The Proposition (2005)

Captain Stanley captures two notorious outlaw brothers Charlie and Mickey Burns . He makes a proposal to Charlie . If Charlie goes and kills the leader of their gang Arthur Burns and brings his body back they will be given an amnesty . If not Mickey will be hung on Christmas day which is nine days away

You always know what you're going to get with a film by Australian director John Hillcoat namely strong memorable drama that's best viewed with a ready supply of anti-depressants . You also know what you're not going to get , laughs , mirth and a strong narrative drive . Certainly both GHOSTS OF THE CIVIL DEAD and THE ROAD suffered slightly from a lack of a strong narrative drive and in this British produced pseudo Western set in 19th Century Australia there's also a sign of this flaw from the director

The premise is one that grabs you and leads you to ask what you would do in that situation but as soon as Charlie leaves town on his quest the story meanders slightly as we're shown lots of panoramas of the Australian outback with a vague mystical air which will remind you of Australian cinema of the 1970s where the landscapes were the stars of the movie . One also gets the feeling in the first third that you're might be watching an Aussie version of APOCALYPSE NOW where a man with a mission involving extreme prejudice finds his target building an empire amongst the natives

This doesn't happen thankfully and after a slightly unfocused first 40 minutes the story gets back on track with characterisation coming to the fore . THE PROPOSITION is much more character driven than the premise promises . There is a slight cop out in that Mickey is the poor unintelligent younger brother who has merely tagged along with the gang through family peer pressure and while Arthur isn't portrayed by Danny Huston as a stock psychotic villain with staring eyes and manic laugh his actions do more than enough to convince the audience that this rabid criminal dog needs to be put out of his misery . The characterisation between the good younger brother and the violent bad older brother could been written and developed as a bit more grey but there again it might have made it more difficult to cheer on Charlie the middle brother played by Guy Pearce

The cast are excellent and special mention goes to Ray Winstone who is a national institution in Britain and watching him here you're aware of how underrated he is and gives a depth to Captain Stanley a man tormented by trying to uphold the law without giving in to rough justice from the locals . It's perhaps difficult to believe a rough working class bloke would be married to Emily Watson's rather middle class Martha but Watson does manage to project an innocence that seems out of place but that's undoubtedly the point . One character that did puzzle me was Jellon Lamb . John Hurt of course steals the show every scene he appears in but is there any point to the character except to spout Darwin ? it's a slightly confused and unnecessary character

And THE PROPOSITION is a slightly confused film that stops it from attaining true classic status . It's a bleak nihilistic character study from John Hillcoat and contains all the strengths and weaknesses from the director's prior and future work . That said it's much better than most of the films the UK Film Council insist on wasting their money on from the same period

Fmovies: Wow, what a brutal "western." I put "western" in quotes because most people think of the western half of the United States as being the locale for western movies. This movie was made and set in Australia but the time frame is similar: around 1880. What's "brutal" about the story is the violence, bloodshed and language - but only in spots. The language is odd in that the vocabulary of most of the people is above-average, but be warned there are a number of f-words. I question whether that word was around in the 19th century, but it's prevalent in this film. Actually, the violent scenes will be more offensive to viewers than the profanity. Like the profanity, however, the violence only comes in spurts. Most of the film has much calmer moments, surprisingly low-key.

One thing that is there throughout the 104 minutes is the excellent cinematography. This is a pretty film, nicely shot with some beautiful scenery and colors, stylish at times, too. To me, this was the best part of the movie. It's indeed a visual treat. Benoit Delholmme deservedly won several international awards for his camera-work in here.

The story is uniquely presented, different enough that it kept me very involved wondering what was coming next. For those expecting a brainless revenge story or shoot 'em up western, they will be disappointed. There is a lot of thought to this film, and it varies scene- to-scene from classy to crude.

Guy Pearce, Ray Winstone and Emily Watson are three actors I am familiar with, and I enjoyed all three of their performances. This is not a well-known movie here in the States, but if you like tough westerns and something a bit different, check it out.

Everyone connected with this film should be extremely proud of the movie they created. I will mention specifically: Delhomme for his extraordinary cinematography; Eden for her beautifully stark Set Decoration; Hillcoat for impeccable direction and especially John Hurt in a small but tremendously evocative early role.

A staggeringly moving and uncompromising examination of contemporary emotions set against our early settlement history. The first thing I noticed about this film was the look of Guy Pearce's character's hair-dirty and stringy-something that Hollywood with it's pretensions and million-dollar babies would never allow. But these people looked bad, acted bad and I'm sure-smelt bad. In short, they were real people and they acted as real people in those monstrously uncompromising times would have acted.

My friend said after viewing the film, that he didn't believe early Australia had the same frontier gun culture that is so often displayed in American films of the same genre. I too do not believe that our early settlement revolved around the gun mania of American settlement but I was not bothered by the gun culture shown in The Proposition. I kept looking for bits that did not play right and I could not find any-the film played real to me from beginning to end. Although extremely violent in those parts where violence was called for, this violence did not seem out of place or overdone. I have tried to know something of our early settlement history and what I saw fitted into that mental picture well. The unimaginable violence we displayed to the Aboriginal people was masked and not really a part of what occurred in this film so if some of that violence was shown towards white settlers then it seemed to blend in this film.

An extraordinary film and I hope against hope that it will be eminently successful and therefore lead to the creation of other films based upon our early settlement history.

The Proposition fmovies. Australia is a country in the throws of settlement by the English and lawlessness is rife. As the bloody clearing of aborigines continues, one gang's attack on a white family causes outrage. The pressure is on Captain Stanley to bring in the Burns gang, led by the sadistic and heartless Arthur. When Stanley's men capture the two younger brothers he strikes a deal with Charlie, the elder of the two. In nine days time, on Christmas Day, young Mike will hang unless Charlie has returned with his brother – dead or alive.

The plot summary and the advertising seemed to offer some form of thriller but in reality the film delivers something altogether more interesting and memorable. Set in the Australia outback where settlements are being born and laws being established, the film charts the moral complexities of the good and bad in the story while painting a beautifully bleak backdrop of open space and bloody, pointless violence. It is not an easy film to watch and certainly not one to expect to come out of laughing or feeling good about things. Nor is it a film to go into expecting a traditional plot because it is this area where the film is at its weakest because it is not a "this happened, this happened then that happened" sort of story. This is not to say it is boring but it does require patience for the casual viewer. Personally I found most scenes to be interesting but most admit that the narrative kind of hangs around rather than moving forward firmly in one direction.

The substance is more in the characters than in the narrative and on this level it was engaging. Although the posters and summary will tell you this is about the Burns brothers, it is as much if not more about Stanley and his wife. It is he would has the duality of trying to defeat violence by encouraging it while also heaving under the burden of trying to take this job entirely on his own shoulders while protecting his wife from knowing anything about the real world out in the desert. It is an interesting thread and for my money it was the thrust of the story – the issue of what Charlie will do is actually part of Stanley's story rather than the other way around. With this as the story the film is much better because it does paint a convincing tale around this. The Burns brothers thread is still interesting but less is done with it – with Arthur himself being very little more than an enigmatic plot device.

Style wise the film is fantastic as it delivers a bleakly convincing picture of the birth of Australia. The landscape is beautifully filmed and, although Cave could have done more as writer, his contribution to the soundtrack is as welcome as it is well used. The sudden moments of violence are uncomfortable and difficult to watch. They are delivered in visceral moments of gore that are bereft of any touches that would glamorise the death; here it is horrible and full of flies. Of course you are right to note that a hauntingly stylish delivery should not be taken as a replacement for substance but I think it has just about enough of the latter and an abundance of the former to carry the film as a whole.

The cast are mixed but nobody really turns in a bad performance. Winstone dominates the film with easily the best performance and the most interesting character. His Captain Stanley wears every decision and Winstone allows us to see the effect this country has had on his soul. Watson is also good, simple at first but touched by the violence that her husband cannot defend her from. Pearce is an astute and subtle

I don't enjoy violence in movies, especially if it's unnecessary. But this movie was justified in its use. Calling this movie very violent or bloody is misunderstanding the movie - it's taking the focus away from what matters in the movie: the landscape, the directing, the music, the characters as they are being acted out the story as it's unfolding. The violence connects you with the feelings and thoughts of the characters and conveys the the mood of the era - I came away feeling as if I had experienced living in "wild" Queensland. The story is simple but it's very well executed. And needless to say, I've learned from every single Guy Pearce movie I've seen. Ray Winstone was incredible, Emily Watson very effective, and John Hurt was a pleasurable bonus.

The ending is poetic and beautifully done.

Put simply this is the best Australian movie I have seen for years. A so-called Australian Western this is uniquely Australian and a must see for both Australian audiences and international audiences who would have no idea what living in early 'civilised' Australia must have been like. Well acted with top internationally recognized talent (Pearce and Winstone are fantastic), beautiful landscapes, and a violent yet somewhat beautiful and (again) unique story, I hope this movie is seen well beyond the Art-house, and I hope there is adequate marketing because this movie is so much better than the run-of-the-mill stuff we usually see in the cinema.