I don't like movies whose "point" does not also translate into an entertaining film. I don't mean that it has to have a happy ending necessarily, but I should say "that was a good movie, and it really made me think." Not this one. The only reasons I'd give to watch this movie are if you want to see views of Australia, if you really like either of these actors, if you have absolutely nothing better to do, or if you like movies with a message that bludgeons you over the head.
I'm honestly surprised at all the praise for this film. It seems as if someone wanted to pay homage to beautiful scenes in Australia, but didn't spend a lot of thought or time on a story to stick in it. And they made a film in Australia, featuring two American actors? Anyway, I find it odd that man supposedly has so little time left that he won't take a starving boy two-days journey back to where he can get help, and yet they hike for days and days more, with hardly any rest or trouble? The child can't remember words or even his name, then suddenly he can speak normally, then he can't? Why didn't the old guy just come out and say, I'm dying kid, you've gotta learn a few things so you can survive when I'm not here? He was so awful, he almost let the kid be torn up by wild dogs. I understand the point that we're all in this alone and we have to fight and learn to survive and be responsible for ourselves. But I don't go for the mentality of "I suffered as a child, and so you should suffer, too." And the dialogue - one minute the old guy doesn't want to say anything, the next he's telling a big, long adult story about his life and it's obvious that this is for OUR benefit to let us in on his backstory, not something natural to the scene. The native animals are so obviously placed in the scenes, hopping by idyllically at the hot spring, or perching scenically on bushes in front of the camera. At times the cinematography seems very set up and forced.
Was this movie just some kind of rehash of lost child stories in Australia (but with an American twist), like the real-life 1960 story of Stephen Walls and the 1978 movie, Little Boy Lost? I am also left wondering - the aborigines must have been aware of this boy wandering around lost - I feel that they would have helped him in some way. They turn up later in the film, briefly, but only as a scare for the child and a vehicle for Holden to espouse some ritual.
In the end, I cannot recommend this movie unless you feel like you need to experience it for yourself. It is painful to watch (I'm not simply referring to the subject matter) and several parts just don't make sense.
I'm honestly surprised at all the praise for this film. It seems as if someone wanted to pay homage to beautiful scenes in Australia, but didn't spend a lot of thought or time on a story to stick in it. And they made a film in Australia, featuring two American actors? Anyway, I find it odd that man supposedly has so little time left that he won't take a starving boy two-days journey back to where he can get help, and yet they hike for days and days more, with hardly any rest or trouble? The child can't remember words or even his name, then suddenly he can speak normally, then he can't? Why didn't the old guy just come out and say, I'm dying kid, you've gotta learn a few things so you can survive when I'm not here? He was so awful, he almost let the kid be torn up by wild dogs. I understand the point that we're all in this alone and we have to fight and learn to survive and be responsible for ourselves. But I don't go for the mentality of "I suffered as a child, and so you should suffer, too." And the dialogue - one minute the old guy doesn't want to say anything, the next he's telling a big, long adult story about his life and it's obvious that this is for OUR benefit to let us in on his backstory, not something natural to the scene. The native animals are so obviously placed in the scenes, hopping by idyllically at the hot spring, or perching scenically on bushes in front of the camera. At times the cinematography seems very set up and forced.
Was this movie just some kind of rehash of lost child stories in Australia (but with an American twist), like the real-life 1960 story of Stephen Walls and the 1978 movie, Little Boy Lost? I am also left wondering - the aborigines must have been aware of this boy wandering around lost - I feel that they would have helped him in some way. They turn up later in the film, briefly, but only as a scare for the child and a vehicle for Holden to espouse some ritual.
In the end, I cannot recommend this movie unless you feel like you need to experience it for yourself. It is painful to watch (I'm not simply referring to the subject matter) and several parts just don't make sense.