Animal Kingdom

06 Apr

Animal Kingdom poster


Set in Melbourne in the 1980’s, it starts off with teenage Josh watching TV, his mother is dead next to him, dead from a heroin overdose.  He then gets involved with his relatives, a bunch of criminals who specialise in bank robberies.  Their house is under surveillance by police.  This criminal family, the Codys, are ruled over by matriarch  Jackie Weaver, a diminutive blonde.  Two of the Codys are shot by the police, one of them wanted to go straight and get into the stock market.  One member of the family is a lawyer and helps out legally, but of course does not help the police with their enquiries.  One of the Codys was shot in his car, the other does a runner in Ned Kelly country.  Ben Mendelsohn plays Andrew ‘Pope’ Cody who is a really vicious criminal.  He hotshots Josh’s girlfriend, thinking she might betray them to the police.  He goes to jail but Jackie Weaver gets him out.  He gets away with that murder after killing a couple of cops.  Josh meets up with policeman Guy Pearce who plays a humane cop called Leekie.  Josh is put under witness protection but Jackie Weaver’s family get away with the murders.  Using vigilante justice, Josh kills ‘Pope’ Cody.


The critics have lined up to praise this unremarkable film.  They’ve strained at the ‘animal kingdom’ metaphor, but these criminals are an insult to animals, they are mundane thugs.  Pope Cody just looks bovine, so maybe that’s an apt epithet that might justify the title.  This is just another sordid little film that pays inexplicably close attention to these morally witless wastes of time.  It’s supposed to be a close and original look at criminals, but it looked to me more like a documentary about weirdly dysfunctional people set in  Neighbours houses.  These priceless louts spend all day snorting coke and undermining each other’s sanity.  The only faintly interesting Cody gets killed, aware of a different way of life.  Houses always look immaculate, nobody seems to attend to the ordinary details of life.

Josh is a thoroughly unsympathetic person, not just the usual surly adolescent, but seems almost catatonically stupid, the sort of automaton who could walk through world war without blinking.  At least Tarantino’s  goons have a sense of humour, this guy hasn’t any claim on our attention   His girlfriend is a bit sympathetic and she introduces him to her parents who are weak and well meaning, still, visiting a couple of psychopaths  jacking up on heroin is not the smartest move she ever made.  The matriarch reminds me of the blonde matriarch in The Fighter, and of course she’s like Barbara Windsor being the mother of the Kray twins, a character familiar to the point of comedy  She is clever and manipulative but as far as competition goes she is like a pike in a pond of minnows.  She threatens effectively using police contacts but she can be as mindlessly sociopathic as the rest.  The one sympathetic character is the policeman Leekie.  He talks about the shortness of bugs’ lives in a much longer lived forest, and this ponderous metaphor is presumably meant to justify the film’s title.  He tries to win Josh round to the better part of himself, which for me was invisible at the start of the film, his  sympathy seems lost on Josh.  We know Leekie is solid and decent because he is a family man, cinema’s ultimate badge of approval.  We know he’s got the soul of a social worker.  He’s probably as baffled as the rest of us as to know how criminals can enjoy  their egregious ways of earning a living.

For seventy or eighty years we’ve had the often unedifying spectacle of cinema’s loving fascination with dangerous criminals, it’s vicarious thrills and erotic voyeurism can’t explain the whole of it.  A much better job was done by Sydney Lumet’s Before the Devil knows You’re Dead, which expertly shared the awful claustrophobia of a criminal life.  It shared how people get into a horrifying situation, so there is a human tragedy behind the crime, while Animal Kingdom wallows in crime as such and doesn’t bother to enquire into the circumstances that made people criminals.  This overrated tosh comes  nowhere near Lumet’s film.  People didn’t have small mobile phones in the 1980’s, did they?  They did in this film.


Posted by on April 6, 2011 in At the cinema, Film Reviews


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

3 responses to “Animal Kingdom

  1. Carol Cooke

    April 12, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    Hello JKinsley

    I haven’t seen Animal Kingdom, but was interested in reading a review. I wonder what you mean by ” For seventy or eighty years we’ve had the often unedifying spectacle of cinema’s loving fascination with dangerous criminals, it’s vicarious thrills and erotic voyeurism can’t explain the whole of it” . I could get the gist of the rest of your review, and will watch the film with interest when it’s about on DVD or whatever, but wondered if you could explain the sentence a bit more. I think the vicarious thrills do explain a good deal of it – after all, cinema is escapism in a number of ways, one of them being a horrible fascination with horrible people. Thankfully most of us don’t know people like this. Not all viewers want to watch horrible people, not all viewers want to watch subtitled arthouse, Disney, Science Fiction, biopics etc. Are you aiming your reviews at a righteous middle class? or further… I dont’ get the erotic voyeurism, that seems more of a personal comment to me. Minor point – grammatically that sentence needs to be sorted.

    Will read further reviews with interest, and hopefully find one that I have seen.

  2. cathryn

    January 26, 2013 at 6:57 pm

    This was on telly over the festive period and we recorded it, eventually getting round to watching it last night. I wasn’t expecting much having read your review, but I thought it was pretty good. My only disappointment was that J didn’t deal his grandmother her comeuppance too! Pope was a seriously well played psychotic individual – you feared for everyone in every scene he featured in. I disagree with your assessment of J, he had learned to be detached (presumably from his experience of living with a mother who was a heroin user), and was well trained in hiding his emotions (the only time he let the mask slip was when sitting in the bathroom after he realised his girlfriend was dead). He was clearly intelligent enough to play the police and the family at their own game – I don’t see why he needs to be a comedian too to gain our sympathy – his age and wretched life circumstances to date should have been enough to secure that.

  3. cathryn

    January 28, 2013 at 9:36 am

    Forgot to add – your quip about the mibile phone at the end – throughout the film there was nothing to suggest it was set in the eighties, I saw it as being contemporary. I think the Melbourne suburban setting is reminiscent of eighties Neighbours’ sets, but this is still what these areas look like today.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: