Van Diemen's Land (2009)

Touches You

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

The actual events of what happened after Alexander Pearce's first escape from the prison colony in Tasmania, according to Pearce himself, are shown in this movie. It's probably somewhat too slow-moving for some young viewers, but I was impressed by how realistic it is. The characters are believable. The direction is meticulous. The acting is excellent, in many situations an actor's expression reveals feelings of uncertainty, confusion, guilt, fear, horror or misery. The cinematography showing the Tasmanian wilderness is visually splendid.Do not expect a typical slasher/horror film, this movie is much more intelligently written and directed. The film's intention is to tell a story, rather than to frighten.

Mmmm.... I recently purchased this movie from a Sunday markets stall and thought "well that looks interesting, it seems to have received all these awards and prices". Winner this... Winner that... Unfortunately the movie didn't do it for me, or for my partner. It's slow, extremely predictable, uses horrible music, shows subtitles that are so incredible small on the screen that they're impossible to read, but most of all this movie didn't learn anything from Tom Hanks' "Cast Away" movie. If people are without food for a prolonged time they actually loose weight, and the characters as portrayed in Van Diemen's Land, although made to look somewhat dirty, seemed as healthy as anyone can be! So no, the movie didn't feel realistic enough to me, the actors should have lost 20-40 kilos each to make it feel believable. The good part of this movie were the various panoramic shots taken, but even those could have been more dramatic. So, I recommend passing this movie unless you like watching people bashing in each other's brains for no particular reason whatsoever. No prices from me whatsoever, and I'm glad seeing the rating at a level where handing out prices seems based on knowing the right people (friends politics), rather than really understanding cinematographic art.

I've been wanting to watch this for a few years and finally got around to it last night (on Stan). I didn't know much about the story apart from the setting and that there was some cannibalism involved.Contrary to what IMDb says about "Australia's most notorious convict", I have lived in Australia for 20 years and had never heard of the main protagonist. That was just as well since I didn't know how the story was going unfold. That I had never seen any of the actors before also contributed to the realism.While there are plenty of films about the dark ages of Europe and the pioneering days of North America, there are not enough films about the Australia's murky past. It's generally well-known that Irish lads might be sent here for petty crimes, but it's not well understood nowadays - when Australia is one of the most desirable places to live in the world - how inhospitable it was when white men first arrived. That the film depicts this was, in itself, sufficient reason for me to watch it in its entirety. (There are plenty more thoughtful stories that could be told about this era.)I enjoyed the slow burning pace of the plot, and the fact that it was based on a real story, but what impressed me the most was the cinematography. Scene after scene is beautifully framed and colo(u)red, and often depicts the insignificance of man in the vast wilderness. I'd watch it again just for the scenery.The acting and story itself were enthralling. I don't envy the cast for filming in such conditions! I only wish that I had had the opportunity to display subtitles for the English as well as the Gaelic as some of the phraseology and accents were hard to catch.There was a scene in the second half where the picture quality deteriorated for a minute or two but that may have been down to a bottleneck in the bandwidth.I was in two minds as the credits rolled about the beginning and end of the film. It would have been more "Hollywood" to set up the characters a bit early on so that we could understand their motivations. Similarly, it would have been very "Hollywood" to show how the main protagonist ultimately came out of the wilderness and made his tale public. Having slept on it - short of creating a film twice as long - I'm glad at the choices made by the director. The focus is purely on the survival story. We can only wonder grimly how we too might act in similar straits.It's a film that shows a rare side of humanity, an unexplored piece of history and features some excellent music, cinematography, acting and an intelligent, believable script. I suspect it didn't make much money at the box office, which is a shame. This is a movie for grown ups. More please.

I really liked this movie. The story builds slowly with layer upon layer of dread, I really felt uncomfortable. The subject matter is such that you are never going scream this movies praises from the rooftops. It is a difficult and uncomfortable story to tell, but nonetheless a story well worth telling, and in my opinion, well told.I thought the actors we well chosen and played their characters descent into madness with frightening realism.The director was clever enough to shy away from gratuitous gore, but still managed to tell a very convincing horror story.I am 40 years old, and watched this with my wife and the in laws who are both in their sixties.My wife and I both liked the movie, but the in-laws disliked it. perhaps this had a bit to do with their generation.I watched this movie with an open mind and I was entertained from start to finish, and had plenty to talk about during the after movie coffee.