreshadowing, sometimes filling gaps. Against the wishes of the locals, this is a developing country, and many of the locals feel it's no longer their country - they are kept as laborers, and rarely treated as equals by the new inhabitants. In this world, for this man (Sam), doing the right and necessary thing places he and his family in instant peril. It's better to run than surrender. The story is very good, though the dialogue is a bit lacking at times. The photography is world class. Though we would have preferred screen vets Bryan Brown and Sam Neil to have more scenes together, the panoramic majesty of Australia is certainly enough ... with an added and fitting bonus of Johnny Cash singing "Peace in the Valley" over the closing credits.

A great movie about the Australian sins of the past

[ayoreinf · 9/10 · 30 July 2018]

I've read here two reviews by Australians, one hated the film, the other loved it. I've seen the film in the company of two other Australians, they both loved it. Yes, I agree to the point made, by the hating reviewer: the movie does judge the past according to modern morals and sensibilities. But this would be a valid point if we were discussing an academic paper or a movie that was made back then. This is neither it's a movie about Australian past that was made at the present and it feels so true it hurts. It hurts because the only way we can see it is with our modern eyes. Saying people thought differently back then, is true but it's beside the point. We, the viewers are here and now and that's the only time and place we can watch it.

So lets speak about other aspects of the film: cinematography, acting and story telling are superb. But I liked most of all the editing, with these tiny flashes forward and backward throughout the movie, flashes we can fully understand only when we've seen the movie all the way through. Please do, I think you won't regret it.

Outback racism

[fmwongmd · 7/10 · 6 March 2020]

Well told story, outstanding photography, good directing and acting dramatizing the story of aborigines in the Outback.

Rivetting

[mhodder-43884 · 8/10 · 26 January 2018]

I saw this film on 25th January with my granddaughter who is Aboriginal. Most fitting on the eve of the last day of freedom for Indigenous people. A very moving film that brought home and really reminded us of the cruel and widely hidden history of this country. Should be compulsory viewing for all high school students and used as a starting point for students to explore and examine their local Indigenous history. I hope to be able to buy a copy in the near future.

Worth the ticket

[blackbirdxx-56393 · 7/10 · 19 February 2018]

Saw this today and enjoyed the movie. Good to watch and no music which is rare.

Yes it is a little slow but this is in the Northern Territory in 1929 but the it gives a peak at what it was like then and there..

Someone complained about the long gap in replying by the black fellas (and sometimes no answer) but the white fellas had the power and could do what they wanted. Had to be careful.

More please..

Stagey fable fails to convince

[aegoss · 4/10 · 30 January 2018]

Sweet Country. The title comes from how, near the end of the film, one of the white characters describes the tribal land he has crossed. It's a pointed choice of title, the whites have no concept of being interlopers, conquerors, of any kind of relationship existing between the aborigines and the land. They are wrapped up in their cultural stories, and the aboriginal characters are looking on in bemusement, not understanding what is happening as it is outside the terms of their own story.

I suspect this film will trigger acrimonious debates. Some will say that it understates the brutal and destructive nature of the white takeover. Others will claim that it demonstrates the essentially benign, if unequal, relationship between white and black, and that while bad things inevitably happened, good things did too, in spite of the actions of a few bad men. The film does sit on the fence rather, trying perhaps to be historically fair. At the beginning there is a blackfella whitefella balance, imperfect, but maintained. This is upset by the arrival, and this is not a spoiler as it is right up front, of a returned soldier mentally damaged by his experiences on the Western Front. This is historically valid, although he is moving onto an existing property, while generally the post war soldier settlers were given new, empty blocks and a period of supplies.

The story is quite simple, and mostly predictable, in the sense that 'at this point either a or b happens', and the option that keeps the ball rolling is the one that happens. There is only one real 'didn't see that coming' surprise, and it has no direct bearing on the story line, though it does clarify a relationship ambiguity. There is a town, with a hotel. The landlady (Anni Finsterer, I think) is a striking and intriguing character, I assumed she would play a significant role, but she doesn't. Neither does her daughter. Perhaps they are emblematic, there is a hint of that near the end, if you choose to read it that way. This is typical of the film, placement of elements that don't do anything much, except exist.

The telling is chronological with a flashback, a number of 'flash forwards' and some noises off. The 'flash forward' device, of a split second, shows an event that will come later, generating an apprehension that bad things will happen. It may be that the intention is to lend weight to an apprehension that turns out to be mistaken. Either that or it was felt that the story was too boring and needed some help.

While the production looks to my inexpert eye to have taken trouble over period detail, the world depicted is incomplete and inaccurate. There are properties, worked by one white and two or three blacks, situated quite close to each other, people just ride over, which is highly improbable for the Northern Territory. Victoria or Tasmania perhaps. There is no indication of what they are doing, no cows, no sheep, no activity other than the construction of a fence, and the existence of a small melon bed, both of which are plot devices. In reality a property at that time would have supported a small tribe, or mob or whatever, of aborigines, supplying them with flour, sugar, tobacco, and other useful goods, in return for a pool of workers, male and female. These workers would not always be the same people, other duties, hunting, ceremonial and so on, taking priority. Until a judge declared this illegal the setup worked. After that the number of aboriginals employed dropped off, as that kind of regime didn't suit them. The director, Warwick Thornton, is from Alice Springs, I assume he knows hows how it was back then, but I remain sceptical.

Coincidentally or otherwise, the film of We of the Never Never was on TV the other night, and the contrast with Sweet Country is stark. We of the Never Never is, I would say, the better film by far, even though it was toned down from the book for a family audience. The book itself was cut before publication, presumably the truth being too ugly. The film does give a fairly realistic portrayal of day to day life on a Northern Territory station, as far as I can tell. This is where Sweet Country falls down, the environment it shows is purposeless, nobody has a role, they are all, essentially, extras. Even Sam, the main character, exists only so that things can happen to him. So who is the Protagonist? Fate? But events unfold mechanically, there is no Deus ex Machina, except conceivably at the end, and that's a stretch.

I can't fault the acting, the bush setting, some of the cinematography. But what we see is in essence a strip cartoon of illustrative tableaux, akin to the 'mystery pictures' of the early twentieth century, strung together to form a story. In a way it reminds me of McCabe and Mrs Miller, a brilliantly made but depressing Western, but with the difference that what happens is perversely dysfunctional but somehow inevitable. In Sweet Country it's a set-up, like dominoes falling.

There are two distinct locales in the film. There is the 'built environment' - homesteads, the town, the saloon - and the bush. The former, even when evidently on location, very much staged, set-like, reminiscent of old TV cowboy serials, seemed artificially lit, airless, confined. The latter, the bush, was wide, clear, sharp, naturally lit, mostly in South Australia. The two were filmed and directed quite differently, the bush sequences creative and alive, the other stolid and perhaps deliberately archaic.

Am I missing something? Is Sweet Country so clever and referential that it goes right over my Pommie head? And why do I feel someone is trying to sell me a pig in a poke?

Bitter Sweet!

[spookyrat1 · 7/10 · 28 February 2019]

This is a hugely watchable film with superb cinematography carried out by indigenous director Warwick Thornton no less. The film is called Sweet Country and Thornton fills the screen with beautiful, though sometimes harsh vistas of what most people would think, is a barren unforgiving landscape. But it is both sweet for the cattleman on their stations and sweet for the aborigines, the first occupiers of this country, though now frequently confined, as we see later in the film, to tribal reservation areas. However the land is no longer that sweet for indigenous man Sam Kelly, who towards the end of the first act kills a "whitefellah" in self-defence, whilst protecting himself and his wife, forcing him to go on the run, through his country.

Thornton also secures some terrific performances from both his indigenous and non-indigenous cast. Hamilton Morris is memorable as the chief fugitive Sam, whilst Natassia Gorey Furber offfers great under-stated support as his wife Lizzie. Sam Neill as their fair, but reticent and religiously inclined homesteader/ employer is always impressive. Dominating this feature, though not appearing until the second act is Bryan Brown, who as the local senior law enforcer, looks and feels like a force of nature, implaccably driven to capture and force a legal (or otherwise) reckoning with the duo on the run.

Unfortunately whether due to budgetary constraints or otherwise, the central narrative is somewhat predictable and lumbered with a few fairly substantial contrivances. It may have suited the story but I would respectively submit that even 90 years ago, cattle stations in the Northern Territory of Australia were way too large to be run, as we see here (in several instances) by a single whitefellah boss, a dog and a couple of blackfellah employees. And I can't recall seeing any cattle on these stations ... at all! The stations were way too large in area for one owner to pop over to another's spread (again, as we see in several instances) riding a horse at a virtual walk! The reality is that the distances, between properties (even today) were vast. This was the very area after all and around this time, that the "Flying Doctor" program came into being, as a means of providing medical treatment over great distances.

At the end of the second act Sam makes a decision to return to "civilisation", in spite of successfully evading the pursuing posse, due, we are told to his wife's pregnancy. Why? If the story timeline is correct, she can only be in the first month. I know that the film makers wanted to provide something of a twist to the innately predictable nature of the story up till then, but that suggestion, at that juncture, is quite baffling. They had plenty of time just to keep going.

Still, despite some weaknesses in the overall narrative, I can understand why both foreign and domestic markets will be drawn to this thoughtful Australian award-winning western. There is much to like, appreciate and reflect upon, while watching it.

A 'must-see' sort of film, falls short of being a masterpiece

[ok_english_bt · 7/10 · 1 July 2018]

'Sweet Country' isn't only great because of its Australian setting and style of cinematography, although long desolate shots of the outback certainly don't do it any harm, shades of classic spaghetti westerns. It actually has a fine story, uplifting and ultimately tragic, and some decent movie action and acting which make it a good film by anybody's standards. So, ignore the negative reviews, if you like films it's time well spent!

A couple of 'issues' which to my mind reduce 'Sweet Country's' impact as a dramatic and socially-driven western. I don't think there's enough depth in some of the central characters. The preacher Sam Smith played by Sam Neil could have been brought into the film more, especially with an actor of Neil's quality, and Bryan Brown's portrayal of 'multiple-sided' main sheriff Sergeant Fletcher also felt under-developed if you want to give a more rounded' view of things. On the other hand, Hamilton Morris as the wrongly-accused and hunted aborigine Sam Kelly is outstanding from start to finish. In fact, a lot of the drama among the indigenous actors is powerful and works in favour of the film.

The action of 'Sweet Country' unfolds believably for me, but is let down at the end with the trial. You can't really pack a punch in a justice movie unless you show how the verdict is reached effectively ('To Kill A Mockingbird' etc.). So, in this case, tag an extra 20 minutes or so on the film to emphasize the evidence (with say repeat 'flashbacks' of the crime) as well as the eye-witness accounts. I won't spoil this with details, just fair to say I found the film a bit thin at the end.

So, 'Sweet Country' does enough to earn its awards and accolades, a credit to those involved in making it. All the other stuff ... a study of racism, accurate or otherwise views of history, powerful socio-political statement ... all open to discussion, as it should be. Enjoyable, a 'must-see' sort of film.

Slow and boring

[TheBigSick · 9 August 2018]

Some critics say that this is the Australian version of High Noon, which is just ridiculous in the sense that the film is not even one tenth of High Noon in terms of quality. The pace is slow, and the plot lacks credibility. The film makes you sleepy all the time. It is just one of the worst films of the year.

The law on trial in Australia's white settlement frontier - and the message remains relevant

[manders_steve · 7/10 · 3 September 2018]

This was billed as an Australian western, and I suppose that is descriptive of the white settler - Aboriginal frontier setting in the Northern Territory in the 1920s. Hamilton Morris plays Aboriginal station hand Sam, who knows he is in deep trouble when he shoots and kills a white neighbour who threatens his and his wife's lives, in a drunken, psychopathic rage.

The frontier law is on trial here, and overall it doesn't scrub up as well as you might hope. Sam Neil is the neighbourly Fred, a devout Christian chap who precipitates the events by going to town for a week or two. The philosophical clash between Sgt Fletcher (Bryan Brown) who rounds up a posse of assistants to locate Sam, and Matt Day's Judge Taylor who tried to uphold the law without fear or favour despite the location and situation, was a highlight for me. Tremayne Doolan, as the teenager Philomac was a standout among a very strong cast.

An engrossing, deeply disturbing film showing again that Australia has a lot to be ashamed about in the way our white ancestors treated the original inhabitants. It appears likely that the story is an amalgam of many similar incidents all over the country, rather than being closely based on any one incident. The characterisations of Sam, Sgt Fletcher and Judge Taylor told a well known story to be told more pointedly than other attempts.

The title is an ironic twist on the harshness of the desert and scrub depicted. The landscape is a real star, shot in outback South Australia and made all the more evocative by the absence of a music soundtrack - the silence says heaps. For me, the overall pace of the film contributed to that sense of outback - but if you've never been in that sort of country, it might seem slow or too subtle.

A brilliant study of humanity, not just racism

[eyeintrees · 9/10 · 26 August 2018]

I don't know if the film maker meant to delve deeper into our psyches than just showcase racism, or not. But this film, in its slow camera panning does just that. Aggression. The innate aggression that sits inside humanity drawn from our fears, our skewed beliefs, our ignorance and our sense of entitlement, aggression is what I got from this film. It doesn't matter to most people how we treat animals, gender or people of other colour but the issue is an all round one, not separate in any way or sense although it's taking people a long, long time to join the dots.

From the terror of a bullock newly castrated without anaesthetic (of course that's the 'normal' way in all cultures, but look at that animal's eyes and see the lack of knowing why it's just been abused,) to the passive nature of horses being run around deserts with ugly, yelling, angry and foolish men barely supplying them with enough water, to the still very wild men performing rituals and ready to capture a black man or woman of different tribe and probably kill them or enslave them, to the white bar maid, enslaved in her own way and miserable yet possibly unaware of anything more than searing unhappiness, the broken, trapped black men and the boy who do whatever it takes to survive the bewilderment of white man's world, the post traumatic madness of returned soldiers who have fought in other men's wars and gone quite mad and the ready rape and exploitation of black women who can't find their voice.

The aggression portrayed brilliantly and the subsequent shutting down/fear/rage/finger-pointing/ignorance and lack of acceptance/kindness/compassion does not make this feel long, or boring or stupid, as some reviews are quick to mention, I suppose in the high hope that Australia's history might be portrayed in ridiculous spaghetti western fashion.

Everyone, every single individual in this movie is unhappy. They work on a hard land, their lives are bare and soiled, they never wash and their ability to communicate is close to nil. Don't be put off, however, it's worth the watch if you know that it has a point. And it does. Sadly, to this day, much of this behaviour, only now we take showers, is highly prevalent in Australia, whether Australians like to believe it or not.

The ending is most apt. Indeed, too many people in this country still have no idea who Aboriginal people are and they still behave either ignorantly or moronically toward what they perceive are our First Nation peoples.

This film is an important study of how the separation here is not allowing us to heal as a nation or to move forward into a culture of more than football and beer, but to remain sadly, and I hate to say this, trapped, not entirely but on a large scale, in a kind of immature blundering that stops us claiming greatness as a nation and as collective people who can remove their very, very long term racist issues. This is further fostered by our politicians, who keep this land in a permanent state of divide and conquer. Australia is a fantastic nation but it is lame and limping. This movie declares, if you care to see it, some of wreckage that white settlement has left behind.

visually impressive but lacks narrative focus

[magnuslhad · 6/10 · 22 April 2021]

A white settler, back from WWI and mentally disturbed, arrives in town and immediately unleashes his wrath on the indigenous help. One indigenous man stands up to him, and ends up shooting him dead in self-defence. He goes on the run, and a posse is formed to track him down. But the harsh landscape proves as unforgiving of their search as they are of black men standing up them.

This is a movie "inspired" by true events that relates a tale that could have been gripping. However, the story fails to anchor itself to any one character's point-of-view, and so the audience is set emotionally adrift. The indigenous man, Sam, on the run with his wife, would seem most likely to guide us through the story, but his thoughts and fears remain largely distanced and impenetrable. As for the white men, the sergeant has a romance storyline, and some kind of redemptive arc, though that particular transformation seems implausible. It hinges on us believing a fanatical racist is redeemed by hearing that the murder victim raped the accused's wife. It is hard to believe that a veteran lawman in such a town would be driven to life-changing action by this news.

Another character, the good Christian, book-ends the story, making him a candidate for our guide. But he appears rarely and comments too little for us to feel any empathy with him.

This story, told from the point-of-view of Philomac, as a coming-of-age story, would have been much more powerful. Instead, we get to admire the visuals, and applaud another depiction of White Australia's brutalizing origin story. But there is no character to empathize with, no emotional journey to share, because the film lacks a centre. Worthy politics, but so-so storytelling skills.

The best Australian film in years

[bruce-moreorless · 9/10 · 13 February 2018]

'Sweet Country' is the best Australian film in years, and the best Australian "Western" ever. A little slow-paced maybe, but that's half the point. The characters and events portrayed in the film seem totally authentic, a sense that is heightened by the use of non-professional actors for the indigenous roles (Hamilton Morris, Natassia Gorey-Furber, Gibson John). The professional actors (Bryan Brow, Sam Neill, Matt Day) are also excellent. I wasn't a big fan of 'Samson & Delilah', but Warwick Thornton has really nailed it with this one. This is the type of film that Australian directors should be making. My only concern is that the film may not get the audience it deserves. I saw it during opening week in an Sydney inner-city cinema on a discount day, and the theatre was almost deserted. A discouraging sign. The reluctance of many Australians to acknowledge the realities of past and present race relations in their country may keep local audiences away. It is possible the film will play better overseas. Whatever, 'Sweet Country' deserves to be seen and is highly recommended.

Slow and steady doesn't always win the race.

[ForrestRivers · 6/10 · 28 March 2020]

Slow burners are usually my thing, though there were some intense moments at times I found it a struggle to keep engaged. It's a simple film, with simple characters and a simple plot. Some moments I felt were just completely dragged out and lacked intensity or intrigue. I expected a little more and felt like it could of been alot better with a bit more care. It was OK.

Clever story of hope and tragedy

[robertemerald · 8/10 · 9 March 2019]

When a good cinematographer gets behind a movie landscapes reveal all their beauty and possibilities, and movies become as much about art as about a story. Such is the case here. The story itself is a very real example of what aboriginals in Australia must have suffered for decades. As such it is a most important document. The story is more than that though, and is a very sober and insightful look at the depth, or lack of depth, in people's characters, both for the oppressed and the oppressors. And it has some surprising moments, is genuinely authentic, and leads us to a very real hero. Fantastic performances by all the cast, this is a very fine example of Australian film.

Beautiful, indisputable, but a tad predictable.

[StChom · 7/10 · 23 July 2018]

Beautiful cinematography and interesting cut, the length and pace are part of the scenery to me. The story itself is a bit predictable, but conveys a politically sound message. Those complaining about its unmitigated accusation of colonialism are proof of the movie's efficiency: it made them uncomfortable. Like almost every good fictional work (or documentary for that matter), it simplifies the context to carry its message. If you can't cope with that, your problem is really with yourself and your real views on the subject. Overall a far better than average effort.

Too slow for my liking

[jfurler · 5/10 · 30 December 2018]

Yes based on a true story, another important telling of white brutality on black in Australian history. Excellent acting by Hamilton Norris and Doolan , but boring predictable performances by old Sam Neil and Bryan Brown, names only it seemed, not really engaged. Beautiful landscape of course, a major feature.

Very well paced

[Red_Identity · 3 September 2018]

This film has a meticulous control of its technical aspects, all in a way that makes it very impressive. The story itself is inevitable in some of its conclusions, but the experience is an incredibly told one.