A Scottish woman who attends school in Paris comes home for the summer and helps take in the straw, where she meets an attractive and simple man. They begin a torrid affair despite the ... See full summary »
An eccentric marketing guru visits a Coca-Cola subsidiary in Australia to try and increase market penetration. He finds zero penetration in a valley owned by an old man who makes his own ... See full summary »
Reporter Judith Wilkes leaves her husband and two sons in Sydney and goes to Malaysia to cover the story of the Vietnamese boat people. She becomes romantically involved with Kanan, and ... See full summary »
After the bankruptcy of their father's stonemasonry firm, Nicola and Andrea emigrate to America to restore their fortunes. After many adventures and near-disasters, they end up in Hollywood... See full summary »
Joaquim de Almeida,
A millionaire past his prime and his young wife arrive in Kenya circa 1940 to find that the other affluent British expatriates are living large as the homefront gears up for war. They are ... See full summary »
On his motorcycle Stein, a half-blood Indian, tries to stay out of the hands of the police, who are chasing him for accidentally killing a cop. Together with his friend Alan and a beautiful... See full summary »
I expect the story behind this movie is something like: screenwriter (or director, or producer) reads Alan Moorehead's book "Cooper's Creek" and thinks "that'll make a great movie. But I will have to make a few (minor) changes to make it screen worthy". And so we get something that looks like a film student's very literal translation of book to screen, but "improved".
We have pretty much all the major incidents of Moorehead's book, but we have a vastly overplayed love interest (presumably because someone felt a female presence was necessary). We have someone's attempt to be "arty" with occasional flashbacks and other fractured story- telling, the sort of thing that might have been novel when Theodore Sturgeon employed it (for much the same reasons) in "The Man who Lost the Sea" in 1959 --- but 1959 was a long time ago and the technique has overstayed its welcome. And we have a desperate attempt to add a villain to the mix: whatever Moorehead ascribed to misunderstanding, the movie ascribes to incompetence. what Moorehead ascribes to incompetence the movie ascribes to malice.
So, is it worth watching? IMHO it's worth giving it a few minutes (with lots of fast forwarding) to get a feel for the terrain --- what it actually looks and feels like. But it's not worth more time than that unless you're interested in some particular deconstruction of the movie, like how it handled particular events.
Could it have been better? I don't know. The changes made were formulaic, but without them the movie would still have been somewhat plodding. I think the basic concept, trying to tell the story as a literal movies, was flawed from the start. A better alternative would have been a documentary, telling the same story but allowing for the background information which made the book rather more interesting than this movie. Another alternative would have been a much more grand scale re-imagining, for example an Australian road trip movie that covered the same route and continually referred to the original expedition, or the story of someone obsessed with the expedition and wanting to retrace the route.
0 of 1 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?