The Proposition [Blu-ray]

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.

I've scanned SO much prior praise of this flick that I feel compelled to play my (admittedly modest and apparently unpopular) part in countering the consensus.

A prior reviewer in this forum concluded (seemingly ecstatically) that "'The Proposition' is downright cinematic perfection, from breathtaking direction, effortless camerawork, brilliant scripting and some of the most endearing performances to date all coming together to create a movie experience you won't soon forget, or therefore regret."

While I could argue that the foregoing assessment is too downright generous, I'm compelled to respect, at least, the gist of (much of) it.

Nonetheless, I'm impelled to DISAGREE with the above quotation's final three words, for, two days after having viewed that Australian flick, I've indeed not yet forgotten it, but I'm IRRITATEDLY wishing I COULD totally forget it. In sum, I feel I made a mistake in grudgingly sitting all the way through a film that I'd suspected would be "still more ultimately pointless brutality" even before I'd inserted it into my DVD player.

[Sigh.] Why are we (humankind) so ENDLESSLY captivated by the misdeeds of the most POINTLESSLY CORRUPT human specimens who ever lived that we feel compelled not only to chronicle their life stories but also to eulogize said chronicles as though the bulk of them (excepting such genuine, literary masterpieces as Joseph Conrad's original "Heart of Darkness") were somehow morally uplifting art? The reality is that MOST (including this DVD) are merely "morally depressing" and, ultimately, if you've seen ONE cinematic tale about pure evil (e.g., "Seven"), that should suffice for a lifetime (indeed, it might be argued that "one is too many"). Instead, countless (albeit, thankfully, not all) consumers endlessly seek out still more such mind-debasing--and ultimately mind-desensitizing--fodder with which to feed their horrifically hungry heads.

Bottom line, did I derive anything lastingly positive or useful by viewing this inevitably liberally fictionalized cinematic portrait of one irretrievably, pathetically debased family's descent into one the most brutally, nightmarishly insane realms of cruelty conceivable? In a word, no. As Henry David Thoreau averred, "Thus our life is not altogether a forgetting, but also, alas! to a great extent, a remembering, of that which we should never have been conscious of, certainly not in our waking hours."

When it comes to selecting movies to watch, I desire (virtually) no form of external censorship, but I do believe in being one's OWN censor and not habitually feeding one's precious brain with the sort of garbage (however slickly produced it may be) that countless other seemingly sane humans inexplicably crave and praise. If you yourself are not the custodian of your own mind's purity and uprightness, you'd best not leave the job to those who would sell you motion-picture "entertainment." Life is short, and there are countless OTHER (worthier) movies vying for my attention. There's a fitting, satisfying time and place for certain forms of human violence. But nightmarishly depraved brutality and horror--"for their OWN sake only"--aren't what I care to feed MY head henceforth. But, hey, be your OWN censor and fill your noggin with yet another unnecessary, dreary nightmare, if you choose.

Guy Pearce and the entire cast deliver great performances in this western drama set in the Australian outback. The plot is very simple; Charley Burns played by Guy Pearce and his little brother Mikey Burns played by Ray Winstone are wanted fugitives who are captured by Captain Stanley played by Ray Winstone. After he captures them in a bloody shootout, Captain Stanley has a talk with Charley and tells him that in order for Mickey to live he will have to track his older brother Arthur Burns played by Danny Houston and kill him.

Having no choice, Charley embarks on a journey through the Australian outback in search of his brother. The screenplay, the performances the plot and the setting make for a truly enjoyable picture. I love movies that have these elements and this movie delivers with flying colors. Now the movie is very violent but it doesn't have a lot of action. It is slow but dark and the Australian setting goes perfect with the story. I strongly recommend this movie for any fan of good, dark, weird and powerful acting and a great screenplay to back it up.

This relentlessly violent film is a thing of beauty, enhanced by a vicious and taut script (Nick Cave) as well as a great cast, all of whom do outstanding work. The spectral Australian landscape is a counterpoint to the brutal human presence. The filming reminded me of Terrence Malick, whose films highlight the crazed behaviour of humans while nature's ebb and flow continues, indifferent to the bloodletting. Ray Winstone, as the man who 'will civilize the place' clings to civility while engaged in a nasty job, and Guy Pierce has some unpleasant business to attend to, including the stir- crazy character played by John Hurt. Emily Watson is wholesome and helpless in a landscape that must have been as if from another planet to the colonial brutes from England and Ireland. Riveting and glorious viewing, this is a stark, fly-infested view from down-under as it probably was back in the day.

This movie is the prove, that a lot of blood-splatter and brutality is just not enough to make a good movie.
I am generally a fan of "westerns" about Australia, but this one is without very interesting story, not very good actors ( I have seen much better movies by Guy Pearce), no suspense.
I wouldn`t watch it again.
The 3 stars are only for nice landscapes of Australia and Guy Pearce.