This message has been deleted.

Walkabout is a masterpiece, although not perfect, which is not a contradiction by any means. I had no hesitation whatsoever to give it a 10 and my only deception is that I could not exceed the maximum to make it stand out among the other films that are masterpieces in my personal list Kidding? Yes of course Seriously, this movie is absolutely extraordinary. There are so many values and qualities, many of them unique in the history of cinema, which make of Walkabout a journey almost comparable to that of the trio who are walking through a very strange and spoliated Garden of Eden, version "after sin".
So please no moronic arguments about the movie being "pretentious", or about pedantry, etc. There is really no place for such petty talk in a forum on a movie such as Walkabout.
I saw this movie for the first time two years ago only and it has been resonating in my head constantly since then. I just want to say that Walkabout is aimed at anybody who cares about Nature, first in its Thoreau-ic sense (now I'm the pedantic one, I suppose? I don't care !!), and secondly, in its Lucretian meaning (uberpedantic !!). I'm not necessarily implying that Nick Roeg deliberately or consciously devised his film as a kind of essay on Nature from such an academic perspective, absolutely not! However, I'm fairly convinced that the director put so much of his own love for the subject and the outback with its flora and fauna and aboriginal inhabitants, etc. that he edited the final product in a very profound manner and at the end of intense reflections about some metaphysic questions that presented themselves as the filming was proceeding: Roeg's own discovery of the outback, the very intense communion with nature that he certainly experienced despite all the strategic and logistic aspects of the filming , all the elements of an authentic trip in the sense that we were giving it in the early '70s are there forever digitalized for generations to come.
One has to keep in mind that the filming took several months and that according to Agutter (the girl), there was a feeling that they had all the time in the world to finish up this movie. So my opinion is that Walkabout is a rare or perhaps even unique example of a zen movie that saw the light of day and that was completed and released in a polished, formally magnificent work of art. How many zen movies have never been finished up and ended up as rolls and rolls of a potential film that had too many pitfalls, too many problems that could never be fixed without stopping the Earth from turning, etc. In a word, well never know the epic or the superb documentary or the original story that some more or less well known director had in mind or in stock but failed to complete because any one of these movies had been conceived first and foremost as an intensely personal experience and for that reason, needed to be created at a rhythm and using an approach that were inherently incompatible with the economics of movie making.
Therefore, for anybody who has not yet watched this ruby among the rubies, try to portrait the result of what a filmmaker totally dedicated to his art, with a unique vision and with an endlessly inspiring subject matter (a book replete with a spiritual love for the Australian natural beauties and the continents inhabitants, and that gave Roeg the founding idea of an initiatory journey of the mind and body, a drug-free Castaneda of the antipodes) Start with the idea of a zen trip, and, yes, Ill say it, why not? a Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance for the purity and innocence of both youth in its concrete meaning and of Earth as it was before mankind slowly but surely spoliated its riches, emptied it from life (cf. the pervasive bone/skeleton/carcases/death imagery) and even from its mineral riches (cf. the abandoned mine that seems to serve no apparent purpose but takes several minutes of the story).
To manage achieving the realization of an infinitely beautiful movie that addresses so many profound questions without being neither too didactic nor arcane should command respect in itself. But a movie so inviting that as a spectator, one can actually embark in it as a sort of personal, intimate journey into and across the Garden of Eden and to experience what the trio of travellers experience themselves, is a real
tour de force
.
One of a kind. 11/10 at least.
P.S.: some of the imperfections:

• the scene of the fathers suicide does not work for me at all. At the very least, Roeg should have added a brief something (at the expense perhaps of a few non-essential shots, especially at the abandoned farm towards the end) to properly introduce the father as a real character and his troubled state of mind. I have no idea why the director made us use so much guesswork at this point for such an important plot point but I view it as a real weakness.
• about the length of the movie: a common complaint for this one. For me, a movies length is not an issue. Take La Maman et la

And I strongly advise dropping the word "pretentious" from your vocabulary, at least when applied to reviews of movies, music, art, etc. It's utterly meaningless in this context: if "Walkabout" is "pretentious," then what, pray tell, is it pretending to be?
Please post this every time some wannabe iconoclast says it. I'm fed up with people who are simply incapable of looking beyond the superficial telling the rest of us we're pretentious because we get more out of it than they do. That's their problem. They need to take ownership of it.
I'm on the verge of making your quote my signature.
Bravo.

giggles and snickers
Wrong. But better usage of the word "pretentious" than those other guys.
"I don't deduce, I observe."

This message has been deleted.

You are being pedantic, and you have your facts wrong. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary gives the following example for the word:
"The houses in the neighborhood are large and pretentious."
Clearly one need not be a sentient being to be pretentious, or at least to be accused of same.
Oh, for crying out loud.
"Pedantic," that's another word you would do well to drop from your vocabulary about 99.9% of the time.
Especially if you're going to cite a
dictionary,
a work of descriptive linguistics, as some sort of final authority on what is essentially a question of
prescriptive
linguistics, i.e in this case, not "what does the word 'mean' as X number of people use it," but "what is
good
usage of the word?"
In other words, you have done the very kind of thing a not-very-accomplished
pedant
would do.
I find it sometimes borders on the hilarious how (usually younger and) rather glib writer-critics so often use the word "pretentious" to describe something that by its very nature
cannot
"pretend" to be something it is not.
When people use the word "pretentious" to describe a house, they're really using a shorthand expression to accuse the builder and/or owner of being pretentious. It's a very imprecise usage of the word in a situation where precision isn't especially important, so that could be seen as okay.
Serious film criticism, music criticism, etc. is another thing altogether. A higher degree of precision is called for than if one makes a relatively casual statement about houses in a neighborhood.
The leader of a rock band may be pretentious as all get-out, and many are. He may go around telling anybody who will listen that his latest album is the greatest piece of music ever created since Handel's "Messiah," or whatever.
But unless that very claim is somehow embodied in the album itself, unless it's something many people readily agree they
hear
when the album is played well then, calling the album itself "pretentious" just makes one sound like a bit of a bloody fool At best, like someone who hasn't put much thought into it.
Same goes for how one discusses movies. I know of no claims by Nicolas Roeg that "Walkabout" is the greatest thing since sliced bread. But even if he
had
boasted about this film's greatness, how could that possibly affect the quality of the film itself?
BTW, @ whom it may concern, the word "movie" is so often used as completely interchangeable with the word "film," without a value judgment implied toward the artistic quality of the movie/film being discussed, one would do well not to object to that interchangeability. Unless one doesn't mind being called "pedantic."
"I don't deduce, I observe."

Perhaps the biggest flaw the film has is the completely absurd lack of understanding of the geography/size of Australia as presented by the film makers-the deep interior of the continent (as the locale of the father's suicide is presented) cannot be reached in a short drive by a conventional road car, even the redoubtable VW Beetle.
Roeg certainly simplified things. I think the suggestion is that the film begins in Adelaide and by its conclusion appears somewhere up within the Northern Territory. A picnic drive in a VW will not get you into that sort of terrain from any Australian capital apart from arguably Darwin and that wasn't Darwin at the start of the film.
The geographical aspects aside I still think it's a great, somewhat over-cynical film, only spoilt in parts IMO, by an overly lush score.

I had to Google "Poms" and figured out that it means "British"right? I don't think Americans would make this mistake, as our lower 48 contiguous states are about the same size as Australia.
See a list of my favourite films here:
http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

Perhaps the biggest flaw the film has is the completely absurd lack of understanding of the geography/size of Australia as presented by the film makers-the deep interior of the continent (as the locale of the father's suicide is presented) cannot be reached in a short drive by a conventional road car, even the redoubtable VW Beetle. This is many hundreds of Kms inland. Then hundreds more to reach the northern tropical/ temperate zone where the film concludes-and if you found a sealed metalled road in 1970 you had to be very near civilization of a sort. As an Australian, all this perplexed me greatly when I first saw this film on TV in the mid 80s-it was obviously a Poms view of Australia being all of a hundred miles across from coast to coast
'What is an Oprah?'-Teal'c.

You are being pedantic, and you have your facts wrong. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary gives the following example for the word:
"The houses in the neighborhood are large and pretentious."
Clearly one need not be a sentient being to be pretentious, or at least to be accused of same.
See a list of my favourite films here:
http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

A person can pretend. How does a movie pretend?
Either it's more than a simple survival story, or it isn't. In either case, it can't "pretend" to be the other. What you see on the screen is what you get.
The movie itself isn't hovering around in the theater two rows behind you, quietly munching on its own popcorn and chuckling softly to itself as it watches you mistake it for something that it isn't. You can't outwit it by suddenly twisting around and shouting "Aha! There you are! You're the real movie!"
Aaaaaand that's why using the word "pretentious" to describe a movie always sounds jejune to those of us who've thought about it awhile.
I see where you're getting at. Well, English is not my mother tongue so I might be wrong here, but anyway When the director makes or tries to make something look more deep/important than in fact really is, I think I can call him pretentious. And since I am talking about the exact piece of his work here and not him in general, I think I'm allowed to call a film pretentious. I'm sure you could find more appropriate words to describe this, but in the end I think 90% of IMDB users will have no problem understanding my thoughts.
And I find it ironic how you're nitpicking my use of the word pretentious, when you have no problems calling a motion picture whose main purpose is not entertainment and commercial success a movie, instead of a film.

A
person
can pretend. How does a
movie
pretend?
Either it's more than a simple survival story, or it isn't. In either case, it can't "pretend" to be the other. What you see on the screen is what you get.
The movie itself isn't hovering around in the theater two rows behind you, quietly munching on its own popcorn and chuckling softly to itself as it watches you mistake it for something that it isn't. You can't outwit it by suddenly twisting around and shouting "Aha! There you are! You're the
real
movie!"
Aaaaaand that's why using the word "pretentious" to describe a movie always sounds jejune to those of us who've thought about it awhile.
I think Roeg tried too hard to add some artistic touch to it and in the end did not succeed.
I'm not sure what you mean. Tentatively, it sounds like you think he tried to use artsy touches to add one or more statements or paraphraseable observations.
From my experience of "Walkabout," I'd say he used artsy touches to add
ambiguity.
In that, he succeeded.
I can't say much about "The Man Who Fell to Earth." As a longtime New Mexico resident, I liked seeing odd things happen in familiar places, but as a movie watcher in general, I didn't find much to like about it. There actually was a narrative, I guess, but it was incoherent.
Like I said, I realize the films are different in many aspects, yet they share many themes and they both end up being in the adventure drama/survival genre.
One is closely based on a true story, the other is completely fictional. One character goes "into the wild" because he wants to; in "Walkabout," the girl and her brother are in the outback because they're stranded there by their father. If not "as different as night and day," they're at least as different as high noon and the cool of late evening just before dusk.
I've never seen Tarkovsky's "Stalker," so I have no idea if there's any basis for comparison with "Walkabout." I do very much like Tarkovsky, though.
"I don't deduce, I observe."

It pretends to be more than a simple survival story. I think Roeg tried too hard to add some artistic touch to it and in the end did not succeed. Then again the guy did the same thing in The Man Who Fell to Earth and we all know what kind of missed opportunity it turned out to be.
Comparing this film to "Into the Wild" is way too much of an apples-to-oranges proposition to make any sense.
Like I said, I realize the films are different in many aspects, yet they share many themes and they both end up being in the adventure drama/survival genre. And since I found one to be a very well executed film adaptation and the other one not so much, I thought I would compare them to some degree. But looking at how Walkabout is praised among film buffs, I assume comparison to Tarkovsky's Stalker would make more sense to you, wouldn't it?

Comparing this film to "Into the Wild" is way too much of an apples-to-oranges proposition to make any sense.
And I strongly advise dropping the word "pretentious" from your vocabulary, at least when applied to reviews of movies, music, art, etc. It's utterly meaningless in this context: if "Walkabout" is "pretentious," then what, pray tell, is it pretending to be?
"I don't deduce, I observe."

I completely agree with people saying it was pretentious. It sounded really interesting on paper and I'm pretty sure I would enjoy the novel more, but what I watched was an unconvincing and pretentious excuse for an adventure film. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy different, experimental films, but this was certainly not my cup of tea. I understand that symbolism is usually a huge part in this type of films, but so is the story, at least for me. And I just couldn't buy for one second that these two kids were stranded in the wilderness. It would make sense for the little boy to act the way he did, but for the girl? I don't think so. She just acted like nothing happened, although her father just committed a suicide out of nowhere, not really worrying about the food or at least showing signs of exhaustion. I'm sure the director told them to act this way and all, but in my opinion Jenny's performance wasn't any good anyway.
And don't even get me started on that suicide scene, which was a mess from start to finish. The father apparently loses it and starts shooting to scare the kids away (at least that is my explanation, otherwise he could've easily just killed them). After that he simply blows the car up (so the kids couldn't get away, just in case the girl knew how to drive) and kills himself. But what is the point of this? What kind of person would do something like that? I mean, is this perhaps explained in the novel (does this even happen in the book?), because it doesn't make any sense to me.
I am not saying the film is bad or unwatchable, I just think it doesn't deserve the praise it gets. I must admit it has some really beautiful shots of Australian wilderness, but that is about it as far as I'm concerned.
Call me stupid or anything, but I will take Into the Wild (even though I know it's a much different film in many aspects) over this any day.

That's interesting I think a lot of later Roeg movies were very overwrought. "The Man Who Fell to Earth", I liked, but it is a prime offender in that department. I think almost everything he does in this movie works.
As for who you need to "defend" this movie from, well, there seem to be a few people who feel great shame because Jenny Agutter swimming naked gives them a boner and they want to take it out on the movie (or the fact that's it's rated PG), but other than that. . .?

There are some visual and auditory choices that I found hamfisted and "on the nose". Quick zooms accompanied by blaring music, juxtaposition of the aboriginal boy killing the kangaroo with shots of an urban butcher. I much prefer The Man Who Fell to Earth.
For a more successful film of this type, I recommend Kurosawa's Dersu Uzala.
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

Defended against what? And why so militant?
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

Well said, filmfancritic. This movie is a true gem to be preserved.

There is absolutely nothing to dislike about this movie.
What about the genuine animal slaughter? It intrigues me that people attack Cannibal Holocaust for this, but disregard it (pretty much the same amount) in Walkabout on the basis that the former is an exploitation movie, while the latter is an art film
(for the record, being a carnivore, I'm not opposed to it in eiher film as in both the animals were eaten afterward)
Latest film seen:
Up
(2009) 10/10

don't forget Days of Heaven (Malick)

Yes it is beautiful on many levels
As a work of "art"
As a work of "humanity"
As a "meditation" on ones place within nature
And chiefly as a stark contrast beween the natural environment and the brutal urban landscape.
Other great meditative and beautiful works of art made in the 70's were:

1. Stalker (Tarkovsky)
2. Zerkalo, aka Mirror (Tarkovsky)
3. The Man who Fell to Earth (also Roeg)
4. Picnic at Hanging Rock (Weir)
5. Barry Lyndon (Kubrick)

It is a beautiful movie on many levels. True, its significance will be lost on some people, but that's why we have "Mall Cop."

"Just as well Roeg has disappeared without trace." What planet are you on? Nic Roeg is a highly acclaimed director and cinematographer. http://www.imdb.com/board/20001676/?ref_=nmawd_awd_nm
IMO his masterpiece is 'Don't Look Now'.
Blowin the changes!