Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

merklekranz "Frauds" is a well acted, weirdly entertaining sadistic fun house ride. Phil Collins, who quite frankly can quickly wear thin, uses that annoyance to full advantage while putting the squeeze on husband and wife Hugo Weaving and Josephine Byrnes. Insurance fraud leads to blackmail and a living nightmare in the form of insurance investigator, Collins. The most intriguing part of "Frauds" is most definitely Collins's neon lit fun house where he resides. That imaginative set piece drives this film. If only it had concluded in a more satisfying manner. The resolution is indeed the weakest part of an otherwise winning movie. - MERK

schofy I realise the first thing people who look at this movie will think 2 things. Australia and Phil Collins grumble, grumble, grumble...Well I watched this film in as best an objective observer as I could be. I like Phil Collins as a musician, I say like, I mean I really like, but however if I thought he was awful I would say so. Sure this film was not going to win an Oscar, But it's clever, Quirky and the humour is darkly rich. The 3 leads are excellent, All border line madness as their worlds collapse around them at various moments. I really enjoyed this film and also goes to show that not only do you not have to spent mega bucks on a good wacky thriller but keep your eyes peeled, The uk and USA don't have the rights anymore on making appealing movies. Rent it, Buy it, Watch it, It will make a good Saturday night :)

digifan3162001 When Roland Copping was a child, he rolled the dice with a stipulation that if its his number, his brother would have to ride on a river. If its his brother's, then he'll write it. A roll of the dice later, Copping's brother inadvertently did a header off a water fall and has been in a catatonic state ever since.As for Roland, he becomes a claims investigator and, sure enough, with every roll of the dice, he is a menace to those ranging from his neighbors and passer byes, to the very people he's investigating. And why is this? Simple... his numbers came up.Hitchcock always had a motive for his villains, Stephin King even wrote reasons why his insane creatures and villains did what they did, Roland Copping chooses to be a jerk because... of a roll of the dice. That's it. This somehow is to explain why he keeps harassing the main characters in this movie, despite the fact that he defraud them and disproved their false claim, he STILL went after them. He went as far as to take their BMW just so he could rig up a remote control to it to harm a passer by.Maybe I'm not getting something, and if I'm not somebody explain it to me, but this movie made no sense. I only give it a three because Collins surprised me with his acting chops (Haven't seen Buster yet) and can play a jerk very well. I just wish it made some sense.

bob the moo Beth comes home to find a burglar in her home. During a struggle she kills him and is later cleared of manslaughter. However insurance investigator Roland Copping begins to look into the case looking for fraud. He eventually finds a fraud by Beth's husband Jonathon and begins to blackmail the couple in a game where the stakes continually rise.This is an Australian comedy - oops! immediate turn off for me. And it stars Phil Collins - double oops. Whenever I see Phil Collins in a film my immediate assumption is that they couldn't get Bob Hoskins. This really needed to do something special to win me over. And for the first half it does - the robbery scenes are good and then Collins uncovering the fraud is very interesting. However the second half is all a bit daft - Collin's living in an unlikely toy-store house with a range of gadgets and Jonathon being drawn into a deadly game. It has it's moments but the second half is a bit silly.The cast are mixed. Collins is not a great actor and hams it up - however here the film so overdone that his style almost fits.....almost. His childhood is not well enough explored and instead we are treated to fancy sets and fantasy sequences that aren't set in any context. Byrnes is good as the harassed wife but Hugo Weaving is lost with a stretched role where he has to jump from gentle husband to being on the same level as Collins.Overall the first half is quite interesting - you don't totally know what's going on in every situation. However the second half is a bit silly and Collins loses any believability as a character. It's a little entertaining but the colourful child-like set takes away much of the dark mystery of the first half.