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

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.

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.

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!