Tim Johnson 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!

Philby-3 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".

wizzo78 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

supagenius-1 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.