Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: I remember seeing this when it was released, in a theater in Palo Alto, and not expecting much. I mean -- an Australian movie? But it finally got to me. Here's a scene. Richard Chamberlain is sitting cross legged on the floor of a shabby apartment in Sidney, facing an Australian aborigine elder named Charlie.

Chamberlain: "You were outside my house last night. You frightened my wife. Who are you?" And Charlie at a deliberate pace replies, "Who are you? Who are you? Who are you? Who are you? Who are you?. . . . Are you a fish? Are you a snake? Are you a man? . . . . Who are you? Who are you? Who are you?" It's a stunning scene, shot all in close ups, with Chamberlain's blandly handsome face filling the screen in opposition to Charlie's black, broad-nosed, bearded visage.

The two guys couldn't be more different and this film is the story of how Chamberlain accidentally stumbles from his humdrum lawyerly existence into the inexplicable, almost unspeakable, mysteries of Charlie's world.

I don't think I'll go on much about the plot. It's kind of an apocalyptic tale. But I must say, whoever did the research on Australian aboriginal belief systems should get an A plus. They've got everything in here, from pointing the bone to the dream time, a kind of parallel universe in which dreams are real. It's an extremely spooky movie without any musical stings or splendiferous special effects. Charly's world simply begins to intrude into Chamberlain's dreams, for reasons never made entirely clear.

If there's a problem with the script, that's it. Nothing is ever made entirely clear. Does Chamberlain, who seems to have some extraordinary rapport with the aborigines, die in the last wave? Do the aborigines? Does the entirety of Sidney? The basic premise is a little hard to accept too, though granted that this is a fantasy. The aborigines are invested with the kind of spiritual power that Americans bestow on American Indians, whereas the fact is that mythology is mythology and while one may be more complex or satisfying -- more elegant and beautiful, if you like -- mythology is still an attempt to transcend an ordinary, demanding, and sometimes disappointing physical existence. The mysticism of Charlie is more convincing that the miracles of Moses in Cecil B. DeMille's "The Ten Commandments," but they're brothers under the skin.

But I don't care about that. Taken as a film, this one is pretty good, and it's especially important for marking the celebrity of the director, Peter Weir, and the Australian film industry. This was the first of a great wave of films from the antipodes, some of them raucous, like "Mad Max," and some subtle and dramatic, like "Lantana." I like Weir's stuff, which resembles Nicholas Roeg's in being pregnant with subliminal dread. Try "Picnic at Hanging Rock" for an example of how to make a truly chilling movie with not a drop of blood.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: Wow. I went to the video store tonight because I was in the mood for a bad B Horror movie and I found this Gem. I looked at the cover and I thought it looked like just the movie for my mood. I brought it home and put it on.

This movie was not the B Horror movie that I had in mind. This was MUCH worse. I wanted a bad movie but what I got, I didn't know that crap like this existed amongst man. This movie seemed like a 5 year old wrote and directed it and that is being nice about it.

I am an aspiring director and this movie made me so mad that someone out there is actually paying this guy to direct movies. He needs to work at a garbage dump shoveling crap where he belongs.

If you are thinking about renting this or buying it. I will tell you the same thing that I would tell someone getting ready to commit suicide. "DON'T DO IT, IT'S NOT WORTH IT!" I really have nothing nice to say about this movie. DON'T DO IT!

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer:
As much as I dislike saying 'me too' in response to other comments - it's completely true that the first 30 minutes of this film have nothing whatsoever to do with the endless dirge that comprises the following 90.

Having been banned somewhere doesn't make a film watchable. Just because it doesn't resemble a Hollywood product does not make it credible.

Worse yet, in addition to no discernible plot (other than there are lots of muddy places in Russia and many people, even very old women, drink lots of vodka) a number of visuals are so unnecessarily nauseating I'm in to my second package of Rolaids.

As for spoilers - well, the film is so devoid of any narrative thread I couldn't write one if I tried.

Don't waste your time or money, and don't confuse this with good Russian cinema.