This message has been deleted.
-
Merrida — 17 years ago(October 28, 2008 11:28 PM)
I've never even seen this movie and only "know about it" by watching Coupling (the original Brittish version). Not having seen it I still would not diss it, on reference alone. But why on earth should it be defended at all costs?
Sic vis pacem para bellum.
-
allen-conway-1 — 16 years ago(August 11, 2009 12:31 PM)
This is a pretentious film by a pretentious director proclaiming that he has something to say. I don't think he has. As such I don't think there is anything to defend. Except, perhaps, for some nice camera work, some cute animals, and a cute girl. Just as well Roeg has disappeared without trace.
-
saxman418 — 9 years ago(January 07, 2017 06:59 PM)
"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! -
filmfancritic — 16 years ago(November 04, 2009 04:11 AM)
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:- Stalker (Tarkovsky)
- Zerkalo, aka Mirror (Tarkovsky)
- The Man who Fell to Earth (also Roeg)
- Picnic at Hanging Rock (Weir)
- Barry Lyndon (Kubrick)
-
King-Grim — 16 years ago(November 25, 2009 10:30 AM)
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 -
GuyOnTheLeft — 12 years ago(May 18, 2013 05:03 AM)
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 -
lazarillo — 12 years ago(November 27, 2013 06:17 PM)
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. . .? -
chaserslo — 12 years ago(September 25, 2013 04:18 PM)
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. -
Petronius Arbiter II — 12 years ago(October 07, 2013 08:58 PM)
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." -
chaserslo — 12 years ago(October 14, 2013 08:13 AM)
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? -
Petronius Arbiter II — 12 years ago(October 23, 2013 11:58 PM)
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." -
chaserslo — 12 years ago(October 24, 2013 08:27 AM)
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. -
GuyOnTheLeft — 12 years ago(November 27, 2013 11:23 PM)
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 -
Darvidd — 12 years ago(December 09, 2013 08:20 AM)
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.