“AUSTRALIA” (Nicole Kidman & Hugh Jackman)
When I saw the preview to this it had ‘epic’ written all over it - & Hollywood loves epics, so I predicted it would win Best Picture of 2008 just off the trailer... For the first twenty minutes I thought, “How misleading – this is a pile of junk!”
I hated it from the beginning – having a small boy that was difficult to understand doing the narration had me shaking my head in bewilderment. When the kid started singing like Celine Dion, I was ready to leave the theatre & ask for my money back! And then, it turns...
The previews were not misleading – this is an epic among epics – “Australia” catapults Hugh Jackman from known movie actor to World famous film star – That’s the only way I can describe his performance – He owns the screen in this film – he’s handsome, he can act & he displays moments of ultimate tough guy & sentimental softie & not once looking out of character while doing so – He simply exudes ‘movie star’.
Nicole Kidman gives one of her finer performances as well, though she is part of the problem with the beginning by playing her hoity toity rich b*tch ‘Lady Ashley’ with a typical snooty stiffness that made her look ‘cookie cutter’ – as though she were merely imitating other actresses playing similar roles from the past. But she too takes a dramatic turn for the better as the film wears on.
“Australia” is an extraordinary film in that it actually made me notice the cinematography; I’m normally a ‘good story/good acting & I’m happy' kind of guy – I
don’t generally care what it looks like, as long as it isn’t distracting from the story &/or acting. The scene that first made me go ‘wow’ involves a cattle stampede; once you’ve seen the film you’ll know exactly what I’m referring to. Even though I knew what was going to happen, the entire sequence made my jaw drop – it was ‘spectacular’. And from that moment on, this film had me hooked – I could even forgive the little boy’s poor acting & horrible narrating – I wanted these people to succeed (& survive) though I knew that one or more of them would not. Rule #2; develop characters that are worth caring about – “Australia” does that brilliantly because they take the somewhat unlikable lead characters & turn them into real, yet unique human beings. Are you getting the feeling that I think this is the Best Picture of 2008?
Using a basic Good vs. Evil plot, the story revolves around Kidman’s Sarah Ashley, who flies to Darwin. Australia in 1939 to join her estranged husband on their cattle ranch. She arrives on the same day her husband’s murdered body is discovered; a ‘mystical’ aborigine known as King George is blamed for the killing. King George (David Gupilil) spends a great deal of his time chanting to the night sky. He also seems to have a connection with Nullah, the young half white/half black boy (Called a ‘creamy’ by the racist townfolk; portrayed by unknown child actor, Brandon Walters)
Lady Ashley is advised to sell the ranch to local cattle baron King Carney (Bryan Brown) but she reneges on the deal when she discovers the man in charge of running her ranch, Neil Fletcher (David Wenham) has been secretly working for Carney & stealing her cattle. She hires ‘Drover’ (Hugh Jackman) to round up her cattle & help to deliver the herd to market. This venture is what leads to the stampede & ultimately brings Lady Ashley & the ‘Drover’ into each other’s arms. Though the heart of the movie is as much the connection between Sarah & Nullah as it is between the two adults.
The film then amps up the drama by employing an air attack by the Japanese; if I were to chastise this movie at all it would be that they should have explained the reason for this attack other than to give the special effects people lots of things to blow up. Still, the aftermath produces some fairly impressive scenes of mass destruction & several ‘lump in the throat’ moments as the 3 lead characters struggle to survive & find one another to hopefully bring about that elusive ‘happy ending’. Obviously I won’t tell you what happens here, but I will say ‘Australia’ delivers in every way shape & form that you want an ‘epic’ to entertain you. After a rocky beginning, I fell in love with this movie & seriously doubt I will see a better one for quite a while.
9 comments:
I have been to Australia. I love epics. I want to see this film. I am so glad you liked and reviewed it.
Maybe you could get the Rosetta Stone software for 'Stralian, mate!
Wow... I would have thought you caught some of the things I did that I felt hurt the film, but I guess not.
I had a feeling just by the trailer that you already decided you would like the film before you saw it. You referenced it to Braveheart at first viewing.
I can say that this movie has not won everyone over like most predicted. It seemed it was going to be negative free during pre release. It's been fairly split now. Nor do I think it's a lock for a Best Picture nomination now. Maybe a Golden Globe but I'm not sure about Oscar.
It'll be a lock in the technical categories that's for sure.
Usually I pay close attention to cinematography and the editing of a film and I'm mixed on them both here. I will not deny that the visuals are breathtaking, but I got the feeling after leaving the theater that Baz " relied " too much on them as a whole for the movie and at times it got in the way of the story. He could have left a lot of those camera shots out and he still would have got an Oscar nomination for cinematography. That is how much the camera dominates the film. After awhile I was like OK I get it, it's beautiful country now go back to the story ! Here, it's tad too much. I could have used more character back story and less landscape. As if he was trying to say " look I'm making the most visually beautiful film of the year...see, see..."
It's no secret that he was having problems with the film right up to the premiere, even cutting up to two days before it went in the can. It's shows. He could have shaved off about 20 minutes of just montages to the Australian sunsets and landscapes and instead, tightening up the film a bit. I would have been more capricious in those two areas and would have given the audience less is more.
One other complaint. I wasn't feeling it all of the time from Nicole Kidman. Selling me I mean. At times when she was " supposed " to be stiff-she wasn't, and then when she supposed to have " loosened up " she appeared stiff. Like she'd forget where her character was within the film.
Jackman saved the day from cliche.
Sad to say, his performance is believable, but it's just way too crowded of probable other finer performances this year. He's probable going to be left off Oscar ballots.
When you think there could never be too much of good cinematography, I think Luhrmann blew his load a little too much. It was like overload, cinematography that's almost too good, flooding, or seems like it's TRYING to purposely impress you. When it is subtle but great and you walk out of a movie knowing you saw a real good film but there was something else about it that was impressed you. Sometimes that's simply excellent camera work that is so good but subtle. Example; Good Night and Good Luck. That had excellent cinematography ( and was Oscar nominated ) but it did't try to be National Geographic, like Australia does many times. I could have used a tad bit visuals and a little more on character and story. There are things they could have told you but left out.
Still it is a entertaining movie that could have been a great one with taking off about 20-30 minutes of pure artistic fare that takes up too much room I felt.
B-
Dr Porter! So good to see you join in! Yes, please go see the movie - although I disagree with Bud Cort on the character development, he admits that the visuals are 'breathtaking'. & yes, learning 'Australian' would have helped me understand what that little kid was saying (But as the film wears on he starts to make sense... a little)
To Bud C. - My reason for referencing 'Braveheart' was due to the fact that I predicted it would win best picture after just seeing the trailer - I felt the same after seeing Australia's preview - it had the look of an epic & epics win Oscars. & that is the ONLY comparison between the 2. I actually like Australia much more than I did Braveheart.
Maybe are differing opinions stem from the fact that you say you normally pay attention to the cinematography while I don't - That's probably why it didn't overwhelm me, but because it was so much in the forefront THAT's why I noticed it. Still, I stayed
focus on the characters & their plight & I thought, as a whole, the film meshed together beautifully.
I didn't say Hugh Jackman gave an Oscar calibre performance - what impressed me was his 'presence' in the film - It was difficult to explain actually that's why I simply said the man 'looked' like what a matinee idol was supposed to look like & he fit the character perfectly. Hard to imagine they wanted Russell Crowe initially & even tried to snag Heath Ledger away from 'Dark Knight' before 'settling' for Jackman. As far as my expectations - No, I didn't go into this thinking I would like it; In fact after the first 20 or so minutes, I hated it - thought it was awful - So, no, I didn't give it a grand review because I wanted it to be good - it had to win me over after that dreadful beginning. Plus, most of the time, when you're expectations are high - that's when a film can let you down. When I saw the preview to 'The Bucket List' that looked like a surefire Oscar contender to me & the pairing of Jack & Morgan seemed infallable - so I went into that film 'hoping' it would be great. It was good; it had its flaws, it clearly wasn't 'awful' as many critics panned it, but the potential I saw in the preview didn't match up to the actual film.
All I saw with Australia's trailer was 'an epic' & I'm not a big fan of them. & just remember critics don't have a say in what gets nominated for the Academy Awards;
Was 'Atonement' an 'epic'? I'd say so - Did it deserve to be nominated for Best Picture? Not on your life, it stunk! But 'Hollywood' gave it a nod merely because it fit the role of 'epic'. Anyway, that's the way I've always seen things...
First, this is a Baz Luhrmann film so I knew it would be technically lavish. I liked the movie. It has some very moving moments, but I would say to people that don't like epic scale movies to stay away. There's some schmaltz going on a lot in a big way.
My only problem, seems to be what others had a problem with and that's he's trying a bit too hard to impress you with the landscape visuals. I too, thought this was easily Jackman's movie, and that Nicole didn't seem to quite keep her charatcer believable at times. A lot of times she seemed vacant to me.
But overall I liked it and it's a very well made film. I could see it fitting into my top 10. We'll have to wait and see about if it's going to crack the top 5. There is about ten movies I want to see between now and the middle of January.
Kurt, I'm glad that you at least LIKED the film, I was beginning to think I was alone on the island continent with all the hatred I've been seeing & hearing. I guess those who go to movies to look at the scenery thought it sacrificed 'story' in order to 'look impressive. I guess we're among the few that were able to follow the story without letting the cinematography get in our way!
My favorite movie so far this year. But I also think Kidman seemed detached at time and her chemistry with Jackman wasn't natural at all.
There are still many movies to be seen, but this is my favorite as of now, and has cemented Hugh Jackman into full fledged A list territoty. He fit the movie like a glove. He carries the film.
Just think what Naomi Watts ( she's an Aussie too ) would have been in the role.
Do you understand the hatred being spread by all the snooty critics over this film, Movieluva? If they had said that the first 20 minutes turned them against it, I would acknowledge that criticism, but just because they use "Over The Rainbow" as a recurring theme - that means it's trying to be 'The Wizard Of Oz'???
I agree Jackman carries the film - I'd call it a combination of Cary Grant/young Sean Connery performance; a debonair yet rugged character masterfully brought to life by Hugh.
I had more problems with the child actor more than Nicole's performance - she was bad in the beginning but she grew on me & I bought the way her relationship with 'Mr. Drover' developed. I love Naomi Watts, but don't you think she's a little too 'down to earth' to play 'Lady' Ashley? & it's funny you should mention her since she & Nicole are very close friends. I just hope I can judge the remaining films on their own merits & not root for 'Australia' now that it has achieved 'undergdog' status...
I counted the movies to be released just this month and there are no less than 10 that seem to be critical darlings, and I'm not even counting in Slumdog Millionaire which was released a couple of weeks ago ( my # 2 so far ) so by the time you see those movies, time should have passed enough for you to have appreciation for the other movies and not be biased about Australia.
As for Australia's unpopularity, I think it's split down the middle. There are people like you and me, and some other friends of mine ( mostly women though ) that liked it. But it's recieved a terrbile rating percentage at Rotten Tomatoes, something just a little over 50% last I looked. Not good. And you might think that site may be unworthy of yor opinion, but it's not just critics rating the films, it's also normal people like you and me too.
And I have to be honest, I'll go into their past archives and see what people thought of certain movies and I can't say I wouldn't disagree with a lot of those grades.
I know I liked it and that's all that matters, but I can also appreciate what it was that some people thought took away from it also.
I'm going to see Milk tomorrow night and I'll come back and tell you what I thought about it.
I'll say it here. Not getting a cinematography nomination is a joke ! Even though it was a tad excessive and show offy, it's still a good job. I can't remember now, but was Australia shut out completely at the Oscar's ?
Post a Comment