Intense, gripping, stylish and poignant

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Alright so it's a little 'literary' and the 70s it is ostensibly set in are a little wobbly (it's like you have to remind yourself periodically it's not contemporary), but this unusual family drama is full of surprises and twists as well as a rich and rewarding script that exposes and confronts all the petty squabbles and festering resentments of many a family, and which typically come to a head when a patriarch or matriarch (in this case, Charlotte Rampling) is on the way out. She is serene and strangely humorous, as if she's made her peace and has new insight, while children Basil (Geoffrey Rush) and Dorothy (Judy Davis) continue to clash egos, because both of them have them in spades! The kind of film you can revisit and probably find more each time.

I bought this DVD on a whim and last night sat down to watch it. I've long been a fan of the three main actors, so knew it would be worthwhile, and could be stunning. I was not disappointed. Charlotte Rampling has always excelled in playing the really nasty person you can't imagine ever meeting, and in this she does not disappoint. It's unfortunate that she is not in her eighties or even seventies, because as one reviewer has noted, she's only a few years older than her 'children' in this. Geoffrey Rush is like chocolate, smooth and irresistible, and he uses this charm, but also reveals himself as a loser (we're talking character here)and with vulnerabilities. Judy Davis tries to be a hard-bitten bitch but until the end wants her mother to love her. True, the carers of the old woman love her more than her children - as is so often the case - and the lawyer and his wife straddle the divide between the two attitudes. It's a fascinating human story, with the flashbacks being non-intrusive and essential to the story. I loved it, but I've not read the book or know any of the background aspects. I don't enjoy the cinema so much nowadays, so to watch a good quality drama on the appliance in the corner is a joy.

THE EYE OF THE STORM has so much going for it that it seems a shame that it likely will not draw audiences in the theaters now that it has been released in this country. Thanks to Amazon's Video on Demand it can be watched in the home without the usual distractions of the theater audience more interested in texting and eating than in being willing to follow a strong story for two hours. It is another jewel of a film from Australia and perhaps in art houses it will be appreciated.The story is adapted by Judy Morris from the Nobel Prize winning novel by Patrick White (1912 -1990), an Australian author who is widely regarded as one of the most important English-language novelists of the 20th century. White's fiction employs humor, florid prose, shifting narrative vantage points and a stream of consciousness technique. In 1973, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, the only Australian to have been awarded the prize. 'The Eye of the Storm' is the ninth published novel by Patrick White and it is regarded as one of his best novels.The elderly Elizabeth Hunter (Charlotte Rampling), widow of a wealthy grazier, is nearing the end of her days in some splendor in her mansion in Sydney, Australia, and her two children have been summoned to her bedside. Her son Basil (Geoffrey Rush), once a leading actor on the London stage whose career is now in decline and her daughter Dorothy (Judy Davis), the ex-wife of a minor French aristocrat whose fractured marriage has ended with her only asset being the retention of her title of Princess, are motivated more by their possible inheritance than affection for the old lady. In fact Elizabeth inspires more affection in her nurses (Alexandra Schepisi, Maria Theodorakis), her solicitor (John Gaden) and her tragic cabaret- entertaining housekeeper (Helen Morse) than she does in her children. Dorothy in particular has cause to hate her mother for secrets not immediately revealed ('Dorothy was breathless with resentment for what she herself could no more than half-remember, had perhaps only half discovered - on the banks of the ocean'), yet it is she who gets closer to her mother as the film progresses. Elizabeth is a shrewishly controlling woman and her descent into dementia only reminds everyone involved with her of the damaged childhood, marriage and life she has led. The manner in which the story come sot an end is somewhat surprising and in many ways rewards the viewer for the attention it takes.The film is laid out in flashback scenes to manage the histories of all involved and the interior monologues that slowly build the full images of each f the characters and their inherent flaws. The acting is excellent, the cinematography is gorgeous, and the story is fascinating. If it doesn't exactly match the density of the novel by White then the ones who seem to be responsible of that are the director Fred Schepisi and the screenwriter Judy Morris. It is a tough story and if the viewer can maintain the level of concentration the film demands, then this is a most satisfying experience. Grady Harp

I can't see anyone under 50 even being remotely interested in this "Patrick White In Drag" type film (to quote another IMDb user). The 2 hours reminded me of those hours spent in non air- conditioned portable classrooms (for me, in the late 60's) wading through arcane English literature classes wherein Patrick White was regarded as "worthy"...or "significant"."Storm" has all the features we have come to expect from "quality" Australian film-making - a great cast, polished direction, impeccable production values etc etc ... but it's as dull and disconnected as the world White writes about. Who really gives a stuff about an imploding grazing family presided over by a a dying monster ... nominally set in the 1970s, but really (as in most of White's writing) set in the 1930s? On a $15m budget ... it probably needs a world wide gross of $100m to break even. Ye Gods - who green-lit this? How much Government funding went into it? (Its $1.6m domestic gross should just about pay for the Prints and Advertising" budget & little more).We have a bustling new generation - make that two generations - of film-makers pushing the envelope and making "Animal Kingdom", "Daybreakers", "Red Dog" etc who seem to be at least aware of their audience and their responsibility for getting a return for their investors. Film-making is an expensive business ... and "Storm" is just a sad old melodrama, outdated, over-priced and isolated from the real world, doomed to fail financially. I can understand why audiences congratulate themselves for having sat through it ("splendid and intelligent" - another IMDb post), but it's just an Anglo middle class statement from people who are longing for the days of "Careful He Might Hear You" or "The Devil's Playground".At least the English Class in those old portables only lasted 50 minutes...