This story is beautifully acted. It is both sad and heartwarming about a young girl's journey to discover where she has come from and where she is going. Stephanie was adopted by her mother's best friend after her mother and father were killed in a car crash, and ever since she has been labeled the 'miracle baby', she is dyslexic and is finding life a bit tough. Her findings along the way affect those closest around her. Her relationship with her guardian and her guardian's ex boyfriend are handled very delicately and sensitively, and the whole of the supporting cast are genuine, 3 dimensional and believable. Set around a peach canning factory in small town Australia, this is a warm gentle, erotic film, and leaves you with a pleasant feeling when the credits close. After reading some of the other rather shallow comments about Hugo Weaving, I would like to add that I think he was brilliantly cast, and was extremely sexy. No, he is not Brad Pitt, but that doesn't mean that he isn't attractive.
11 Reviews
Drama of life
siderite11 April 2006
Let me be the first non Australian to comment on this :) I got the movie for Hugo Weaving and I watched it to the end. It's one of those "drama of life" films, as my mother used to call a movie that depicts a real life story with no extraordinary events and that is mostly descriptive.
I liked the light and the girls. The rest was without too much fault, but without too much merit either. I yearned for something like The Interview, or at least some matrix villain element here and there, but nothing out of the ordinary. The story does teach one about facing one's own destiny and break free from the environment others build for you, but this happens when the life giving peach factory in the area is about to close, so not much of an effort to change things is required.
The "smart" American Beauty sound-alike song in the background could have been part of a larger soundtrack, but just that one playing over and over again became annoying after 100 minutes of film.
In the end, I guess it did his job of presenting a part of Australian life, but to me it didn't seem specifically Australian (it could have been placed anywhere) and it didn't seem attractive as a story.
I guess one must be in a certain mood to like the movie.
I liked the light and the girls. The rest was without too much fault, but without too much merit either. I yearned for something like The Interview, or at least some matrix villain element here and there, but nothing out of the ordinary. The story does teach one about facing one's own destiny and break free from the environment others build for you, but this happens when the life giving peach factory in the area is about to close, so not much of an effort to change things is required.
The "smart" American Beauty sound-alike song in the background could have been part of a larger soundtrack, but just that one playing over and over again became annoying after 100 minutes of film.
In the end, I guess it did his job of presenting a part of Australian life, but to me it didn't seem specifically Australian (it could have been placed anywhere) and it didn't seem attractive as a story.
I guess one must be in a certain mood to like the movie.
Concentrated and evolving look at life in small town Australia told through the eyes of a young girl and a once young now middle-aged woman.
johnnyboyz3 May 2009
I wonder what people will make of Peaches, the Australian Craig Monahan film, in the far future? Will they look back at it as an accurate capturing of times gone by as the naivety and bullish nature of youth back in the day played out in a lonely and frustratingly bland Australian town? Only time will tell but what's quite interesting, is the look at times gone by that are focused on within this very film; a series of flashbacks to the 1980s in which thirty something adults are carefree and relaxed in their lives but still crave something a little more. The film is of the ordinary sort; not especially exciting but trying desperately hard to study something: dreams, ambitions, loss and relationships with those 'higher' than you in the home and work-place. Sure, it carries that tetchy little independent 'feel' these films have and it was written by someone called Sue Smith, an individual who seems to have worked a lot in television before attempting this project and there you have Peaches' chief bane: a steady, unspectacular piece that'll look great on TV or as a made for TV piece.
I wonder how much of this is based on true events? OK, maybe a car crash in which a pregnant mother is killed but her baby is born and is then raised by someone else is unlikely but the study, I think, carries a certain personal element. It's here that perhaps the author is distinguishing the differences between the carefree attitudes of youth in a younger, more immature aunt Jude (McKenzie) when compared to the elder, more knowledgeable Jude. This transition, of course, occurs when the car carrying Steph's (Lung) parents crashes and kills them and wouldn't you know – Steph grows up to be a young adult herself and begins in similar spirit to what Jude once was. Maybe it is an author recollection; a story about how being young and free-spirited with big dreams is fine, but suffering a nasty event; acknowledging it and then moving on, indeed 'growing up', is the next phase and is just as important as enjoying your younger days.
In fact the early focuses of Steph reveal a slightly damaged psychosis. As a character, she keeps baby crayon drawings of her decapitated mother on her bedroom wall; cannot read too well; is a complete social misfit and lies to her aunt Jude in an unflinching and very thorough manner, when talking about how she got home one night. But the film is about Steph's maturity, put across via several flashbacks that are born out of the reading of Steph's mother's old diary that she kept up until that fateful night. What's key here is perspective. Aunt Jude can talk all she wants about how big and in charge she is, but Steph's first hand recounting of her aunt is played out through the filter that is her own mother's notes, observations and musings on all things around her – including Jude herself.
I think the film was aiming for most any of the flashbacks to act as some sort of tragic reminder of small town life, perhaps globally, perhaps purely in Australia. There is a lot of talk of moving away, indeed Jude has dreams of going to Queensland in which the chief lure seems to be nude beaches. But it's all academic because the present day equilibrium puts pay to most of the opportunists banter and acts as a reasonably sad reminder of what's to come. Tied in amidst all of this coming-of-age stuff and the deconstructing of parental figures is the look at redundancy. Hugo Weaving, proving he hasn't forgotten his roots what with him already breaking Hollywood when this was made, acts as a foreman at a local canning factory for a product that is the film's title: Peaches.
The fact this is evident could very well mean what the visualisation of the product actually is: the failing to pack and produce, the halting of the assembly line. The Peaches of the title could be seen as a metaphor for the lives of these people in the small town. The fact that the wrapping up or protection of said items is to cease as jobs and the world around them dries up forces a more vulnerable nature to the items in question. This is played off of the fact Steph's reading of her mother's diary helps dispel any aura her aunt may carry as she learns more and more of a relationship she undertook with Weaving's cannery foreman, named Alan. This might prevent Jude from being as imposing as she once was and thus; the protection and influence to 'mature' as soon as possible, without any tragic car crash event seemingly imminent, is somewhat lost. It is an allegory running parallel with the fragile and innocent item that is the peach loosing its protective casing in the form of a can as human influence slips away.
Peaches is slow and concentrated but there's enough going on to recommend it. A re-occurring question is something along the lines of "what does the diary say?" in terms of characters voicing concerns and it's poignant that it is, as it's a chief ingredient to the film's study. Someone's diary and a load of peaches: how many others film can lay claim that these two types of items are the nucleus of the film's study of small town Australian life? Not many, but Sue Smith and Craig Monahan can claim their film is.
I wonder how much of this is based on true events? OK, maybe a car crash in which a pregnant mother is killed but her baby is born and is then raised by someone else is unlikely but the study, I think, carries a certain personal element. It's here that perhaps the author is distinguishing the differences between the carefree attitudes of youth in a younger, more immature aunt Jude (McKenzie) when compared to the elder, more knowledgeable Jude. This transition, of course, occurs when the car carrying Steph's (Lung) parents crashes and kills them and wouldn't you know – Steph grows up to be a young adult herself and begins in similar spirit to what Jude once was. Maybe it is an author recollection; a story about how being young and free-spirited with big dreams is fine, but suffering a nasty event; acknowledging it and then moving on, indeed 'growing up', is the next phase and is just as important as enjoying your younger days.
In fact the early focuses of Steph reveal a slightly damaged psychosis. As a character, she keeps baby crayon drawings of her decapitated mother on her bedroom wall; cannot read too well; is a complete social misfit and lies to her aunt Jude in an unflinching and very thorough manner, when talking about how she got home one night. But the film is about Steph's maturity, put across via several flashbacks that are born out of the reading of Steph's mother's old diary that she kept up until that fateful night. What's key here is perspective. Aunt Jude can talk all she wants about how big and in charge she is, but Steph's first hand recounting of her aunt is played out through the filter that is her own mother's notes, observations and musings on all things around her – including Jude herself.
I think the film was aiming for most any of the flashbacks to act as some sort of tragic reminder of small town life, perhaps globally, perhaps purely in Australia. There is a lot of talk of moving away, indeed Jude has dreams of going to Queensland in which the chief lure seems to be nude beaches. But it's all academic because the present day equilibrium puts pay to most of the opportunists banter and acts as a reasonably sad reminder of what's to come. Tied in amidst all of this coming-of-age stuff and the deconstructing of parental figures is the look at redundancy. Hugo Weaving, proving he hasn't forgotten his roots what with him already breaking Hollywood when this was made, acts as a foreman at a local canning factory for a product that is the film's title: Peaches.
The fact this is evident could very well mean what the visualisation of the product actually is: the failing to pack and produce, the halting of the assembly line. The Peaches of the title could be seen as a metaphor for the lives of these people in the small town. The fact that the wrapping up or protection of said items is to cease as jobs and the world around them dries up forces a more vulnerable nature to the items in question. This is played off of the fact Steph's reading of her mother's diary helps dispel any aura her aunt may carry as she learns more and more of a relationship she undertook with Weaving's cannery foreman, named Alan. This might prevent Jude from being as imposing as she once was and thus; the protection and influence to 'mature' as soon as possible, without any tragic car crash event seemingly imminent, is somewhat lost. It is an allegory running parallel with the fragile and innocent item that is the peach loosing its protective casing in the form of a can as human influence slips away.
Peaches is slow and concentrated but there's enough going on to recommend it. A re-occurring question is something along the lines of "what does the diary say?" in terms of characters voicing concerns and it's poignant that it is, as it's a chief ingredient to the film's study. Someone's diary and a load of peaches: how many others film can lay claim that these two types of items are the nucleus of the film's study of small town Australian life? Not many, but Sue Smith and Craig Monahan can claim their film is.
Another classy movie from out of Australia!
diane-3426 June 2005
I sat through an hour and half of sheer cinematic enjoyment yesterday afternoon as my wife and I watched the unfolding drama of people as they pass through the vicissitudes of life. Smith's writing painted a perfect tableau for a wonderful display of acting skills from all of the actors with special mention going to Emma Lung for her skillful portrayal of the principle character as that young woman traverses the minefield we call early adulthood. In my opinion, there is drama enough in life's path-it is not necessary to repeat the silliness of Hollywood by exploding the screen with car crashes and blood spattered body bags in order to tell a film story. One need only remember the beauty of the French film "Etre et Avoir" to see the extraordinary beauty of the simplest of human dramas.
I loved the softly, softly approach that Monahan pulled from his three leads-Weaving, McKenzie and Lung. The beauty of their acting, blended with the landscape into which the story was set left this viewer totally enchanted. If we can continue to make films of this caliber our industry, although temporarily passing through the doldrums, will emerge stronger and more vibrant. I anticipate watching every film our local cinemas screen.
I am writing this on August 16, '08 after again being entranced by this wonderful film on television last night. If anything, I was even more impressed with Peaches than I had been four years earlier when Diane and I first viewed it.
Growing up as I did in a small town not dissimilar to the location of the movie, I have huge empathy for people in small towns and the trap they must feel because of their situation: that situation the result of too early pregnancy; failure to pursue education beyond the town; fear of the unknown; lack of imagination or misplaced loyalty to loved ones (who in most instances would rather see their kids fly and lead their own lives.) The extraordinary beauty of Peaches was its ability to examine this issue of "leaving or staying" in such a gentle, dare I say loving sort of way.
A brilliant film to be sought out and treasured; a classic!
I loved the softly, softly approach that Monahan pulled from his three leads-Weaving, McKenzie and Lung. The beauty of their acting, blended with the landscape into which the story was set left this viewer totally enchanted. If we can continue to make films of this caliber our industry, although temporarily passing through the doldrums, will emerge stronger and more vibrant. I anticipate watching every film our local cinemas screen.
I am writing this on August 16, '08 after again being entranced by this wonderful film on television last night. If anything, I was even more impressed with Peaches than I had been four years earlier when Diane and I first viewed it.
Growing up as I did in a small town not dissimilar to the location of the movie, I have huge empathy for people in small towns and the trap they must feel because of their situation: that situation the result of too early pregnancy; failure to pursue education beyond the town; fear of the unknown; lack of imagination or misplaced loyalty to loved ones (who in most instances would rather see their kids fly and lead their own lives.) The extraordinary beauty of Peaches was its ability to examine this issue of "leaving or staying" in such a gentle, dare I say loving sort of way.
A brilliant film to be sought out and treasured; a classic!
It's not so peachy out in the bush - or in the Aussie film industry
Philby-319 June 2005
The Australian film industry is reputed to be in a mess, and this film gives a hint of why that might be. Set and filmed in the South Australian Riverland area, famous for its grapes and stonefruit, it attracted funding from the SA and Australian film commissions and the scenery is lovely. But you don't get much for $A5.5 million in movie production these days and despite some nice cinematography the production values are pretty modest FAQ TV movie level. Most of the money probably went on food for the shoot. Hugo Weaving is in it (he must owe director Craig Monaghan a favour after the brilliant "Interview") and there is other fine acting from Jacqueline McKenzie and (especially) Emma Lung as Steph. Yet somehow it doesn't make it.
Is it the script? This is by Sue Smith who has written many absorbing hours of TV drama ("Carson's Law", "Brides of Christ", "Bordertown"), and while her dialogue is a bit posh for a bunch of peach cannery workers it is at least coherent.
Is it the plot? It is indeed a bit over-ripe. We have the melodramatic circumstances of Steph's birth, the love to hate relationship between her aunt and the cannery foreman, Steph's taking up with the said foreman and his brother, not to mention the brother's criminal record, and an arson attempt. But in the end nothing truly out of the ordinary occurs.
Is it the theme? Life in rural Australia has never been easy and is not getting any easier. Canneries are closing, small towns are dying, and the drought is tightening its grip. The film reflects all that but somehow inadequately reflects the resulting personal malaise. "The Farm" (a mere TV movie) and "Three Dollars" did a much better job of combining the character's personal dilemmas with a more general view of their circumstances.
As to the acting, there is little to complain about. Hugo is a very fine actor and both he and Jacqueline get away with being 20-year-olds in the flashback scenes. I'm not sure the part was a huge challenge to his resources but he handles the love scenes with Emma very well - his alleged ugliness (I like to think of him as lugubriously handsome) is only an issue for those who do not realise that attractive young girls can and do fall in love with ugly old men (remember Rasputin, and heck, Hugo was only 42 at the time of filming).
Jacqueline McKenzie provides an interesting contrast between the party-loving girl of the flashbacks with the present-day overprotective aunt who uses Steph's mobile phone as an electronic leash. Emma Lung shows some real talent as the pretty, confused and dyslectic Steph, Craig Monaghan has put the story together quite artfully and tastefully with some nifty cutting but in some ways the whole is not quite the sum of its parts. The characters are interesting and sympathetic, but a bit dumb, somehow. Maybe that's the Australian condition!
PS: warning to Peugeot lovers at least one splendid 504 is destroyed during the movie. a most unusual car for a seasonal fruit picker to be driving in the early 1980s, even if he was Vietnamese.
PPS: "FAQ" is a wool classing term it means a fleece of "Fair Average Quality".
Is it the script? This is by Sue Smith who has written many absorbing hours of TV drama ("Carson's Law", "Brides of Christ", "Bordertown"), and while her dialogue is a bit posh for a bunch of peach cannery workers it is at least coherent.
Is it the plot? It is indeed a bit over-ripe. We have the melodramatic circumstances of Steph's birth, the love to hate relationship between her aunt and the cannery foreman, Steph's taking up with the said foreman and his brother, not to mention the brother's criminal record, and an arson attempt. But in the end nothing truly out of the ordinary occurs.
Is it the theme? Life in rural Australia has never been easy and is not getting any easier. Canneries are closing, small towns are dying, and the drought is tightening its grip. The film reflects all that but somehow inadequately reflects the resulting personal malaise. "The Farm" (a mere TV movie) and "Three Dollars" did a much better job of combining the character's personal dilemmas with a more general view of their circumstances.
As to the acting, there is little to complain about. Hugo is a very fine actor and both he and Jacqueline get away with being 20-year-olds in the flashback scenes. I'm not sure the part was a huge challenge to his resources but he handles the love scenes with Emma very well - his alleged ugliness (I like to think of him as lugubriously handsome) is only an issue for those who do not realise that attractive young girls can and do fall in love with ugly old men (remember Rasputin, and heck, Hugo was only 42 at the time of filming).
Jacqueline McKenzie provides an interesting contrast between the party-loving girl of the flashbacks with the present-day overprotective aunt who uses Steph's mobile phone as an electronic leash. Emma Lung shows some real talent as the pretty, confused and dyslectic Steph, Craig Monaghan has put the story together quite artfully and tastefully with some nifty cutting but in some ways the whole is not quite the sum of its parts. The characters are interesting and sympathetic, but a bit dumb, somehow. Maybe that's the Australian condition!
PS: warning to Peugeot lovers at least one splendid 504 is destroyed during the movie. a most unusual car for a seasonal fruit picker to be driving in the early 1980s, even if he was Vietnamese.
PPS: "FAQ" is a wool classing term it means a fleece of "Fair Average Quality".
Peaches and Corn
ejlabolton19 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Ignoring (if possible) the tediously gratuitous marijuana smoking (which seems to be mandatory in Australian government-funded films) the cast of this movie gives a reasonably credible performance. That's a far as it goes. The rest is simply awful. The plot's overburdened with "wow" symbolisms which are meant to look good on film but go nowhere. A gross example is the giant peach float, obviously left over from a town parade and donated by the local canning factory. It was just too tempting to waste what was hopefully a free, but nevertheless irrelevant, prop! The peach is given a cursory, unexplained wash-down at one stage but that's where it ends.
Similarly, the contrived "black spot" road sign where Steph's parents were killed, is intended to symbolize the eventual escape from her past, but her escape to what? She's had a pretty good deal where she was, especially considering her visual disability and the unending, loving patience and care of her understanding young female guardian.
The Guinness' prize for corny melodrama, however, goes to the characterization of Alan. Alan successfully aspires to the noble role of trade union shop steward but "rats" on his fellow workers by becoming a supervisor for a wicked multi-national - hiss! hiss! As a supervisor, Alan performs the boss' villainous dirty work. He implements redundancies until, surprise, surprise, the whole plant is closed and Alan himself is left as a pathetic, unemployed failure. No cliché-free zones here, mate! Not only this, but Alan also loses the seductive Steph from the most unlikely relationship you'd encounter. If you think the plot is melodramatic and didactic, don't ask about detail. What's the significance of the shaving cream on Steph's seductive leg? Why doesn't the hotel, where the couple makes love, eventually twig that someone's gaining illegal entry to one of its grandest bedrooms and, among other pandemoniums, the sheets are regularly soiled - quite spectacularly on one occasion. Summing this movie up in one word: Avoid, Avoid, Avoid.
Similarly, the contrived "black spot" road sign where Steph's parents were killed, is intended to symbolize the eventual escape from her past, but her escape to what? She's had a pretty good deal where she was, especially considering her visual disability and the unending, loving patience and care of her understanding young female guardian.
The Guinness' prize for corny melodrama, however, goes to the characterization of Alan. Alan successfully aspires to the noble role of trade union shop steward but "rats" on his fellow workers by becoming a supervisor for a wicked multi-national - hiss! hiss! As a supervisor, Alan performs the boss' villainous dirty work. He implements redundancies until, surprise, surprise, the whole plant is closed and Alan himself is left as a pathetic, unemployed failure. No cliché-free zones here, mate! Not only this, but Alan also loses the seductive Steph from the most unlikely relationship you'd encounter. If you think the plot is melodramatic and didactic, don't ask about detail. What's the significance of the shaving cream on Steph's seductive leg? Why doesn't the hotel, where the couple makes love, eventually twig that someone's gaining illegal entry to one of its grandest bedrooms and, among other pandemoniums, the sheets are regularly soiled - quite spectacularly on one occasion. Summing this movie up in one word: Avoid, Avoid, Avoid.
disagree with mandy62
supagenius-129 March 2005
I was at the same screenwriters conference and saw the movie. I thought the writer - Sue Smith - very clearly summarised what the film was about. However, the movie really didn't need explanation. I thought the themes were abundantly clear, and inspiring. A movie which deals with the the ability to dare, to face fear - especially fear passed down from parental figures - and overcome it and, in doing so, embrace life's possibilities, is a film to be treasured and savoured. I enjoyed it much more than the much-hyped 'Somersault.' I also think Mandy62 was a bit unkind to Hugo Weaving. As a bloke about his vintage, I should look so good! I agree that many Australian films have been lacklustre recently, but 'Peaches' delivers the goods. I'm glad I saw it.
I enjoyed the journey.
clarks-78 March 2005
I really enjoyed the performances of the main cast. Emma Lung is courageous and interesting. The director has developed performances where the characters are not one dimensional. A complex story with the changing between eras. Also appreciated the underlying story of the unions losing power and the effect of a large employer closing on a small town. I do not agree with the comment that the older man has to be attractive. There have be many relationships with older men and younger women - without the male being good looking. Depth of character can be appealing to the not so shallow. The film has a good look and the cinematography is also good.
Peaches is best
wizzo7815 June 2005
Peaches is truly a marvelous film. I write this to refute a review from someone called 'Auscrit', that has appeared on this site. First of all the idea that either Monahans first film 'The Interview' is somehow TV is an extraordinary statement. Here is a film that has been significantly praised around the world as is simply one of the best Australian Films ever made. It fully deserved to win best picture. Peaches is a brave, bold and courageous departure. For me it works on every level and I have now seen it twice. Monahan is a filmmaker who is demonstrating great skill and incredible sensitivity. For 'Auscrit' to make the comment that it is another TV movie etc and that Hugo Weaving is no good simply does not 'get' the film. Or more particularly does not want to get it. Frankly it is the sort of comment that one expects from either another filmmaker who is jealous or bitter or both. Or someone from inside the industry either distribution, exhibition or bureaucracy. Your average punter, I have found just does not write comments like that. I have noticed other comments on the site and reference to the film Sommersault. One has to wonder what people think they are looking at. Unfortunately in Australia at the time SS was released the push was, if you did not like it then there was something wrong with you not the film. This manipulation of the media is pretty common down under. The reality is the only similarity between the two films are that they are rights of passage films. Unfortunately for me SS is a film about nothing, that could have been told in 15 minutes. I see it as a one dimensional film about anxiety. Peaches in comparison is a master piece. Personally I cannot wait to what Monahan does next as he is clearly way ahead of any of his contemporaries when it comes to cinema. In conclusion if the film does not win all at this years AFI's and IF awards, then it is a rigged game. As for Auscrit, please find something more constructive do with your time
Austcrit, where are your manners?
futari997 April 2005
How you could say that Peaches, with its complex narrative dealing with a multitude of issues, is "a small TV idea" is beyond me. Besides I can think of many films that have "a small TV idea" in their plots. Your obvious dislike of the TV industry (" Sue Smith has failed to rise above her television background") is confusing. particularly as you are having such "a great time" working in TV. If only we could all be so talented as Ms Smith (no, I am not a friend or relative) - AFI award winning Brides of Christ, Road from Coorain,etc. All made for TV. Come to think of it, what about those other "small TV ideas" like "Against the Wind", "Bodyline", "The Dismissal", "Scales of Justice", "Blue Murder", "Water under the Bridge" ,etc. I think Peaches is a good entertaining film which had me interested, and most of my friends as well, from start to finish. It is far from flawless yet I think it is among the best Australian films I have seen over the last couple of years. Who knows, with a few more viewings (there's so much to think about), it might just be up there with classics like "The Year My Voice Broke", "The Devil's Playground". I really did enjoy this film much more than "Somersault" and "Three Dollars". These films, I think, had their moments-surreal, atmospheric, realistic and dealing with important contemporary issues, but as for sheer entertainment for mr.and mrs average movie goer and me, it was very ordinary if not boring. When I go to a movie, I am always conscious of the audience's reaction to a film (through in- cinemas reactions and overheard conversations in the foyer and loo). Some came out of Peaches shaking their heads, some with negative criticisms, but many seemed to have enjoyed the experience.
Miscast and underdeveloped.
mandyjr6226 October 2004
In a climate of poorly performing Australian feature films this offering did not prove to be any different.At a writers conference the screenwriter, when asked what the premise of the movie was, couldn't clearly articulate it. She mumbled something about "moving on" and "accepting loss"...say no more. The ideas were great but the script lacked a powerful driving narrative line. There was no clear protag and no "big idea" which feature films seem to require to keep the audience awake for two hours.
And as for the casting....if you want to get away with a 40 something man shagging a 16 year old girl then the actor needs to be ATTRACTIVE!! Hugo Weaving??...pulleeeeze!
And as for the casting....if you want to get away with a 40 something man shagging a 16 year old girl then the actor needs to be ATTRACTIVE!! Hugo Weaving??...pulleeeeze!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
