Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

sol- Determined to have a career and not just be a housewife like so many women of her generation, a headstrong young lady in 1890s rural Australia rebuffs marriage proposals and ignores advice of how to act ladylike in this critically acclaimed drama starring Judy Davis. The film wears its pro-feminist heart on its sleeve, however, it impressively shies away from being angry about the situation for women at the time with Davis more often painted as a hopeless dreamer than a subjugated hero wanting to break free. One's mileage with the film is, however, likely to vary depending upon how one relates to the Davis character. There is certainly a lot to like in the almost childlike dreams she has for a career in the arts, but she more often comes across as confused and uncertain than ambitious and set on changing her fortunes. Several of her not-so-ladylike actions (sitting in trees where men can see up her skirt; pillow fighting) also come across as more whimsical than rebellious and it is harder to cheer on someone just being themselves than someone with a set agenda and values that they are intent on adhering to. It is a minor quibble perhaps, and with accurate period sets and Oscar nominated costumes, the film certainly captures the flavour of rural Australia very well. Sam Neill also has a nice, understated performance as a man who Davis briefly has a romantic fling with and Wendy Hughes is solid as her spinster aunt who has trouble reigning her in, but relating to the main character seems to be key in appreciating what the film has to offer.

Sindre Kaspersen Australian screenwriter, producer and director Gillian Armstrong's feature film debut which was written by Australian author and screenwriter Eleanor Witcombe, is an adaptation of a novel from 1901 by Australian feminist and author Stella Maria Sarah Miles Franklin (1879-1954). It premiered In competition at the 32nd Cannes International Film Festival in 1979, was shot on locations in New South Wales, Australia and is an Australian production which was produced by Australian film producer Margaret Fink. It tells the story about Sybylla Melvyn, a young and aspiring writer who lives with her parents who are farmers and her four younger siblings on the outback in Possum Gully, Australia in 1897. Due to the drought, Sybylla's parents are struggling so much that they can't afford to have her living with them any longer and she is sent off to live with her wealthy grandmother Mrs. Bossier in Caddagat. Sybylla's life becomes better there, but she soon learns that she is expected to find a man and marry. Sybylla is not a believer in marriage and shows little interest for her grandmother's socialite friends, but one day she meets a revered landowner named Harry Beecham who courts her. Sybylla takes a liking to Harry, but she regards herself as unworthy of his affection and therefore does not believe that he will ever love her. Finely and acutely directed by Australian filmmaker Gillian Armstrong, this finely paced period piece which is narrated by the protagonist and from her point of view, draws a refined portrayal of an independent-minded woman who finds herself caught between the expectations of others and her own beliefs and aspirations after meeting a man who touches her heart and who can offer her the kind of life that she has grown up with, but that goes against the dreams she pursues. While notable for it's naturalistic and atmospheric rural milieu depictions, sterling production design by Australian-born Italian production designer Luciana Arrighi, cinematography by Australian cinematographer Donald McAlpine, costume design by Australian costume designer Anna Senior, use of colors and use of music, this character-driven, dialog-driven, somewhat biographical and serene story about a feminist's journey towards self-realization during the late 19th century, depicts a condensed study of character. This literary and charmingly romantic late 1970s Australian New Wave feature film is impelled and reinforced by it's cogent narrative structure, subtle character development and the compelling and memorable acting performances by Australian actress Judy Davis in her first leading role and New Zealand actor Sam Neill in one of his earliest lead roles. An eloquent, involving and mindful drama which gained, among other awards, six AFI Awards at the 21st Australian Film Institute Awards in 1979 and the BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role Judy Davis at the 34th British Academy Film Awards in 1981.

tedg Sometimes a life in film brings an experience like this. Its oddly tense in some dimensions and relaxed in others and the balance between the two seems distinctly Australian. I hadn't seen this when it was new, and I'm glad. Seeing a great film for the first time is a distinct pleasure.I can think of only two similar pleasures in life.Reviewers often focus on the story; its the common currency for discussion. The interesting fact behind the power of this movie is that the story is incoherent, poorly developed. There are a few main characters and none of them are attached to what are considered necessities for storytelling. They aren't introduced, we see them only through the effect of their presence. They don't develop. They influence nothing.The main character is presented as a sort of Jane Austen — both an Austen woman encouraged to marry, and Austen herself as a sort of author-in-her-own-book, like we saw in the 1999 film of Mansfield Park. But the odd thing is that we have Austen in Australia, the role and all the expectations without the baroque mechanics of society swirling around. Instead we get cows and sheep.And emptiness, a cinematic vastness that even the US hasn't yet produced, despite Terence Malick.So the incompleteness of the story is part of the genius of the thing. Our heroine doesn't have an Austenian future, instead becomes a backcountry Louisa May Alcott or George Sand. Indeed, Davis did go on to play Sand and Anderson went on to direct "Little Women." What our filmmaker has done is create a story where we subconsciously notice something is missing. And then she fills it with two things, this translucent actress and a similarly translucent open landscape.First the landscape. Watch the opening of this. Its genius, shooting from outside in, peering in through windows and doors while we see — literally — the story beginning to be written. Then we shoot from the inside through the same windows out and see a dust tempest beginning.This notion of space, inadequate enclosure, book and heroine conflated into them and weaving through them was copied after a fashion in the opening for the 2005 "Pride and Prejudice." Here, it is fresh, original, shocking. Effective, even life-affirming.You can see a similar master vision in how the ending is shaped. We see our woman, a best friend by this time, going to mail her book to us. She approaches the fence and her dog scurries under, unconstrained by fences. Its a small thing, but by then we've become aware of how wonderfully our hidden woman behind the camera has shaped everything so minutely. That dog moves under the gate naturally, using a gait and hole that can only have come through hundreds of such exits. I have no idea how Anderson did it.And now to Ms. Davis. Over time you pick things from the film vocabulary that you cleave to, things that naturally tip into the bucket of your soul. One of these for me is a certain type of folded acting I've noticed in Australian actresses. Blanchett, Winslet are the ones I follow deeply.But you can see it here and I imagine that this is the first appearance of the style in a competent film. In my own historiography, Judy Davis invented it and does so here. If you watch her manner, you can see Cate. The style is what I call folded, where we get both the character and a higher level communication from the actor about the character.We have a few folded actresses. What's even rarer is when the actress is intelligent and skilled enough to place that higher fold in the center of the filmmaker's intention. It happens here. Its beautiful, on a simpler level echoing the fact that we see a book, its making, and various considerations about the making of the book.Because it is this sort of translucent folding, we see Cate when we see Judy.You won't soon forget that.I'm putting this on my list of films you really must see. Readers may be shocked. I only allow myself two from any given years and this year gave us "Alien," "Apocalypse Now," "Manhattan," and "Tree of Wooden Clogs," all of which are bumped by this. But this will change you, a female Herzog, unHerzog.Now if I can only see "High Tide." Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 3: Every cineliterate person should experience this.

banshee-liam An overlooked masterpiece. Not only did Gillian Armstrong's direction serve the material superbly, but Judy Davis's Sybilla was one of the boldest film debuts I've ever seen. The gasps heard all over the theater when Sam Neill is first seen (from Sybilla's POV in the tree) also made an indelible impression.Perhaps most impressive is the screenplay, which greatly improves on what turned out to be a good novel so dated that it is all the more amazing that anyone ever thought to make it into a film. The musical score was also a delight.Most confusing to me is that it has taken so long for it to be released on home video. A major addition to any thinking film-goer's home library.