Critics have to endure so many painfully mediocre films that when they see something fresh and original, they can't deny the high. I don't blame them.

100% on RT is insanely highand Doc gave him benzies

No but if someone is unable to appreciate a film that objectively does a fantastic job of representing parts of Australian culture so prominent in reality, yet otherwise absent from the nation's filmography, they are automatically by definition, insipid.

So automatically someone who doesn't like this movie must be interested in insipid dreck? What a foolish statement on your part.
arahman

Maybe you should stick to benign mush such as "Selma" or "Imitation Game"

I agree. Just watched this for the first time after seeing so much praise for it and I didn't think it was particularly good.

I am much more curious about what Pill the critics took that watched this dreck and gave it glowing reviews.

The book says benzedrine and in the film he acts like he has taken benzedrine, which is a form of speed/amphetamine.

Methadone was commonly prescribed as a tonic in the 1960s in Australia.

I was thinking it was something benign - not LSD for sure. I don't think the plot hinged on it at all. Doc said "there's nothing in it that's going to hurt you". Not that you can take a statement like that all too seriously. He also said something like "it will give you a little buzz too".
I took it to be a mild pain killer with an opiate - today's equivalent of Tylenol + codeine or something of that nature.

I was thinking it was speed of some kind
www.soundcloud.com/professorwobbleswerth

In the novel, Doc tells Grant the pill contains benzedrine.

That's an interesting point (technically the film was made in early 1970 so even closer to LSD land). Next time I watch the film I'll look out for this - it is a film that gives so much back each time you view it.

http://www.thewonderfulworldofgarybond.com/