Walkabout (1970)

The Spanish Inquistion had doubtless many bad points but perhaps they could be invited to stage an auto da fe or two in Martin Place to burn anyone left associated with the making of this truly dreadful movie. As an Australian I found this a cringemaking vehicle and I certainly do not remember such pathetic moviemaking in the '70s.

It is a British movie, recorded in Australia, with David Gullpill as a supporting actor, I would say. The main character seems to be the middle class, conventional, white, teenage girl. Overall a disappointment, despite spectacular backdrop of the Australian bush. Disjointed, displaced images appear to be a preferred style of the director/cinematographer. Also so many unanswered questions: why did they jump from location to location all the time, was it in the novel on which it was based? does not make much sense to me; jumping from South Australia to Northern Territory, etc? Why didn't they acknowledge the specific locations at the end of the movie? Why didn't they write the full name (surname) of the white boy in the credits (it was a son of the director). Not a heart warming story, there seem to be two suicides in the movie. I watched the extra features including the commentary from the main actress and the director, lots of rambling. No, I do not recommend it.

An Australian film made in the 70's, Walkabout is a film so important not only in gaining an insight into the Australian psyche from that era, but similarly an Australian film that has depth, meaning, honesty, and an emotional reality that is in such slippage with current Australian film making practice. The film portrays a sense of the incredible layers of potential stories that are waiting to be unveiled in this wonderful land, stories that forge a strength of culture clash that still exists even though we like to pretend it doesn't. David Gullpill is a gorgeous young Aboriginal man, and the wonderful exchanges that go on between the three young wanderers is a positive, open hearted look into Australia's capacity to be a country that acknowledges its own huge history and the immense energy of spirit and life that is special to Australia.

A truly mesmerising, beautiful, critically astute film. It subtly sets out the limits of connection across race, time, land and culture, even as it incants the landscape into a cosmic echo sounder of the heart.

This is an unexpectedly sophisticated film. I shouldn’t be surprised having seen Nicolas Roeg’s Don’t Look Now a few years ago, itself a complex, multi-layered film that lends itself to multiple interpretations. (Odd that he has not done much since The Man Who Fell To Earth in 1976?) Walkabout could be enjoyed simply as a rather strange little adventure tale about two hopelessly English kids lost in the Australian outback who are rescued by a bush savvy Aborigine, but to really get the most out of it takes a little thought and analyses. At another level it could be meant to contrast the aboriginal culture against modern Western culture, but that also is an oversimplification. What it really seems to be getting at is the difficulty that we all face of communicating beyond the boundaries created by our culture and mores. All of the characters are somehow lost because of this inability to communicate, in some cases fatally so. The vastness of the desert serves as metaphor for the great chasms between us. There are a number of point blank shots of brick walls and cliff faces that reinforce this message, for those who may have missed it otherwise. The conclusion is bleak, but the move is very effective and will have you thinking for a long time after. As a Sydney resident since the 1990’s I was particularly interested in the shots of the city from the early seventies.

To an Australian watching this film is to see cliche heaped upon cliche in a story that makes little sense. Added to which the director is trying to make very pretentious comments about white civilisation as it interacts with the outback. This film is the later (1996) director's cut where he has added about five minutes - unfortunately for the worse. The film is very dated and obviously made for foreign audiences. It is amazing (and annoying) to hear the both young people speak with very English accents.

David Gulpilil's is brilliant in this film. It's a film of its time and weighs heavily in its English aesthetic - a sad reflection of where we were in the early 70s but important in that it is a sharing of culture.

it was worth watching for the beautiful australian outback scenery. Otherwise it was boring was waiting for some sort of storyline and it never seem to come and the aboriginal boy killing the animals for them to eat was a bit gory. The storyline was very hard to follow

the title threw me,,,,I had seen this before....but it was still a good flick....although a few parts were hard to follow at the end

Overall an okay movie, but nothing to rave about. I actually found it a little odd at the end. It didn't really finish the story off properly.

The movie opens with John Mellion playing a homicidal father (!!??) who drives his 2 children from Sydney to the desert for a picnic. In an old VW. Noeline Brown appears later as an object of lust. These are only two of the ridiculous events in this movie. Granted, the photography is spectacular, but a good film is about more than just showing pretty images. The number of pointless diversions are many, such as feral water buffalo being shot and gutted. Why show this? The director takes the theme of the harsh cost of survival in the desert, and hammers it relentlessly. A good one for backpackers or tourists, because of the scenery,but not to be taken seriously by anyone.