Review: Red Dog


Based on a novel by Louis De Bernières (“Captain Corelli’s Mandolin”), this true story concerns the title kelpie who won the hearts of the mining community in Dampier, in the Top End of Australia (Western Australia) in the 70s and 80s. Red Dog (played by the now retired Koko) was supposedly a friend to all but had no one master, until an American bus driver named John (Josh Lucas) takes a shine to the dog, and vice versa. John, meanwhile, takes a fancy to Nancy (Rachael Taylor), a secretary to the mining company. But one day, John fails to come home, with Red Dog patiently waiting and waiting. In a wraparound story, Luke Ford plays a truckie who wanders into Noah Taylor’s bar as the townsfolk are lamenting the sad decline in Red Dog’s health. He, like the audience itself, sits and listens to the tale of this beloved canine. John Batchelor and an Italian-accented Arthur Angel play a couple of the blokey miners, whilst Keisha Castle-Hughes plays a veterinarian’s assistant.



A big hit with audiences and critics alike, Australia seemed to fall in love with this 2011 film from director Kriv Stenders and Dan Taplitz. Call me un-Australian if you like, but I felt like this corny, hackneyed, episodic, almost Disney-ish film based on a true story would’ve made a pretty cute five minute human interest segment at the end of the nightly news. At best, make it into an hour episode of ABC’s “Australian Story” following Red Dog on his journey (which is barely even mentioned in the film, appallingly). In fact, I’d much rather have seen a documentary on the subject than sit through this film, which mostly rang false to me.



The poor performances (save American import Josh Lucas) don’t help much, either. All these phonies (all two-dimensional at best) recalling stories with their fake sentiment about the (admittedly cute) title character had me feeling like I was watching a dodgy re-enactment, like those poorly acted re-enactments in true-crime shows. Or, more precisely, it felt like a re-enactment of a re-enactment, but with more recognisable actors. The characters feel like props, only there at the service of the telling of this dog’s story, without any care or development of their own characters, save maybe Lucas, who is absent for a lot of the length.



The way the film is structured mostly as an episodic tribute (a structurally lazy one at that), almost a doggie version of “This is Your Life”, they might as well just gone the whole way and made a doco, then. As a film I never really bought into it, with beefy John Batchelor (who really should stick to those bizarro Codral ads) and Arthur Angel (as-a phony-a accented-a ethnic-a stereotype-a eye-talian straight out of “They’re a Weird Mob” from about 50 fucking years ago) particularly grating, pretentious and patronising. Not to mention they’re also woefully sanitised, unlike say the rowdy and terrific “Last of the Knucklemen”, and speak a little too ‘actory’ and flowery to be truly authentic. Even the talented Noah Taylor is well off his game here as a barman, and Rachael Taylor’s return to Aussie screens just confirms my long-held belief she’s best to stick to TV dramas (if not outright soap operas), as she hasn’t quite got the gravitas or conviction required here, indicative of a limited range.

So with the dodgy acting and cornball doggie tribute story (bordering on a beer ad at times), the film just didn’t convince or interest me at all the way that a documentary or short news story might have (at least the cornball emotion would’ve been genuine).



The other problem with the film is that it’s yet another quirky, feel-good outback Aussie film, the kind that would be right at home alongside “Crocodile Dundee II” and “Young Einstein”. Back in 1988, when I was 8 years old and enjoyed such innocuous, but simplistic entertainments. Why the hell are we still shilling this ocker crap in 2011? The inclusion of an American actor in the cast didn’t bother me (I’m pretty sure the character is based on truth anyway), but the overall vision of this film just seemed archaic and irrelevant to me. I’ve read that the film was partially funded by The National Bank of California (not to mention mining company Rio Tinto, but I could care less about that), which might explain things (and even writer Taplitz is based in the US). Do we really need to keep pandering to foreign markets only interested in the postcard view of Australia? After making a bunch of interesting genre efforts (particularly in the horror genre) are we really going to go back to making dopey ocker crap? Sadly, with the reception this film got, I’d say it’s a possibility. And I’m not talking about “Muriel’s Wedding” quality, where the stereotypes and clichés were matched by a touch of bitterness, sadness, and edge. Nor am I talking about “Wake in Fright”, which saw the blokey, boofhead, beer culture of particularly rural Australia for what it was (Sadly, the beer culture is rife throughout the nation now, not just an Outback issue, and it’s still glorified as part of our ‘Aussie culture’, as though it’s a positive thing). Its characters are also not as likeable or relatable as those in “The Castle”. I suppose you can’t argue with financial success, but I’m telling you, we’ll be back to complaining when the market becomes flooded with these heavily stereotyped, limited scope films.



I’m sorry, I know I’m in the minority here, but this is just a bloody cute dog movie, folks. And that’s not nearly enough for me, especially with all the praise the film got. It’s flat, uninspired, and boring, and the dog doesn’t seem all that bloody special to me (nor the dog playing him). Like I said, his journey is mostly off-screen, and otherwise he’s just a normal, affectionate dog. Having him assist Angel in wooing a vet’s assistant hardly counts as a fascinating or profound plot point (However, if he were a pug, then I’d at least love the dog, even if the film was a turd). I just don’t see the entertainment value or overall merit in this pleasant, but seriously underwhelming and outdated film. Shocking waste of Kiwi Oscar nominee Keisha Castle-Hughes, and a completely disappointing swan song for legendary Aussie character actor Bill Hunter in an irrelevant, barely there cameo.



There are some fun moments here and there and Lucas is really good, but overall, I just didn’t get this one. I know everyone laughed, cried, and felt all patriotic, but I was completely unmoved, and not out of stubborn contrariness. I bet if this were an American film of an American story and released by Disney, the Aussie reviews (and we all know who I’m talking about) would be far less kind. Just sayin’. It’s just one of those films that either grabs you and you go along for the ride, or you see every flaw and every moment of cultural cringe and are at constant arm’s length.



Rating: C

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Review: Hellraiser (2022)

Review: Cinderella (1950)

Review: Eugenie de Sade