521 reviews
It starts in a choppy, aggressive, rather goofy style, and then removes its brittle shell to reveal something far more deep and emotional underneath. This extremely long (165 minutes) and astoundingly expensive ($130 million) film found few takers in 2008, but if you get past those early passages (which do contain a very misguided brief moment of kangaroo poaching), you end up with something that feels floridly rich, like a Golden Age Hollywood melodrama.
The episodic story finds Nicole Kidman as an English woman who comes to Australia in 1939 on reports that her estranged husband, who lives there, has been stepping out on her. She arrives to find out that he has been murdered, and that she now owns his ramshackle property much coveted by her husband's powerful killer. Needing someone to tend the property, she reluctantly turns to a man she can't stand (Hugh Jackman), and she also temporarily takes in a half-Aboriginal boy left with no guardian after his grandfather was falsely imprisoned.
Of course, as time passes, opposites attract and Kidman and Jackman, both widowed, fall for each other. But their happiness is not only threatened by the aforementioned villain but also because of the trevails of WWII.... If you are looking for something subtle, look elsewhere. But the film is visually stunning, rather endearing, and emotionally satisfying. I enjoyed it a lot more than some much more praised titles of the era.
The episodic story finds Nicole Kidman as an English woman who comes to Australia in 1939 on reports that her estranged husband, who lives there, has been stepping out on her. She arrives to find out that he has been murdered, and that she now owns his ramshackle property much coveted by her husband's powerful killer. Needing someone to tend the property, she reluctantly turns to a man she can't stand (Hugh Jackman), and she also temporarily takes in a half-Aboriginal boy left with no guardian after his grandfather was falsely imprisoned.
Of course, as time passes, opposites attract and Kidman and Jackman, both widowed, fall for each other. But their happiness is not only threatened by the aforementioned villain but also because of the trevails of WWII.... If you are looking for something subtle, look elsewhere. But the film is visually stunning, rather endearing, and emotionally satisfying. I enjoyed it a lot more than some much more praised titles of the era.
An entertaining romantic drama by Buz Luhrmann, old-Hollywood style.
The movie is set in the Northern Territory of Australia in the years previous to the involvement of Japan in the WW II, and tells the story of Sarah Ashley -an English lady who goes to Australia to try to get her husband back to England and ends becoming the head of their Australian cattle farm-, Drover -an independent free-spirited cattle and horse drover that works for her- and Nullah -a half-caste Aboriginal child who lives in the farm and struggles to live in a world in which he's alien to both blacks and whites.
This is one of those movies that you can say it is done as the movies of the golden era of Hollywood used to be - flashy wonderfully well-looking movie stars, great scenery and great studio settings, detailed recreation of the era's fashion, decoration, atmosphere, etc., , and a simple epic plot with a great love story. Australia has all of this, but also a little bit of corn, a thin plot, weak characters and flaws that are even more noticeable in a super-production like this.
The script is uneven and Manichean (with angels and demons) and mixes several movie genres (romantic comedy, romantic drama, war movie, western movie, and Aboriginal movie) with different degrees of success. The characters are descriptive and without emotional depth, and that affects the acting. However, I loved the depiction of the magic and wisdom of Aboriginal Australians, which is really well presented, with its magic beliefs and philosophical and environmental approach to the world. I think that part is truly genuine and real and reaches the viewer. I also loved that Lady Ashley's character is the one of a true modern woman, as she is a strong-willed free woman, a boss, the boss of her man, a woman who always leads, never submissive or afraid of being alone if she doesn't get what she wants. That's a post-modern woman, so rare to see in cinema nowadays.
The acting is unconvincing on the part of the leading actors. Hugh Jackman's performance is just OK in his role, while Nicole Kidman disappoints in the comic part of the movie, as she seems not to relax when she does so, but she warms up to her usual self when the story becomes more dramatic; she looks beautiful in this movie, like a 50s movie star, although those inflated siliconed lips were a distraction... Jackman and Kidman make a great couple, but their chemistry on camera was nothing memorable and you see yourself seeing two actors playing a couple, not a real couple on screen.
Most supporting actors are good in their roles, especially the Aboriginal ones, who really shine in this film. David Gulpilil is simply terrific, completely believable and inspired in his role of the Aboriginal Elder King George. Brandon Walters, despite his youth, offers a memorable performance, and his face really lights up the screen. Also great is the actor who plays Drove's Aboriginal pal, who also offers a solid performance. They are the ones who really give soul to the movie.
Despite what you might expect, the cinematography is poor. I was expecting the rare beauty of the Northern Territory to be captured by the always stylish and colorful Luhrmann. However, the part of the movie that happens during the dry season is completely opaque and colorless, ugly to watch, while the scenes happening during the rainy season are again limited in colors.To my disenchantment, many of the most colorful and beautiful scenes are digitally created or enhanced, while others seem to have been shot in big studios. Just the Mission island seems to convey that luxurious real feeling of the NT vegetation. Some of the most beautiful bits of the real land, the aerial vistas, look like if they had been taken for a documentary for National Geographic. Where is the emotional connection of the story with the land? In other words, the viewer doesn't go beyond what the eyes see. So, one wonders, why the movie was called Australia and why it was sold as a movie that captured the spirit of this country. To be honest, I thought that most scenes in the movie could have been shot anywhere in the world not in Australia.
The movie is a little too long. Most of the first half an hour could have been removed , condensed or presented in another way to give the non-Aboriginal characters more emotional background and depth. For example, we barely know why Neil Fletcher wants so badly Sarah's farm, and why he's so wicked in general but he loves a lovable sweet good- hearted woman. He is just an archetypal bad-guy, period.
Despite its flaws, I enjoyed the movie, especially the second hour and a half, and that heaven of a man that is Hugh Jackman. God Bless him and his holy body.
The movie is set in the Northern Territory of Australia in the years previous to the involvement of Japan in the WW II, and tells the story of Sarah Ashley -an English lady who goes to Australia to try to get her husband back to England and ends becoming the head of their Australian cattle farm-, Drover -an independent free-spirited cattle and horse drover that works for her- and Nullah -a half-caste Aboriginal child who lives in the farm and struggles to live in a world in which he's alien to both blacks and whites.
This is one of those movies that you can say it is done as the movies of the golden era of Hollywood used to be - flashy wonderfully well-looking movie stars, great scenery and great studio settings, detailed recreation of the era's fashion, decoration, atmosphere, etc., , and a simple epic plot with a great love story. Australia has all of this, but also a little bit of corn, a thin plot, weak characters and flaws that are even more noticeable in a super-production like this.
The script is uneven and Manichean (with angels and demons) and mixes several movie genres (romantic comedy, romantic drama, war movie, western movie, and Aboriginal movie) with different degrees of success. The characters are descriptive and without emotional depth, and that affects the acting. However, I loved the depiction of the magic and wisdom of Aboriginal Australians, which is really well presented, with its magic beliefs and philosophical and environmental approach to the world. I think that part is truly genuine and real and reaches the viewer. I also loved that Lady Ashley's character is the one of a true modern woman, as she is a strong-willed free woman, a boss, the boss of her man, a woman who always leads, never submissive or afraid of being alone if she doesn't get what she wants. That's a post-modern woman, so rare to see in cinema nowadays.
The acting is unconvincing on the part of the leading actors. Hugh Jackman's performance is just OK in his role, while Nicole Kidman disappoints in the comic part of the movie, as she seems not to relax when she does so, but she warms up to her usual self when the story becomes more dramatic; she looks beautiful in this movie, like a 50s movie star, although those inflated siliconed lips were a distraction... Jackman and Kidman make a great couple, but their chemistry on camera was nothing memorable and you see yourself seeing two actors playing a couple, not a real couple on screen.
Most supporting actors are good in their roles, especially the Aboriginal ones, who really shine in this film. David Gulpilil is simply terrific, completely believable and inspired in his role of the Aboriginal Elder King George. Brandon Walters, despite his youth, offers a memorable performance, and his face really lights up the screen. Also great is the actor who plays Drove's Aboriginal pal, who also offers a solid performance. They are the ones who really give soul to the movie.
Despite what you might expect, the cinematography is poor. I was expecting the rare beauty of the Northern Territory to be captured by the always stylish and colorful Luhrmann. However, the part of the movie that happens during the dry season is completely opaque and colorless, ugly to watch, while the scenes happening during the rainy season are again limited in colors.To my disenchantment, many of the most colorful and beautiful scenes are digitally created or enhanced, while others seem to have been shot in big studios. Just the Mission island seems to convey that luxurious real feeling of the NT vegetation. Some of the most beautiful bits of the real land, the aerial vistas, look like if they had been taken for a documentary for National Geographic. Where is the emotional connection of the story with the land? In other words, the viewer doesn't go beyond what the eyes see. So, one wonders, why the movie was called Australia and why it was sold as a movie that captured the spirit of this country. To be honest, I thought that most scenes in the movie could have been shot anywhere in the world not in Australia.
The movie is a little too long. Most of the first half an hour could have been removed , condensed or presented in another way to give the non-Aboriginal characters more emotional background and depth. For example, we barely know why Neil Fletcher wants so badly Sarah's farm, and why he's so wicked in general but he loves a lovable sweet good- hearted woman. He is just an archetypal bad-guy, period.
Despite its flaws, I enjoyed the movie, especially the second hour and a half, and that heaven of a man that is Hugh Jackman. God Bless him and his holy body.
- isabelle1955
- Dec 7, 2008
- Permalink
- Smells_Like_Cheese
- Mar 21, 2009
- Permalink
It seems just about right that Baz Luhrman waited seven years after "Moulin Rouge!" to bring us "Australia". Not because it is a better movie, but because it's very different and a lot more ambitious. Of course that this has a downside, and it's fair to say it as soon as possible: "Australia" is flawed and longer than it should be, and maybe (just maybe) one day it will be viewed as the dream come true of a man very much in love with cinema, and-let's not forget-with love.
We shouldn't forget that we're talking about Baz Luhrman, we should know what to expect sometimes. Therefore, if the beginning of this film disappoints you a bit, it's completely understandable. We meet a little boy named Nullah (the very promising Brandon Walters), who talks about races and unnamed countries, about a lady everyone calls Mrs. Boss and the road that got her to Australia and more specifically to a place called Faraway Downs in the company of a man they call the Drover.
Yes, it's all quite confusing, even more when Luhrman throws in a historical context that, I suspect, he doesn't really care much about. But everything is fine because we get to meet the stars of the show. Mrs. Boss is actually called Sarah and is played by Nicole Kidman with the same air and tone of voice she's been giving us the whole decade. Her job ends up being less risky than Hugh Jackman's, who plays this Drover as a successful combination of what he's been giving us since he came into the scene: the action hero, the tough guy, the romantic and sensitive lover and the sexy man who makes women scream.
Maybe I'm not being critical enough, but there's a scene in which the Drover appears dressed up in a suit, clean-shaven I promise you that every women in the theater exhaled. Does this mean something to you? To me, it means that Luhrman's dream is a reality. Three hours of film and not getting tired one minute? Not feeling disgust when listening to cheesy phrases and watching excessively dramatic moments? "Australia" is pure melodrama, and I compliment its director for making it look that way without any shame. The keys can be seen all along the ride: the repetition of clichéd phrases, the intense close-ups, the slow-motion parts of the characters, the epic proportions of David Hirschfelder's score, the establishment of a song that accompanies the characters through their endless journey and the use of narration in places it didn't need to be; the same with some images.
However, the movie is one wonderful image after another (cinematographer Mandy Walker, from Australia-the country-; best of luck with the Oscar nomination you deserve), and it wins the audience like few movies out there these days can, providing delightful entertainment; you may discuss if it does this fairly, or if it cheats and it manipulates. You may also discuss the ambiguous ending.
One more thing. As with any dream, there's a moment in which we wake up; and that moment for Luhrman has to do with believing his picture could get to the race of Best Picture contenders, like his fantastic "Moulin Rouge!". But as I said, this movie is very different from the latter one, and Luhrman is no James Cameron That one really had it the whole way.
We shouldn't forget that we're talking about Baz Luhrman, we should know what to expect sometimes. Therefore, if the beginning of this film disappoints you a bit, it's completely understandable. We meet a little boy named Nullah (the very promising Brandon Walters), who talks about races and unnamed countries, about a lady everyone calls Mrs. Boss and the road that got her to Australia and more specifically to a place called Faraway Downs in the company of a man they call the Drover.
Yes, it's all quite confusing, even more when Luhrman throws in a historical context that, I suspect, he doesn't really care much about. But everything is fine because we get to meet the stars of the show. Mrs. Boss is actually called Sarah and is played by Nicole Kidman with the same air and tone of voice she's been giving us the whole decade. Her job ends up being less risky than Hugh Jackman's, who plays this Drover as a successful combination of what he's been giving us since he came into the scene: the action hero, the tough guy, the romantic and sensitive lover and the sexy man who makes women scream.
Maybe I'm not being critical enough, but there's a scene in which the Drover appears dressed up in a suit, clean-shaven I promise you that every women in the theater exhaled. Does this mean something to you? To me, it means that Luhrman's dream is a reality. Three hours of film and not getting tired one minute? Not feeling disgust when listening to cheesy phrases and watching excessively dramatic moments? "Australia" is pure melodrama, and I compliment its director for making it look that way without any shame. The keys can be seen all along the ride: the repetition of clichéd phrases, the intense close-ups, the slow-motion parts of the characters, the epic proportions of David Hirschfelder's score, the establishment of a song that accompanies the characters through their endless journey and the use of narration in places it didn't need to be; the same with some images.
However, the movie is one wonderful image after another (cinematographer Mandy Walker, from Australia-the country-; best of luck with the Oscar nomination you deserve), and it wins the audience like few movies out there these days can, providing delightful entertainment; you may discuss if it does this fairly, or if it cheats and it manipulates. You may also discuss the ambiguous ending.
One more thing. As with any dream, there's a moment in which we wake up; and that moment for Luhrman has to do with believing his picture could get to the race of Best Picture contenders, like his fantastic "Moulin Rouge!". But as I said, this movie is very different from the latter one, and Luhrman is no James Cameron That one really had it the whole way.
- jpschapira
- Jan 12, 2009
- Permalink
The bad reviews for this film are a reflection of short attention spans and lack of perspective. This film is not only visually beautiful it's spiritually & emotionally intelligent. The history and aboriginal culture portrayed is unique to a lot of peoples knowledge. This film really covers so much from the culture in Australia at that time, world war 2, pop culture to the time, cattle herding, murder, and faith & love. It is a long film that demands attention like any of other masterpiece epic. The soundtrack pulls on your heartstrings. Nicole Kidman and Hugg Jackman deliver on the romance and emotions.
- atladymoriah
- Nov 2, 2022
- Permalink
Here is a film that works on multiple levels; thrilling action adventure, detailed period piece, moving romance, stirring war movie, and it also continues the resurrection of the western.
As a result, the sum of its vast parts make for a long running film (165 min), yet every minute is filled to the brim with captivating detail.
What Luhrmann does well with Australia is tap into the majestic allure of the outback, and amplifies it. This is no surprise, since he is a master at approaching his material with a fantastical bent, creating truly memorable and often surreal sequences, which Australia provides plenty.
Aboriginal culture and its relationship with nature, in particular, have fuelled Luhrmann's imaginative vision. The heart and soul of Australia lies within the mythology and customs of Australia's indigenous people, and their often tumultuous relationship with European settlers.
This is made flesh in the form of young Nullah, a mixed race Aboriginal boy on the run from the authorities, who want to forcibly remove him from his home, and place him in a "civilised" environment. He is played by Brandon Walters, who is impressive in his debut performance.
With Nullah playing narrator, the viewer is introduced to Lady Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman), an English aristocrat who inherits her late husband's cattle station, which is located in the Northern Australian city of Darwin. Caught in a rivalry with fellow beef exporter King Carney (Bryan Brown), Lady Ashley enlists the services of The Drover (Hugh Jackman) to herd 1500 head of cattle in order to fulfil a contract with the Australian Army.
Both Kidman and Jackman two exceptionally gifted actors who, with the help of Australia, have overcome recent rocky patches in their careers provide noteworthy performances and believable on screen chemistry.
Tall, pale, and thin, Kidman plays regal very well, courting an in full force stiff upper lip, that gives way to several funny moments, while trying to break out of her icy exterior. Of particular mention is her vain attempt to herd cattle; and a woeful rendition of "Somewhere over the Rainbow" to a clearly amused Walters.
Jackman, meanwhile, evokes Clint Eastwood, Harrison Ford, and Humphrey Bogart to fine effect as the no nonsense, hands on Drover, while also providing eye candy for female viewers.
Supporting roles are superbly fulfilled by top shelf Australian talent: Bryan Brown is effective yet given a disappointing limited amount of screen time; Jack Thompson seems to be gleefully enjoying his role as an alcoholic lawyer; and a scene stealing David Wenham is all evil smirks and nasty attitude as the films key villain.
Yet the most impressive character in Australia has to be its awe inspiring and vibrant landscape, which is captured magnificently by cinematographer Mandy Walker.
Unfortunately, the films use of artificial visual effects does clash with the natural beauty that the outback projects.
Australia is a film which clearly parades its influences on screen. References to The African Queen, Gone with the Wind, and Big Country are particularly notable.
Yet it is no mere carbon copy of the films from decades past. Rather, Australia is an enchanting throwback to an era of film-making which strived to entertain its audiences with dazzling spectacle and melodrama, coupled with a historical snapshot of circa early 1940s Darwin, and all of the beauty and ugliness that comes with it.
As a result, the sum of its vast parts make for a long running film (165 min), yet every minute is filled to the brim with captivating detail.
What Luhrmann does well with Australia is tap into the majestic allure of the outback, and amplifies it. This is no surprise, since he is a master at approaching his material with a fantastical bent, creating truly memorable and often surreal sequences, which Australia provides plenty.
Aboriginal culture and its relationship with nature, in particular, have fuelled Luhrmann's imaginative vision. The heart and soul of Australia lies within the mythology and customs of Australia's indigenous people, and their often tumultuous relationship with European settlers.
This is made flesh in the form of young Nullah, a mixed race Aboriginal boy on the run from the authorities, who want to forcibly remove him from his home, and place him in a "civilised" environment. He is played by Brandon Walters, who is impressive in his debut performance.
With Nullah playing narrator, the viewer is introduced to Lady Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman), an English aristocrat who inherits her late husband's cattle station, which is located in the Northern Australian city of Darwin. Caught in a rivalry with fellow beef exporter King Carney (Bryan Brown), Lady Ashley enlists the services of The Drover (Hugh Jackman) to herd 1500 head of cattle in order to fulfil a contract with the Australian Army.
Both Kidman and Jackman two exceptionally gifted actors who, with the help of Australia, have overcome recent rocky patches in their careers provide noteworthy performances and believable on screen chemistry.
Tall, pale, and thin, Kidman plays regal very well, courting an in full force stiff upper lip, that gives way to several funny moments, while trying to break out of her icy exterior. Of particular mention is her vain attempt to herd cattle; and a woeful rendition of "Somewhere over the Rainbow" to a clearly amused Walters.
Jackman, meanwhile, evokes Clint Eastwood, Harrison Ford, and Humphrey Bogart to fine effect as the no nonsense, hands on Drover, while also providing eye candy for female viewers.
Supporting roles are superbly fulfilled by top shelf Australian talent: Bryan Brown is effective yet given a disappointing limited amount of screen time; Jack Thompson seems to be gleefully enjoying his role as an alcoholic lawyer; and a scene stealing David Wenham is all evil smirks and nasty attitude as the films key villain.
Yet the most impressive character in Australia has to be its awe inspiring and vibrant landscape, which is captured magnificently by cinematographer Mandy Walker.
Unfortunately, the films use of artificial visual effects does clash with the natural beauty that the outback projects.
Australia is a film which clearly parades its influences on screen. References to The African Queen, Gone with the Wind, and Big Country are particularly notable.
Yet it is no mere carbon copy of the films from decades past. Rather, Australia is an enchanting throwback to an era of film-making which strived to entertain its audiences with dazzling spectacle and melodrama, coupled with a historical snapshot of circa early 1940s Darwin, and all of the beauty and ugliness that comes with it.
- MattsMovieReviews
- Nov 18, 2008
- Permalink
I watch Australia movie when it was first release. I have opportunity to watch again. Hollywood happy ending stereotypes in different subjects. This is not my favorite part.
But I liked the movies cinematography. Demostratively light blowing up. Always bright picture. It's nice when it's not mistake it's made for purpose. Tempetura in the place of life. Colorful and shining light on camera has done the comedy element. Although some of the images in which artificial're pretty terrible.
Mandy Walker has done a really nice job. We have to remember that director Baz Luhrmann. You can watch that movie without time consuming.
But I liked the movies cinematography. Demostratively light blowing up. Always bright picture. It's nice when it's not mistake it's made for purpose. Tempetura in the place of life. Colorful and shining light on camera has done the comedy element. Although some of the images in which artificial're pretty terrible.
Mandy Walker has done a really nice job. We have to remember that director Baz Luhrmann. You can watch that movie without time consuming.
This film struggled throughout its epic length to stay upright. Unfortunately at the end it stumbled and fell like a pile of bricks.
It tried to juggle so much but in the end, it all turned out to be too little. The film starts like a corny slapstick comedy, turns into a romantic fantasy, then into an outback adventure, then into a war movie, a heartfelt drama, a comment on the stolen generation, a comment on racism... etc, etc. It's just too much. Yes, it's supposed to be an epic, but things like this need to be handled with finesse. Unfortunately, it isn't in this case. The themes were too muddled, the script too stretched - it's a mess. The characters are cardboard cutouts, the acting is over the top and cheesy, the pacing is off, the bizarre use of Somewhere Over the Rainbow... It's just a broken film.
Being an Australian, I did hope that this movie would be alright, but it turned out to be almost 3 hours of wankery that disgracefully cost our taxpayers over $40m.
On a more positive note, on the whole it wasn't BORING, and it was aesthetically and aurally pleasing - even though it made use of countless, shameless green screen shots which were simply unnecessary.
There was ONE great scene in the film, and that's when Hugh Jackman and his Aboriginal friend enter the ruined pub. That was absolutely excellent. Too bad the rest of the film couldn't live up to that in the slightest.
It tried to juggle so much but in the end, it all turned out to be too little. The film starts like a corny slapstick comedy, turns into a romantic fantasy, then into an outback adventure, then into a war movie, a heartfelt drama, a comment on the stolen generation, a comment on racism... etc, etc. It's just too much. Yes, it's supposed to be an epic, but things like this need to be handled with finesse. Unfortunately, it isn't in this case. The themes were too muddled, the script too stretched - it's a mess. The characters are cardboard cutouts, the acting is over the top and cheesy, the pacing is off, the bizarre use of Somewhere Over the Rainbow... It's just a broken film.
Being an Australian, I did hope that this movie would be alright, but it turned out to be almost 3 hours of wankery that disgracefully cost our taxpayers over $40m.
On a more positive note, on the whole it wasn't BORING, and it was aesthetically and aurally pleasing - even though it made use of countless, shameless green screen shots which were simply unnecessary.
There was ONE great scene in the film, and that's when Hugh Jackman and his Aboriginal friend enter the ruined pub. That was absolutely excellent. Too bad the rest of the film couldn't live up to that in the slightest.
- NonSequiturL
- Jan 24, 2009
- Permalink
Baz creates another super enjoyable, visual spectacular! Although maybe not as good as "Romeo + Juliet" or "Moulin Rouge!" it certainly isn't much worse. "Australia" is a hugely enjoyable epic romantic adventure with plenty of exciting set pieces to keep you watching. I don't quite understand why nobody enjoys this? If Australia was made around the same time as "Gone With the Wind" I know that everybody would be drooling over it saying, "Oh it's the best film of all time!" Or whatever you call "Gone With the Wind" (I haven't seen it) because Baz has created a love-letter to those old epics and it's a welcome breath of fresh air to our screens.
At a hefty 3 hours long, I was expecting to find myself getting a bit bored along the way like parts in "Titanic" and even Peter Jackson's "King Kong" seemed to drag a wee bit at the start. However not once did I feel bored or restless during "Australia". This film isn't slow! It paces along beautifully, don't expect a high octane shoot-out because it's a romantic drama for God's sakes mammy! The screenplay (like all good epics) manages to make you laugh, manages to make you cry (no I didn't cry, but you might!) And it also manages to transport you on the journey with the characters. I found "Australia" absorbing and captivating.
The best part for me was the gorgeous cinematography. The whole film is magnificently shot, with some awe-inspiring scenery. Baz also shows off his incredible directing once again, one of the highlights being the exciting cattle herding across the desert. Baz injects that wonderful life into the film once again, as well as projecting a great story about a boy and his love for Nicole Kidman (no don't be silly!) And Hugh Jackman who sort of act as his surrogate parents. It's also about the love between Nicole And Hugh, although I think I would've liked to have seen better chemistry between them. It seemed like the hated each other at times when they were supposed to be madly in love! "Australia" also boasts a really evil villain! Almost on the same lines as Christoph Waltz in "Inglorious Basterds".
So with some great characters who we can care about, and also with some really exciting and beautifully shot scenes. "Australia" is another Baz masterpiece. It has all the ingredients for a superb epic romantic adventure. So why am I the only one who likes it?
At a hefty 3 hours long, I was expecting to find myself getting a bit bored along the way like parts in "Titanic" and even Peter Jackson's "King Kong" seemed to drag a wee bit at the start. However not once did I feel bored or restless during "Australia". This film isn't slow! It paces along beautifully, don't expect a high octane shoot-out because it's a romantic drama for God's sakes mammy! The screenplay (like all good epics) manages to make you laugh, manages to make you cry (no I didn't cry, but you might!) And it also manages to transport you on the journey with the characters. I found "Australia" absorbing and captivating.
The best part for me was the gorgeous cinematography. The whole film is magnificently shot, with some awe-inspiring scenery. Baz also shows off his incredible directing once again, one of the highlights being the exciting cattle herding across the desert. Baz injects that wonderful life into the film once again, as well as projecting a great story about a boy and his love for Nicole Kidman (no don't be silly!) And Hugh Jackman who sort of act as his surrogate parents. It's also about the love between Nicole And Hugh, although I think I would've liked to have seen better chemistry between them. It seemed like the hated each other at times when they were supposed to be madly in love! "Australia" also boasts a really evil villain! Almost on the same lines as Christoph Waltz in "Inglorious Basterds".
So with some great characters who we can care about, and also with some really exciting and beautifully shot scenes. "Australia" is another Baz masterpiece. It has all the ingredients for a superb epic romantic adventure. So why am I the only one who likes it?
- rayres0708
- Jul 15, 2020
- Permalink
- tomwalshco
- Apr 4, 2009
- Permalink
I have been looking forward to 'Australia' for a long time. Though the experience from 'Australia' isn't as magical as Baz Luhrmann's spectacular 'Moulin Rouge' nor is it as well executed (on the technical side), but I still found it very enjoyable. 'Australia' works on multiple levels. The film is a mixture of adventure, action, romance and detailed history (like in any larger than life epic movie). All of them are put well together in the film. Luhrmann's vast imagination and creativity is very evident in his portrayal of the aboriginal culture and how that's where the heart of Australia lies. To move the story further, Luhrman shows the conflict of the aboriginals with the Europeans and its chaotic result. The film introduces plenty of historical themes and serves as a thumbnail. Yet, Luhrmann does not shy away from experimenting with the magical side of his film. The main story itself is very formulaic but enjoy it like you would see a Hollywood blockbuster and roll along.
The Australian landscape is dazzling to look at. It's a country that has always fascinated me and arises my desire to go there and such movies only remind me of that feeling. Mandy Walker's cinematography is fantastic allowing landscape itself to serve as a key character (for obvious reasons). The lighting could have used some betterment, especially in the action scenes where they used blue screen filter (it was painfully obvious). I also felt that the CGI was overused and at times it does interfere with the natural beauty in the background. The soundtrack is awesome as its a mixture of spiritual beats and old classics.
At the centre of 'Australia' is an Aboriginal child of mixed race, Nullah, who is played by a likable Brandon Walters. Even though Walters doesn't exactly get it 'right' with scenes that demanded him to display complex emotions, he does very well with the comic scenes and does not go over the top by 'being cute'. A vivacious Nicole Kidman is absolutely marvelous as the strong-minded Sarah Ashley. She displays her knack for comedy, is superbly restrained in the emotional sequences and shares a wonderful chemistry with her co-stars. Hugh Jackman's Drover may have been inspired by Harrison Ford's Indiana Jones, Paul Hogan's Crocodile Dundee and the dozens of famous Clint Eastwood characters. Jackman pulls off the part quite naturally. He and Kidman are magic on screen. The supporting cast is commendable. I liked the actors who play the colourful characters at Ashley's ranch. Jack Thompson provides some brilliant comic relief. Bryan Brown has a strong presence in a limited role and David Wenham is menacing as the evil Fletcher.
Luhrmann's attempt to entertain and amuse the viewer seems genuine and the man has done a lot of research and enlightens the viewer of Australia history. Forget these 'Titanics' and 'Pearl Harbours'. 'Australia' reminds us of the time when people enjoyed grand movies such as 'Gone With The Wind' and 'The Wizard Of Oz'. Through the numerous references, this movie pays tribute to many of the classics that have made a place in the history of cinema. Yet, this enchanting movie stands on its own.
The Australian landscape is dazzling to look at. It's a country that has always fascinated me and arises my desire to go there and such movies only remind me of that feeling. Mandy Walker's cinematography is fantastic allowing landscape itself to serve as a key character (for obvious reasons). The lighting could have used some betterment, especially in the action scenes where they used blue screen filter (it was painfully obvious). I also felt that the CGI was overused and at times it does interfere with the natural beauty in the background. The soundtrack is awesome as its a mixture of spiritual beats and old classics.
At the centre of 'Australia' is an Aboriginal child of mixed race, Nullah, who is played by a likable Brandon Walters. Even though Walters doesn't exactly get it 'right' with scenes that demanded him to display complex emotions, he does very well with the comic scenes and does not go over the top by 'being cute'. A vivacious Nicole Kidman is absolutely marvelous as the strong-minded Sarah Ashley. She displays her knack for comedy, is superbly restrained in the emotional sequences and shares a wonderful chemistry with her co-stars. Hugh Jackman's Drover may have been inspired by Harrison Ford's Indiana Jones, Paul Hogan's Crocodile Dundee and the dozens of famous Clint Eastwood characters. Jackman pulls off the part quite naturally. He and Kidman are magic on screen. The supporting cast is commendable. I liked the actors who play the colourful characters at Ashley's ranch. Jack Thompson provides some brilliant comic relief. Bryan Brown has a strong presence in a limited role and David Wenham is menacing as the evil Fletcher.
Luhrmann's attempt to entertain and amuse the viewer seems genuine and the man has done a lot of research and enlightens the viewer of Australia history. Forget these 'Titanics' and 'Pearl Harbours'. 'Australia' reminds us of the time when people enjoyed grand movies such as 'Gone With The Wind' and 'The Wizard Of Oz'. Through the numerous references, this movie pays tribute to many of the classics that have made a place in the history of cinema. Yet, this enchanting movie stands on its own.
- Chrysanthepop
- Mar 8, 2009
- Permalink
Baz Luhrmann has done with Australia what David O. Selznick managed to do with DUEL IN THE SUN--he's created a sprawling epic of a canvas for a narrow storyline about a woman who needs a man to keep the villains from double-crossing her in a land deal. It's the kind of story every B-western had in the old days, usually with someone like Roy Rogers or Gene Autry playing the cowboy who helps a girl keep her ranch from the outlaws who want it. Here the tale has been expanded to include racial overtones (which DUEL also had) and some good cattle drive scenes that teeter into cliff hanging territory.
Of course, he's added bits of Australian history to the background of the story--such as the treatment of Aborigines whom the villain of the piece calls "creamies" and a World War II sequence of Japanese bombing an island off Australia and heading for Darwin. No expense has been spared to make these scenes look very realistic. For production values alone, it deserves a 7.
A sensitive looking boy named BRANDON WALTERS is effective as the boy Nullah whom Kidman comes to love as her own son. Unfortunately, the scenes between Kidman and Walters are clumsily handled by the actress who seems to be forcing herself on the characterization of a woman uncertain of herself when relating to children. Her "Over the Rainbow" moment seems unauthentic.
HUGH JACKMAN is great as the cowboy called Drover who is assigned to escort the British born Lady Ashley (NICOLE KIDMAN) on a cattle drive where she intends to get a handsome sum for her cattle. David WENHAM makes an excellent villain as the man who opposes Kidman and Jackman all through the story, getting his comeuppance as all good villains eventually do.
The sheer predictability of the tale is what hurts it most. We all know that Jackman and Kidman will be locking lips long before the fadeout and that Wenham will make a nasty exit. What we can't foresee is that the story will drift in all sorts of directions about racial inequalities and weird rituals with a bit of World War II bombings thrown in.
The casting of the leads hurts the story. Jackman is fine and has obviously buffed up for the role but Kidman is the wrong actress for the part, unable to summon the sort of temperamental display that someone like Kate Winslet was able to do with the role of Rose in TITANIC. A stronger actress would have been a better choice.
However, having said all this, there are plenty of gripping moments in Australia that make you wonder why the film isn't doing as well as it should at the box-office. For all of its faults, it's still more engrossing than many films that bring in larger crowds.
Of course, he's added bits of Australian history to the background of the story--such as the treatment of Aborigines whom the villain of the piece calls "creamies" and a World War II sequence of Japanese bombing an island off Australia and heading for Darwin. No expense has been spared to make these scenes look very realistic. For production values alone, it deserves a 7.
A sensitive looking boy named BRANDON WALTERS is effective as the boy Nullah whom Kidman comes to love as her own son. Unfortunately, the scenes between Kidman and Walters are clumsily handled by the actress who seems to be forcing herself on the characterization of a woman uncertain of herself when relating to children. Her "Over the Rainbow" moment seems unauthentic.
HUGH JACKMAN is great as the cowboy called Drover who is assigned to escort the British born Lady Ashley (NICOLE KIDMAN) on a cattle drive where she intends to get a handsome sum for her cattle. David WENHAM makes an excellent villain as the man who opposes Kidman and Jackman all through the story, getting his comeuppance as all good villains eventually do.
The sheer predictability of the tale is what hurts it most. We all know that Jackman and Kidman will be locking lips long before the fadeout and that Wenham will make a nasty exit. What we can't foresee is that the story will drift in all sorts of directions about racial inequalities and weird rituals with a bit of World War II bombings thrown in.
The casting of the leads hurts the story. Jackman is fine and has obviously buffed up for the role but Kidman is the wrong actress for the part, unable to summon the sort of temperamental display that someone like Kate Winslet was able to do with the role of Rose in TITANIC. A stronger actress would have been a better choice.
However, having said all this, there are plenty of gripping moments in Australia that make you wonder why the film isn't doing as well as it should at the box-office. For all of its faults, it's still more engrossing than many films that bring in larger crowds.
I suppose it was too much to expect this film to live up to its hype. I'm always suspicious when a movie is so heavily promoted, as it usually indicates a stinker. It wasn't a bad movie, just OK.
Nicole Kidman is awful - I've never like her as an actress and this film is not likely to change my mind. Her features are almost expressionless and her plumped upper lip immovable. Her character is full of contradictions and the film makes her look like an awkward giraffe.
Hugh Jackman is gorgeous but his character is a one dimensional caricature of an Aussie outback cowboy. He is so easy on the eye that his character is almost forgivable.
David Wenham as the bad guy broke my heart. His character was too evil to be true. He is such a wonderful actor & gorgeous to boot - this film does him no credit. The goodies are too good and the baddies too bad. Not believable.
The young aboriginal actor who plays Nullah steals the film with his liquid eyes and confused innocence. A great opportunity to delve more into aboriginal culture was missed here, which is a shame. It is a shame too that that David Gulpilil's character King George was not expanded - he is little more than an observer.
The occasional sweeping views of outback Australia don't save this film. It's story-line is too disjointed for me and one dimensional. 'Australia' the film is not the sweeping saga I hoped for, but still watchable. It is probably better to see this film on the big screen, with lower than normal expectations.
Nicole Kidman is awful - I've never like her as an actress and this film is not likely to change my mind. Her features are almost expressionless and her plumped upper lip immovable. Her character is full of contradictions and the film makes her look like an awkward giraffe.
Hugh Jackman is gorgeous but his character is a one dimensional caricature of an Aussie outback cowboy. He is so easy on the eye that his character is almost forgivable.
David Wenham as the bad guy broke my heart. His character was too evil to be true. He is such a wonderful actor & gorgeous to boot - this film does him no credit. The goodies are too good and the baddies too bad. Not believable.
The young aboriginal actor who plays Nullah steals the film with his liquid eyes and confused innocence. A great opportunity to delve more into aboriginal culture was missed here, which is a shame. It is a shame too that that David Gulpilil's character King George was not expanded - he is little more than an observer.
The occasional sweeping views of outback Australia don't save this film. It's story-line is too disjointed for me and one dimensional. 'Australia' the film is not the sweeping saga I hoped for, but still watchable. It is probably better to see this film on the big screen, with lower than normal expectations.
- TheLittleSongbird
- Jul 11, 2009
- Permalink
Usually I've formed an opinion, good or bad, about a film by the time I'm halfway through it, but in the case of 'Australia', even after sitting through nearly three hours of it and writing this review several days later, I'm still very much on the fence about what I saw.
There are some things I liked about this film. It's wacky and very out-there, which always earns bonus points from me. However it achieves it, 'Australia' is a very entertaining film that mixed multiple genres with some degree of success. The characters are fun and eccentric, a little annoying at times, but on this I'll give the film the benefit of the doubt.
Now for the problems (and there are many). 'Australia' really is a mess. I don't even think the filmmakers knew what they wanted out of this film. The storyline and direction is all over the place - one minute it's a slapstick comedy, the next a soppy romance, and then a tense war drama... all in one film.
You can call 'Australia' many things, but boring isn't one of them. Even at nearly three hours, there's always something happening in the film to keep you interested. For all its flaws, there is a lot to like about this film. After all, this is the entertainment business, and 'Australia' certainly fits that bill.
There are some things I liked about this film. It's wacky and very out-there, which always earns bonus points from me. However it achieves it, 'Australia' is a very entertaining film that mixed multiple genres with some degree of success. The characters are fun and eccentric, a little annoying at times, but on this I'll give the film the benefit of the doubt.
Now for the problems (and there are many). 'Australia' really is a mess. I don't even think the filmmakers knew what they wanted out of this film. The storyline and direction is all over the place - one minute it's a slapstick comedy, the next a soppy romance, and then a tense war drama... all in one film.
You can call 'Australia' many things, but boring isn't one of them. Even at nearly three hours, there's always something happening in the film to keep you interested. For all its flaws, there is a lot to like about this film. After all, this is the entertainment business, and 'Australia' certainly fits that bill.
- adamonIMDb
- Apr 14, 2020
- Permalink
Australia is a totally unashamedly romantic adventure film painted on a huge canvas.
We totally enjoyed every minute: it is what cinema can be - stirring, fun, involving - and made us forget the world for nearly three hours.
If Spielberg had made this (And it really looks like he could have) it would be called a masterpiece - Luhrman has done a fantastic job and if it needed reediting then they got it right.
It is fun, big fun, with a real sense of adventure and romance and we loved it.
Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman are well supported by an excellent cast and produce great chemistry.
All in all in a sea of serious films this stands out as being tremendously good entertainment and a marvelous film.
We love it.
We totally enjoyed every minute: it is what cinema can be - stirring, fun, involving - and made us forget the world for nearly three hours.
If Spielberg had made this (And it really looks like he could have) it would be called a masterpiece - Luhrman has done a fantastic job and if it needed reediting then they got it right.
It is fun, big fun, with a real sense of adventure and romance and we loved it.
Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman are well supported by an excellent cast and produce great chemistry.
All in all in a sea of serious films this stands out as being tremendously good entertainment and a marvelous film.
We love it.
- intelearts
- Jan 24, 2009
- Permalink
"A vast, sweeping, old fashioned epic romance, sure to capture the heart as easily as thrill it". The intent for director Baz Luhrmann's typically expansive latest film, Australia was so singularly apparent from its publicity material that it is a wonder he refrained from sticking such a quote on the poster. Ambition is a quality Luhrmann has never been criticized for lacking, and Australia is no exception, with aims and a scope seemingly as vast and sumptuous as the titular land depicted. However, despite this boldness of vision being laudable, the time worn cliché "reach exceeding one's grasp" drifts ever presently to mind, making Australia a somewhat unwieldy but cheekily charming attempt at rekindling the classic historical epic.
Despite the publicity material's singular image of the film, Luhrmann takes a while to settle on a tone. The first third or so of Australia flip-flops uneasily between a shallow attempt at an action thriller and a bizarre pseudo-comedy, and the juxtaposition between faux- intensity and wacky, quirky overacting does not sit easily, making the pending two hours appear an increasingly dire prospect. However, after this shaky start, Australia finally finds its footing as the sort of epic romantic drama which flourished in the 1940s, a style Luhrmann is clearly attempting to emulate. But once again, it would appear ambition and haste deter Australia from achieving the cinematic grandeur befitting its title, as Luhrmann's film simply attempts to do too much, encompassing being an action adventure, romance and war film while simultaneously exploring questions of national identity and confronting capitalist exploitation, sexism and racism. Even with the notoriously hefty running time, the film simply is not capable of capturing such a vast array of subject matter in any great detail, but Luhrmann refuses to allow such qualms to slow his seemingly unquenchable cinematic energy and stubborn persistence.
While the ponderous running time was always a concern, Luhrmann actually balances his subject matter sufficiently to merit such a length without the film appearing padded with extraneous sections (although at least 20 minutes could easily have been pruned). Rather, the main concern is the cohesion within the two hours and forty minutes, with the film falling prey to the "curse of countless endings" syndrome plaguing many such overambitious would be epics. The film appears to build to a triumphant climax then continues on for at least four or five points throughout, giving the impression of Luhrmann having finished a screenplay and then tacked on an extra subplot for good measure, lacking the sort of streamlined narrative cohesion which would eliminate the feeling of the plot being compartmentalized and make the ride all the more exhilarating. To reduce the film to its flaws would be an immense oversight, as many excerpts, such as the jarring and emotionally sequence detailing the bombing of Darwin demonstrate just how effective a storyteller Luhrmann can be. However, the moments of greatness which pop up periodically only serve to make the lackluster execution surrounding them all the more disappointing.
Considering the intent to debunk clichés and preconceptions about his titular land, Luhrmann props his film up on a shocking amount of Australia clichés, with just about every stereotype from bounding kangaroos to mystical aboriginals to sweaty, alcohol fuelled bar fights to frequent use of the expression 'crikey' comes to play, making the film serve as much to reinforce such stereotypes as further explore the 'real' Australia. There remains also the irony of a film titled Australia often opting to dwarf the exquisite beauty of the natural land with cringe-worthy CGI replications of it, and certain creative choices grate throughout - half-aboriginal child Nullah's broken English voice-over is at best unnecessary, and at worst, downright insulting. And of course, Luhrmann's attempt to re-create classic Hollywood romance results in the film wallowing in melodrama of the most classically pretentious sort, through many of such excesses can be attributed to composer David Hirschfelder's deplorable musical score, which, when not pilfering themes from established musicians or films (ie: "Somewhere over the rainbow" from The Wizard of Oz) is content to bombard the listener with nauseating excesses of crashing, painfully contrived emotion and more strings than one would have thought humanly possible.
Nicole Kidman delivers a performance which be politely described as eccentric, starting out by overdoing the 'prim English rose' schtick complete with goofy facial expressions and finally settling into such a firmly conventional (yet still somehow effective despite it all) maternal figure that the role seems almost as if it was performed by two different actresses. Hugh Jackman's rugged charm is perfectly fitting for the stoic Drover, and Jackman makes full use of his uncanny ability to mine credible and undeniably affecting emotional drama out of even the most banal of lines. The two do share terrific chemistry, although Luhrmann's referencing of The African Queen, a similar romance between an old fashioned Englishwoman and gruff, working class male, draws laughably explicit parallels. Young Brandon Walters, making his film debut as headstrong half-aboriginal child Nullah shows impressive range and ability, even if his character may enthral and infuriate in equal measure. Finally, the always criminally underused David Wenham puts forth formidable effort to make a mostly useless antagonist figure brim with despicable slime and menace.
Despite the unattainable ambition of the picture and its ensuing tide of formula and melodramatic excesses, Australia retains somewhat of a self-effacing, kitschy charm which carries it through its more cumbersome bits, making it far more enjoyable than most other films of its ilk. Through Luhrmann stumbles when attempting to delve into the complexity of what it means to 'be' Australian, one can't help but admire the audacity and bold, cheeky confidence of his ensuing film, which, for all of its faults, proves difficult to not guiltily enjoy nonetheless. On the front of punchy, unquenchably energetic storytelling, Luhrmann still proves on top of his game, making Australia a cinematic voyage worth taking.
-6/10
Despite the publicity material's singular image of the film, Luhrmann takes a while to settle on a tone. The first third or so of Australia flip-flops uneasily between a shallow attempt at an action thriller and a bizarre pseudo-comedy, and the juxtaposition between faux- intensity and wacky, quirky overacting does not sit easily, making the pending two hours appear an increasingly dire prospect. However, after this shaky start, Australia finally finds its footing as the sort of epic romantic drama which flourished in the 1940s, a style Luhrmann is clearly attempting to emulate. But once again, it would appear ambition and haste deter Australia from achieving the cinematic grandeur befitting its title, as Luhrmann's film simply attempts to do too much, encompassing being an action adventure, romance and war film while simultaneously exploring questions of national identity and confronting capitalist exploitation, sexism and racism. Even with the notoriously hefty running time, the film simply is not capable of capturing such a vast array of subject matter in any great detail, but Luhrmann refuses to allow such qualms to slow his seemingly unquenchable cinematic energy and stubborn persistence.
While the ponderous running time was always a concern, Luhrmann actually balances his subject matter sufficiently to merit such a length without the film appearing padded with extraneous sections (although at least 20 minutes could easily have been pruned). Rather, the main concern is the cohesion within the two hours and forty minutes, with the film falling prey to the "curse of countless endings" syndrome plaguing many such overambitious would be epics. The film appears to build to a triumphant climax then continues on for at least four or five points throughout, giving the impression of Luhrmann having finished a screenplay and then tacked on an extra subplot for good measure, lacking the sort of streamlined narrative cohesion which would eliminate the feeling of the plot being compartmentalized and make the ride all the more exhilarating. To reduce the film to its flaws would be an immense oversight, as many excerpts, such as the jarring and emotionally sequence detailing the bombing of Darwin demonstrate just how effective a storyteller Luhrmann can be. However, the moments of greatness which pop up periodically only serve to make the lackluster execution surrounding them all the more disappointing.
Considering the intent to debunk clichés and preconceptions about his titular land, Luhrmann props his film up on a shocking amount of Australia clichés, with just about every stereotype from bounding kangaroos to mystical aboriginals to sweaty, alcohol fuelled bar fights to frequent use of the expression 'crikey' comes to play, making the film serve as much to reinforce such stereotypes as further explore the 'real' Australia. There remains also the irony of a film titled Australia often opting to dwarf the exquisite beauty of the natural land with cringe-worthy CGI replications of it, and certain creative choices grate throughout - half-aboriginal child Nullah's broken English voice-over is at best unnecessary, and at worst, downright insulting. And of course, Luhrmann's attempt to re-create classic Hollywood romance results in the film wallowing in melodrama of the most classically pretentious sort, through many of such excesses can be attributed to composer David Hirschfelder's deplorable musical score, which, when not pilfering themes from established musicians or films (ie: "Somewhere over the rainbow" from The Wizard of Oz) is content to bombard the listener with nauseating excesses of crashing, painfully contrived emotion and more strings than one would have thought humanly possible.
Nicole Kidman delivers a performance which be politely described as eccentric, starting out by overdoing the 'prim English rose' schtick complete with goofy facial expressions and finally settling into such a firmly conventional (yet still somehow effective despite it all) maternal figure that the role seems almost as if it was performed by two different actresses. Hugh Jackman's rugged charm is perfectly fitting for the stoic Drover, and Jackman makes full use of his uncanny ability to mine credible and undeniably affecting emotional drama out of even the most banal of lines. The two do share terrific chemistry, although Luhrmann's referencing of The African Queen, a similar romance between an old fashioned Englishwoman and gruff, working class male, draws laughably explicit parallels. Young Brandon Walters, making his film debut as headstrong half-aboriginal child Nullah shows impressive range and ability, even if his character may enthral and infuriate in equal measure. Finally, the always criminally underused David Wenham puts forth formidable effort to make a mostly useless antagonist figure brim with despicable slime and menace.
Despite the unattainable ambition of the picture and its ensuing tide of formula and melodramatic excesses, Australia retains somewhat of a self-effacing, kitschy charm which carries it through its more cumbersome bits, making it far more enjoyable than most other films of its ilk. Through Luhrmann stumbles when attempting to delve into the complexity of what it means to 'be' Australian, one can't help but admire the audacity and bold, cheeky confidence of his ensuing film, which, for all of its faults, proves difficult to not guiltily enjoy nonetheless. On the front of punchy, unquenchably energetic storytelling, Luhrmann still proves on top of his game, making Australia a cinematic voyage worth taking.
-6/10
- spencer-ingram
- Dec 21, 2008
- Permalink
Baz Luhrmann has done a great job with 'Australia'. While cliché's and political agenda runs rife, this is set nicely into an historic, epic story in three distinct acts.
Great casting - Hugh Jackman was what the role needed, and he played the role very well. Nicole Kidman, while being rubbished by several critics, appeared somewhat typecast in her role, but that style was exactly what the role needed, and I think she did a great job at pulling it off. However, I think that the standout performances actually came from Brandon Walters (in his first film), Jack Thompson (in a minor role) and David Wenham who brought 'aussie sleaze' to a new level. Unfortunately, I had trouble believing in Ben Mendelsohn's character of Captain Dutton, but seemed to finish on a high, pulling the 'British stiff upper lip' thing fairly well.
Luhrman's epic was long, and had the full gamut of Luhrmanesque style, which we've come to love through his films. Stylised backgrounds, unique, visual approaches, and a sense of humour that is truly Luhrman, flood the film bringing a rich Australian environment.
'Australia' presents to the world, perhaps a very different Australia to what a lot of people think. While the fictional characters and some of the style is very reminiscent of "Gone with the Wind", the historical Darwin during the 'Stolen Generation' era and the impact of World War Two on Australia's doorstep may be a new insite to many.
I enjoyed 'Australia' a lot. While it wasn't the best film I've ever seen, I definitely think it's worth looking at - even if it's just to see what Baz Luhrman has done.
Great casting - Hugh Jackman was what the role needed, and he played the role very well. Nicole Kidman, while being rubbished by several critics, appeared somewhat typecast in her role, but that style was exactly what the role needed, and I think she did a great job at pulling it off. However, I think that the standout performances actually came from Brandon Walters (in his first film), Jack Thompson (in a minor role) and David Wenham who brought 'aussie sleaze' to a new level. Unfortunately, I had trouble believing in Ben Mendelsohn's character of Captain Dutton, but seemed to finish on a high, pulling the 'British stiff upper lip' thing fairly well.
Luhrman's epic was long, and had the full gamut of Luhrmanesque style, which we've come to love through his films. Stylised backgrounds, unique, visual approaches, and a sense of humour that is truly Luhrman, flood the film bringing a rich Australian environment.
'Australia' presents to the world, perhaps a very different Australia to what a lot of people think. While the fictional characters and some of the style is very reminiscent of "Gone with the Wind", the historical Darwin during the 'Stolen Generation' era and the impact of World War Two on Australia's doorstep may be a new insite to many.
I enjoyed 'Australia' a lot. While it wasn't the best film I've ever seen, I definitely think it's worth looking at - even if it's just to see what Baz Luhrman has done.
- fertilecelluloid
- Nov 30, 2008
- Permalink