Ruben Guthrie

Moviecut—Ruben Guthrie

source: Ruben Guthrie

Maybe it's because I read the negative reviews before watching it and was prepared for an awful film, but I didn't think it was that bad. I definitely wouldn't pay to see it, and feel bad for anyone who did - especially if it was in the theaters. I will agree with other users and say that the ending was just awful - almost renders the entire movie pointless. When the scene ended, I had a sneaking suspicion that it was the end, but really hoped I was wrong. There's basically no resolution. The "actress" who plays Zoya definitely delivers a flat performance, but I think that's due more to the language barrier. And it really doesn't cover the topic of alcoholism all that well. I have to think that the writer either isn't familiar with AA or AA is drastically different in Australia. Anyway, if you're a fan of Patrick Brammal or any of the other actors and have nothing to do on a Sunday afternoon, it's worth streaming just to kill some boredom, but it's far from award worthy, and as I said, the ending is extremely dissatisfying.

This film is great for so many reasons. First and foremost, it shows a successful young person who is having the time of his life. What makes this movie a different type of party movie is that it braves some of the tough questions that the majority of modern cinema is too scared to ask. We can look at other party movies that have gone before it, with immense box office success like The Hangover (2009), now a franchise, which by itself, must have almost single-handedly re-ignited global tourism to Las Vegas! Why has the Hangover movie franchise been so successful? What is it about letting go and having a sense of exaggerated release from whatever we feel binding us in our daily lives? Maybe this is getting a little deep for a movie review? But if we look at the box office receipts for The Hangover, people are paying to escape, paying to release, paying to watch a movie about some dudes who get so wasted that they can't remember what happened the next morning and spend the rest of the movie piecing back together what happened the night before. Enter Ruben Guthrie and you have a movie, with moments that are equally in the party extreme. So if you are looking for that type of release and superficial fun where you don't have to think too much, then you are definitely going to like parts of Ruben Guthrie all the way through. Equally, if you want to be entertained, but also engaged in terms of your feeling your brain is actually switched on, then Ruben Guthrie is going to give you plenty to think about, potentially for a long time after the movie has finished. The cinematography is of a high standard and shows some of the beautiful parts of Sydney that we take for granted like Tamarama, Bondi and our wonderful beach culture, so if you're into Sydney then definitely add Ruben Guthrie to your watchlist. The acting is a testament to the depth of talent that we have here in Australia, no wonder we keep supplying Hollywood with a steady stream of our best. Patrick Brammall as Ruben Guthrie is tour de force and sometimes during the movie I felt like I was watching a theatre play, so pure was the acting and so powerful the message. Writer director Brendan Cowell, should congratulate himself on a very sharp screenplay with very few weaknesses. With Ruben Guthrie, he has created a piece of cinema that will endure because it's a postcard of beautiful Sydney, because it's a movie about fun and release, because it's about love and sacrifice and, ultimately, because its about the men and women inside us all.

Wasn't expecting it but this was a very good movie. Engaging throughout. Patrick Brammall can act. Loved Abbey Lee's 'second scene.' Will leave it at that. Oh, evidently, need 10 lines to post. But I don't feel like writing 10 lines. Don't read on. Life is good for ad man Ruben Guthrie - he leads a party boy lifestyle, has a model fiancée and lives in a house on the water. He's at the top of his game, until some drunken skylarking lands Ruben at the bottom of his infinity pool, lucky to be alive. His mum hits the panic button, and then his fiancée leaves him, but not before issuing him one final challenge: If Ruben can do one year without a drink, she'll give him another chance... RUBEN GUTHRIE is the story of one man not only battling the bottle, but the city that won't let him put it down.

Like so many Australian films, Ruben Guthrie is thin, shallow and populated by caricatures who never really threaten to turn into fully formed characters. For a few moments here and there I thought - more hoped - that it might prove to be a serious and scathing look at Australian drinking culture. And there's one scene where there is a momentary suggestion that it might have something provocative to say about the dubious cult that is Alcoholics Anonymous (and its even more dubious success rate). But no. Ruben Guthrie not only has nothing new to say, its notions of how alcohol is viewed in Australia seem a good twenty or thirty years out of date. To give but one example: everyone in Ruben's life - his boss, his father, his best mate, his mother - refuses to take his decision to quit alcohol seriously, refuses to really accept that alcoholism could be his problem; indeed, they all actively insist he snap out of it and have another drink. Yes - just like it isn't the 21st century, educated middle-class people aren't acutely aware of the dangers of alcohol, and parents, employers or best friends never respect someone's decision not to drink. This is also a film crammed with the kind of faux-dramatic gestures beloved by writers who can't actually generate genuine drama through actual conflict. At various points Ruben smashes a bottle against his mirrored home bar, throws his mobile phone into the harbour and rips his laptop into pieces... as people almost never do in real life. All this and - just for good measure - an annoying and offensive gay stereotype mincingly played by Alex Dimitriades. The direction is distractingly show- offy at times, befitting a film that is all surface and no substance. Yet again one is left wondering what the film funding bodies saw in the script that convinced them it was worth spending the nation's money on.

Suffice it to say, Australian actors are almost always, in the least, competent. But after seeing this, the only thing I can say about it is--it's competently made, is Australia-centric, allowed some decent, professional actors to make a living, and is as predictable as tomorrow's sunrise. "Writer-Director" Cowell appears to prove, once again, that good writer-directors are extremely rare. In Crowell's case, I'd say that it's the writing part that fails here. The script is competently (yet predictably) paced, but the premise itself is about as original as a corporate ad--plenty of time to 'hit the loo', knowing that you'd miss nothing of importance no matter how long you took (sorry but it's not very much about missing any actor's glowing moment-- moments usually only recognized if the film itself is a worthy vehicle for such). As for Cowell's direction, the danger here for any Australian film- maker, I think, is over saturation a la the 'Luhrmann Effect', in that, the wreckage Luhrmann made of Gatsby (offensive to virtually all those above the age of 'twenny sumpthin') is invisible against his previous success to any wannabe writer-director--while Cowell avoids the gaudy baubles and annoying soundtrack irrelevancies, the source of his inspiration is obvious. There are two likely outcomes for W/D's suffering from this: you either manage to pull off a unique, quirky, original film, or, in failure (as is most always the case), you mill out another ad-carrying vehicle for late-night TV. To me, one thing I've always liked about Australian actors is their ability to provide an absorbing level of depth to their characters, juxtaposed to what I've recognized as a profound, inexplicably acute dearth of originality coming from the Great Down-Under. Give me an Australian Actor and/or DOP any day--leave the writer/directors at home. Ultimately, perhaps it is best to view this film as a bit of worthy self-reflection for a country that still has an enormous problem with alcoholics, and that this such relevancy may be lost on outsiders, but other than that, I would never willingly pay to see this film, (I saw it for free through my streaming account) nor have wasted my time seeing it had I known what I was in for. But in the end, what drives me to critique this and other similar films so energetically is the exasperation I feel when witnessing the waste--so many good scripts out there by competent writers will be consummately ignored by so many wannabe do-it-alls with-- unfortunately for all of us--nice-sized production budgets. Thanks for providing a living wage for yet another film crew and decent local actors though. If this was merely something done to fill up the contract calendar while working on The Big Thing, then I can better understand. 4 Stars--for the acting and production work. .

"Ruben Guthrie" is a strange film about alcoholism...strange because I really have no idea what it's trying to say. Still, despite this and a very strange ending, the acting is quite nice. The film begins with Ruben behaving like a drunk frat-boy--which is sad since he's supposed to be an adult. After his latest crazy binge, his live-in girlfriend has had enough and she leaves--vowing only to return IF he manages to stay sober for the next year. Ruben's commitment to sobriety at first is extremely shallow and he doesn't think he has a problem. But, over time and after the alcohol leaves his system, he slowly comes to see that he IS an alcoholic and becomes actively involved with Alcoholics Anonymous. Patrick Brammall is very good as Ruben and much of the script seemed very well done and seemed to have a lot of insights into not just alcoholism but how the families and friends of addicts often do a lot to try to keep the person actively drinking and screwing up their lives. But the film also seems to have lost a sense of direction and the ending is anti-climactic to say the very least.

Boring, not funny, one dimensional characters. Robyn Nevin and Aaron Bertram must be given some credit for doing the best they could with such a poor script. Jack Thomson plays Jack Thomson. Abbey Lee is a model not an actress, too obvious in this film. Not sure if viewer was suppose to feel this way: But I wanted to throw 'Chet' (Brenton Thwaites) from the office balcony, character should have been hanging at a skate park, not working in a large Advertising Company. Alex Dimitriades played Alex Dimitriades. Not much more I could say but 'disappointed' in portrayal of a topic that many have had to deal with i.e.: alcoholics.

Ruben Guthrie was yet another example of an Australian film which is lacking in substance. The character development was really poor overall, however particularly for the protagonist, Ruben Guthrie, a high-flying marketing whiz living it up in Sydney. Attempts are made to introduce us to some of Ruben's inner demons, however it is isolated almost solely to the commencement of the film, and unfortunately as a result of this 1-dimensional development, you can't really develop any sympathy for the character as he struggles with his alcoholism. As a female viewer, I also found the character's attitude to women particularly off-putting, and it doesn't inspire any empathy for his struggles with attempting to "win back" his supermodel fiancée, Zoya (Abbey Lee.) The most convincing character in the whole film is Virginia, a typical contradictory Bondi hipster, who remains opposed to alcohol and drugs, consumes only organic food, yet continues to chuff away at cigarettes - portrayed by Harriet Dyer. As another user has said, Abbey Lee is a model, and her beauty is stunningly obvious in the film, however unfortunately her acting skills are somewhat lacking in her ability to portray genuine emotions - seeming more of a pretty cardboard cutout that speaks. Ruben lacks a real character arc throughout the film - without giving too much away, you are left with the feeling that there isn't anything that has truly changed about the character in any aspect of his approach to life, despite the character's destination at the end of the film - though this is somewhat ambiguous. Some important questions are raised briefly in the film - whether alcoholism is in fact a genetic inheritance from previous generations, and whether anonymous support groups are the true means to a successful recovery from addiction, however the themes are glossed over and not explored to the depth which would give the viewer more of a sense of meaning to the film, even if there was not a "happy ending." Overall the film appears to attempt to create an Australian "Wolf of Wall Street", yet lacks the essential elements of any true character "journey" throughout, and leaves the viewer with a feeling of blank disappointment at its conclusion.