Not Worthy of Its Subject?
I would have to read Robyn Davidson's memoir but did this movie sharing its title do it and her justice? I don't know. The movie felt Hollywoodized. In voice over, Robyn repeatedly says she likes to be alone--one of the reasons she took on the trek--but for the first half of the movie, she is not alone. The photographer National Geographic sends, Rick Smolan, is almost always with her. She finds him annoying; so do we. Then they sleep together and I thought the movie had turned into a Hollywood version of this unique story, where the two would fight before becoming a couple at the end. To be fair, Davidson's Wikipedia entry says she did have an "on-again, off-again" relationship with Smolan. Perhaps I was biased by the producers, the Weinsteins, who like to meddle and cut directors film to make them more commercial(see the fight over Snowpiercer). But, truly, this could have been a Disney film. We got many shots of irate camels. Then an Aboriginal Australian who is comic relief.
Making any film is difficult. Making an endurance film must be impossible. You have to convey the traveler's hard journey, get as close to making us feel it as she does. I did not feel Robyn's journey. I liked the scenes where she was alone and when she hallucinated, was burning up with heat, and was disoriented. Maybe I wanted more of that. But the first half of the picture, with her in constant company plus the Hollywoodization of the movie prevented me from feeling her experience.
But see the movie anyway for an introduction to this woman and for some wonderful breathtaking desert scenery.
Edit: John Curran is a New Yorker. During the film, I was thinking what Australian Peter Weir could do with the project. I haven't seen it, but he made a similar long walk movie starring Colin Farrell.