frankwiener 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.

Art Vandelay 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.

atlasmb In his directorial debut, Nicolas Roeg played with the arsenal of camera techniques at his disposal. And perhaps he learned some discretion from directing "Performance", a wildly uneven and irritating film of dubious value. In "Walkabout", his second directorial effort, he still experiments with jump cuts and unusual transitions, but they are slightly tempered.Adapted from a novel, "Walkabout" is worth seeing if only for its unusual narrative and its depiction of the Australian wilds. Jenny Agutter plays a schoolgirl who, because of extreme circumstances, becomes lost in the outback with her younger brother. As they traverse a landscapes foreign to them, they struggle to adapt and survive.Roeg juxtaposes images and sounds of the untamed world with those of civilization. He lets the viewer make his own conclusions about what each has to offer.Agutter plays her role nearly perfectly. Her younger brother is portrayed by the director's son, and his performance feels true, partly because his sister strives to shield him from the realities of their situation. This is a coming of age story, but it also speaks to the viewer about much larger themes regarding culture and self-fulfillment.Other films have explored some of these issues. Consider "Lord of the Flies", "Rabbit-Proof Fence", and "Koyaanisqatsi". But "Walkabout" feels so personal because of the characters' isolation. And its ending is unexpected, but very touching.

Phillim Despite flaws -- e.g. *very* sporadic and brief moments of didactic heavy-handedness -- this film wins a ten for pure originality and courage, sumptuous visual poetry, general respect for the audience's intelligence, and, perhaps most of all, for bringing the remarkable and thoroughly unique David Gulpilil to a career in film -- he's a revelation. His cultural icon status is well-deserved.I am about the same age as 'Walkabout''s main actors, and saw this film in the theater when it was released in the US in 1972, and saw it again last night (27 March 2017) on DVD. It made quite an impression on me as a kid -- reviewing it 45 years later I realized I remembered every shot save for the few and far-between clunky bits, which long ago my genius editor of a memory left on the cutting room floor of the mind. I do understand why some see the film as a stacked-deck screed re 'primitive indigenous beauty' vs. 'industrial white insanity'. Even were that part of the film-maker's original intent, what happens on the film (I say "on" the film as it is a story told in pictures) transcends any such reductive literal-mindedness. 'Walkabout' absorbed and transformed this humble viewer -- doing things only a film can do.The two-disc DVD I watched last night included excellent commentary by Nic. Roeg, and had a whole reel of extras including a fascinating documentary on Gulpilil as of 2002 I believe. The lean and tireless, elegant mature Gulpilil tells his story in his own words, with occasional commentary by experts on the social context of his career. Toward the conclusion one senses the real-time growing pressure on the subject caught between his traditional culture and the film business/'white-man' world -- his admitted substance and alcohol use, and bitterness at not accumulating the wealth of a 'Hollywood star'. Subsequently I read of his great troubles in recent years, and it is heartbreaking. I pray for him and his family, and trust his strength and giving spirit will prevail.