Watch A Month of Sundays For Free

Did you people see the same film I saw?

Admirable film.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

There is much to love about 'A Month of Sundays'. What leaps out at this viewer within its first few minutes is the distinctive rhythm and flow of this quite unique Australian feature. It's not only the pacing; its the wonderfully quixotic score by Bryony Marks; the languid editing of veteran Ken Sallows; and the off beat wry dialogue exemplified by the early repartee between satirist supremo John Clarke's 'Phillip' and Anthony La Paglia's 'Frank'. The film never adheres to the expected trajectory of contemporary drama, preferring to lurch in one direction of social satire only to abandon that and veer into deeply personal territory and in so doing giving the flawed protagonist played beautifully here by La Paglia, his hero's journey.'A Month of Sundays' would be worth recommending alone on the above mentioned observations, but then there's the national treasure that is Julia Blake. The legendary stage and screen actress has been a familiar face for decades; and I first fell in love with her in 1979 in a TV series called 'Twenty Good Years'. There has always been an elegance but a strength and power to Julia's performances and age has neither wearied her talent nor her beauty. An alumni of Paul Cox's films as well as many other film makers, Ms Blake gives a dignified and moving performance here; one that deserves an AACTA nomination if not the prize. The chemistry that La Paglia and Blake share is crucial to the success of the narrative, and the viewer buying the coincidences and conceit that the film is built around. I can see why some other reviewers have not been able to get on board with this most unusual but universal story. It is refreshing to experience an exploration of grief and loss and the trauma of having faced those elements - for better and worse! La Paglia's Frank may or may not be destined to be one of life's losers. A modern day Willie Loman he may well be. This movie could be espousing the philosophy that it is not what happens to you in life; it's how you deal with it. The flawed but identifiable characters in 'A Month of Sundays' ring true and that is a huge part of the movie's success. That and casting such talented people with a smartly written and directed script by Matthew Saville. It's well worth the ride.

We saw this great film at Luna Essex several days ago and both of us relished the film; it was superbly completed with an equally superb cast of film experts working at their best in all aspects of movie construction. I should not demean any one of them by mentioning our favourites; however, the actors led by LaPaglia, Julia Blake as Sarah, plus the two Clarkes bring Australian actors centre stage for this marvellous Australian movie.We were moved by the humanity of this movie; albeit, the plot may stretch the credulity of some viewers but do not worry, it is a simple movie that examines simple life conflicts. The pieces of the plot fit very snugly together and lead to a satisfying completion.The movie's examination of our life's passages will be reflected in viewer's acknowledgement that these instances are prevalent in the simple act of being alive. Those pieces are manifestly part of the human condition and it was a pleasure to see them handled so gently in this sweet movie.

Even favourable external reviews of this witty, wise and beautiful film have been almost dismissive and certainly offhand. One shouldn't be surprised that the aggregated rating on Rotten Tomatoes is so preposterously low [29% at last glance- I will glance no more!]; it's a representation of the level of ignorance that's out there in official critland, especially North American critland, but as well in the UK. They have almost no clue what makes Aussies tick, and they won't get this film.'Professional' reviewers lacking the ability to bring real wisdom to bear no matter how broad their knowledge of film, and still feel entitled to adopt such condescending tones as the following: "could find a few art house takers in Anglophone territories", "well-worn notions of redemption and acceptance". To take this tone, vaguely accusatory of unoriginality while finding it crucial to make sure the reader takes note that the reviewer has IDd at least two of the themes is a lot like that old joke in which a man wouldn't join any club that would accept him; 'I guessed what the film is about, therefore it's too easy and beneath me'. Shakespeare dealt in 'well worn' themes. They're well worn because they are deeply required themes to be represented for humanity, and they should be eternally worked over. One external newspaper reviewer, someone we need to know is super- clever, found fault with a long camera shot which, being a tribute to another director/film, was 'distracting'. Bring it on I say. The richer the film's material, the more there is to love. Life is also full of subplots and digressions. What's wrong with a little whimsy? It's thoroughly enjoyable. Another claims that the film's central friendship is too unconventional and that suspicions of serial killer madness might be fitting; that the film might better have been made as a thriller. What a poisonous notion, that friendships can only be allowed to exist founded on introductions by mutual friends with the right credentials. I'd like to thank the film makers here for showing Australians what we really do still need to be reminded of, namely that the most desolate culturescape is enriched by the people who dwell therein. We have everything needed for nourishment of the soul to offer each other if we can transcend convention and ennui and only connect. There is nothing wrong with editorialising, nothing wrong with a little didacticism. Why conceal it? You don't have to agree. Just don't find fault with the fact some real values are being presented. Australia has for years been afflicted with a housing 'bubble'. Whole generations of the population are being screwed. People can't afford to buy shelter these days, and television therefore proliferates with architecture/house/reno/interior design porn. In Month of Sundays we are shown that even profiteers in this giant racket are demoralised and damaged in such a climate of greed and exploitation. As in another film I love, The Cave of the Yellow Dog, Month of Sundays has plenty of amusing little 'lessons'. As two people cathartically indulge grief-filled nostalgia on the site of a demolished former family home with their backs to the street, behind them processes a bunch of fairy-costumed little girls with party balloons in colours impactfully vivid. The lost past is desolation, but here behind you is the bright and alive present if only you could turn and look. A death is a cruelly unexpected breakup, but if and when you can find the courage to let go, the many colours of life await. The welcome mat is reversed: welcome to the world. Everybody is vulnerable without a single toothmark on the scenery, ever. The acting in this film is really seriously fine and so are the editing decisions. I love a contemplative film that respects actors and the subject enough to let duration pass. This sort of style is powerfully immersive, especially for anyone who may recognise the many cultural references that bring us straight to our memories of very particularly Aussie times and places without recourse to cliché or stereotype. Not enough can be said in praise of this film. External critics, drop your complacent posturing and lift your games!

I attended a preview screening of this film, which was followed by a Q and A with director Matthew Saville along with stars John Clarke and Anthony LaPaglia.To condense this film's monumentally mind-numbing existence into one word, it's 'terrible'. In fact my entire experience was terrible. The film was bad enough with its incompetent script, non-existent character development, irresponsible pacing, average performances and stock-standard cinematography. But, it was the Q and A that supplied the icing on this unpalatable cake. It provided evidence that the team behind this cinematic catastrophe have no place in the industry. Saville was unable to answer any of the questions posed to him regarding his inspiration or creative process, despite, apparently, writing and directing the film.The post-screening session divulged into a chummy, self-indulgent exercise of recalling the good-times back on set with absolutely no informed discussion about filmmaking or acting. All this was despite insightful questions from the three audience members who were given the chance to have their voices heard.To speak positively, the film's one element of quality would have to be its score. It offers a refreshing shift from a traditional soundtrack, containing unique instrumentation and motifs. What's sad is that it accompanies an absolute bomb of a movie."A Month of Sundays" is a clumsy attempt to comment on a cluster of clichéd themes. Themes including death, illness, family, divorce, disability, fame and (somehow) homosexuality, are conspicuously injected into it's clinically malnourished structure. However, beneath this wafer-thin surface lies the fact that this film is nothing more than a prolonged advertisement for Adelaide and, I would argue, an incredibly weak one.What continues to puzzle me about Australian films, this one being no exception, is how they are green-lit and approved for funding when the ideas are fundamentally flawed from their inception.