It's easy to pick on a movie that's based on a very good book because expectations are very high, and you have an idea in your head before you even see the movie. So I'm not going to make comparisons for the sake of it. Just one criticism that I cant see anyone who read the book will argue with, and that's the change of setting from Idaho to South Australia. The big problem here is that the American wilderness is never as "dead" as the Australian wilderness. In fact just look at the title of 'Deadheart' (another Bryan Brown film by coincidence).
The impact of the change of setting is that the characters are so marooned and cut off. You never get that sense in the book, where the wilderness is their natural haven. That doesn't mean the actors aren't believable. They are and first time director Rachel Ward has done something special in relating the female experience. I felt every scene that worked, and the pacing is just right. I've read some ridiculous reviews that this is a film for women. Well it's not, it's about how women relate with their world in a universal way. That makes this a universal story and a movie worth seeing.
The impact of the change of setting is that the characters are so marooned and cut off. You never get that sense in the book, where the wilderness is their natural haven. That doesn't mean the actors aren't believable. They are and first time director Rachel Ward has done something special in relating the female experience. I felt every scene that worked, and the pacing is just right. I've read some ridiculous reviews that this is a film for women. Well it's not, it's about how women relate with their world in a universal way. That makes this a universal story and a movie worth seeing.