OMG, that part of the killing of kangaroos is...

Looked real? It *was* real, the director used footage of an actual kangaroo cull. I doubt any moviemaker would get away with it these days.

Well good...I guess because it does make me feel horrible. I'm watching the movie now and that part is killing me. I don't like it whatsoever.

Life ain't easy when you're a Froot Loop in a world full of Cheerios.

Kangaroos were the main protein diet of Aboriginal Australians before white settlement.

Aboriginal Australians now mostly eat beef, lamb, pork and chicken. Kangaroos are culled because their population often becomes excessive.

I realize I'm joining a conversation that took place months ago, but I just watched this film for the first time tonight. The kangaroo 'hunt' scene was extremely upsetting since it was real. I wondered about some of the same things you did, Gatzos. I do believe the kangaroos who were bloody and appeared wounded were actually injured in the hunt--not sprayed with blood and encouraged to run around, and sadly not killed quickly/cleanly--since the director provided the written statement at the end of the film that the kangaroo killing was filmed and included "uncut". Obviously that was the most upsetting to me, since clearly many of the animals were badly injured and still running around, terrified, disoriented, and in pain. The poor kangaroo who was chased and killed by the dog was already severely injured before the dog even started chasing it--it looked like someone had tried to cut off its tail and it escaped...only to be ripped to shreds by the greyhound. I was also disturbed by the way the poor animals just stood there looking mildly curious while they were shot repeatedly. That's why spotlighting animals is illegal in the US--it gives the poor animals no chance at all!

The part that I was questioning, however, was the two times that one of the actors approached an injured kangaroo on foot and "wrestled" it and then killed it by hand. If it was truly the actor (and not a hunter standing in for the actor) then I assume it means that the kangaroos were not killed by hand, because as I understood it, all the killing was done by the "licensed professional hunters" themselves, not by the actors. However, I also read somewhere that a real kangaroo was killed by (really) having its throat cut in this film. So what does that mean? Did one of the actors actually kill the kangaroo? (I have a hard time believing that) Did one of the hunters stand in for the actor and do the killing on film? (If so, that would make me question the statement that appeared on one of the versions of this film that "no kangaroos were killed for the purposes of this movie"...which, incidentally, was NOT included on the version of the film that I watched tonight on Hulu) Or did one of the hunters cut its throat first and then the actor filmed the scene with a dying kangaroo? I have a hard time deciding which scenario I would prefer.

Also, as silly as it sounds to say this after I watched dozens of kangaroos shot and killed brutally in this movie, but it disturbed me to see the two men wrestle the kangaroos at all. The kangaroos looked disoriented, injured, and frightened, and they were obviously fighting for their lives. And if the blood was real, that was even worse.

I feel sad and just a little sick after watching this movie. It was powerful.

The throat cutting could have been faked. It is dark, you don't really see the blade cut, and there is just a red line left on the throat.

However, there is no explanation for the car hitting the kangaroo. Is it the hunters driving the car, doubling for the actors? If so, then you can at least see the real actors and the kangaroo in one shot during the chase. So they at least terrified the poor animal, even if they didn't do the actual kill. It is pretty much beyond doubt that this one kangaroo died for the film.