Honestly, I think Tom got off easy.After watching this film I was left with an array of feelings. Why didn't I wax the car? Did I change the cat's litter box? How can anyone give this film a score higher than 3?It's so strange to read the earlier reviews after watching this film. Those reviews sound the same, seems like they are written by the same person. Honestly, need a bottle of vodka to understand this film. The cinematography is indeed beautiful, but the story is .....you know what I mean.

OK. A warning for anyone out there who is a parent or guardian. Be careful about who you see this film with - ie - DO NOT TAKE KIDS TO SEE THIS FILM. I'll explain why.1 - the title is misleading and the film has nothing to do with romance - I assume this was fully intentional on the producers behalf, but is annoying 2 - the film itself is really very very disturbing. I have some problems - first is the fact that the film is neither violent or sexual and therefore is not a 'horror film'. But it IS a very disturbing film ,and involves a child and his parents, and a small town.OK, it boils down to this. The film is not suitable for minors, because it contains sequences and images that are unsettling and would be confusing to a child. Is has a bizarre quality to it, and its ONLY because it has a child in it that makes me feel its unsuitable. As a parent myself I feel strongly enough to want to tell people because I read only the other day that it is having a release in theatres.I hope im not offending the film makers by saying this, but I think its my right, because its getting a release, and has an M rating only.(because its not violent or sexual). Just weird and unsettling but pretty good in and of itself.

Jingofighter I agree with some of your comments, but I have to disagree on a couple of things. First, this film is nothing like THE CARS THAT ATE Paris. Not IMHO. Nothing like it.I think the film had elements of surrealism, but I think the basic approach of the film maker is not "surrealist" per se. therefore its not really like CARS Paris, I think more like a weird Euro work, with some scenes bearing the hallmark of "wierd" not surreal.Secondly, I think the music by Heuzenroeder is brilliant. They used whistling, that old sound from Country and Western records, and its waaayyy better than most Aussie films which usually team the film maker up with a dumb sounding Indy band that the company wants to push.As for the name of the film - I don't know why it's called Modern Love, I was kinda hoping for David Bowie to appear dressed in drag and lipstick... opps I'm starting to show my age.

I saw this film via one of the actors' agents, and it surely conforms with a great deal that comes out of Sth. Australia in terms of the overall *tone,* which is rightly dark and moody.I thought the little boy in the film was excellent. Mostly kid actors are *hammed up* and embarrassing but not in this case. He was really very good. In terms of the *surrealism* thingy mentioned by jingo, well, I just think this film is plain 'weird.' It's a real weirdo film, with weirdo locations, storyline, weird stuff going on the whole time. But 'good' weird as opposed to 'bad'.Its hard to think of other movies like it, but its not at all like CARS ATE Paris, maybe more like a REPULSION, but actually I think more like a Hammer movie from the 60's. Its certainly has an interesting mind working behind it.JINGO, My question is also about the title. Why Modern Love?? Anyone? Also, jingo, what did you mean by "god Forsaken" when you were talking about Australia, hmmm? Just curious