Walkabout (1971)

Surprisingly incoherent and boring

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Although this film is often visually beautiful, it also depicts a very bleak world in which the thin mask of "civilization" fails to disguise our most fundamental roots in the raw, natural world that exists beyond the skyscrapers and modern conveniences of urban life. It is a world filled with devouring insects, menacing reptiles, foreboding skeletons, and, perhaps worst of all, the mental fragility of humans that can so easily create horrific outcomes.Aside from its broader, more universal theme, the film also reveals the stark contrast between the cities of Australia, where the overwhelming majority of people live, and the vast, enormous wilderness that covers most of that magnificent nation and continent.This is a very important film that has managed to overcome its undeniable 1970's cultural attributes. To me those aspects of the film's era are superficial in comparison to its profound message concerning our very existence as a species that happens to control this planet, a tiny speck within an endless universe that is far beyond our control.The names of the three main characters are never revealed, as if they have no personal identity as individuals. While their different races and ethnocultural backgrounds are essential on one level, the specific details of their individual lives are insignificant on another, higher level. They are human beings. Beyond that, they are just another species, granted a very influential species within its limited realm, in a universe that is much more powerful and that renders all of the particular aspects of their lives, including their names, meaningless.I am surprised that some other reviewers had problems with Jennie Agutter's nude scenes as they include no sexual activity whatsoever. In my view, the appearance of a beautiful young woman in her natural state is deliberately used to offset all of the ugly aspects of the world that exist around her and that threatened her physical loveliness from every direction. Even her own father, of all people, came very close to eliminating her forever. For me, her natural beauty serves as a triumph over the hideousness, even horror, that prevails around us and that threatens us every day. She is beautiful. The scenes are exhilarating as art. Regardless of how old her character is supposed to be, she looks like a fully grown woman to me.I don't know if animals were actually killed as a result of the production only because the standard US disclaimer from an American animal welfare organization does not appear among the final credits. If animals were killed only for the making of a movie, I would be very disappointed, especially since the killing would have been completely unnecessary.In spite of the sometimes disturbing nature of our world, the three young people at the center of the film do manage to achieve, under very difficult circumstances, an idyllic paradise, even if it is of very brief duration. As the film reminds its viewers again and again, our individual lives in the general scheme are a mere flash in time, whether we choose to accept this reality or not.The final quote from A.E. Housman's nostalgic poem "A Shropshire Lad" illuminates the situation best: "That is the land of lost content, I see it shining plain, the happy highways where I went, And cannot come again." Tragically, the central characters cannot return to those fleeting moments of heavenly bliss that they shared in the wilderness. In this imperfect world, we must seize perfection as it occurs because we may never live to experience it again.

There's probably a poignant film in the footage they shot. Maybe they were hitting the bong a little too hard in the editing room. Because the result is a choppy, disjointed, self-indulgent mess. But that's not why I'm reviewing this movie. Since the clowns who run this site eliminated the discussion boards I'll register here my amusement over the self-described geniuses, aesthetes and other self- important reviewers who were mortally offended by the nudity like it was some kind of kiddie p-rn crime. A marginally interesting film to see once. Too shallow to be memorable.

This is one of the most beautiful films I've seen. The colors are so vivid and the shots of Australian wildlife so fascinatingly cruel, you almost want to be out there in the desert, without food or water, just to experience this beauty in person. It's edited like a music video, with long shots and lots of jump cuts in between. Those who like dialogues and acting and drama would feel let down watching this, but to me, the cinema is first and foremost, a visual pleasure. If you want to go on a fantastic journey and spend some time in paradise, this is a film to watch. The pleasure is visceral.

A schoolgirl (Jenny Agutter), her little brother (Luc Roeg) and their father (John Meillon) from Sydney drive out into the Australian outback for a picnic. The father is disturbed and starts shooting at his kids. He sets the car on fire and kills himself. They walk off into the wilderness. With dwindling supplies, they find a watering hole and a fruit tree. When even that has gone, an Aboriginal boy (David Gulpilil) encounters them.This is visually arresting. It's about the life in the desert more than any rolling sand dunes. The story is about Jenny Agutter's character. This is her walkabout. It's her coming of age with her sexuality. It's also her protective instincts with her brother. The movie starts with her protecting her brother from her father and her father's death. It also lays out the differing cultures. The intercutting between various sequences delivers its powerful message. It's a truly memorable movie.