Australia (Luhrmann, 2008) — Kidman and Jackman in WW2 / outback western

[The Bus]

http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/images/column/3108/kidmanjackman.jpg
<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455824/">IMDB</a> | Releases: November 2008

Having only seen Luhrmann's "musicals" (Romeo, Moulin), I'm kind of surprised at seeing what he's working on next:

The <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455824/">IMDB page</a> for the movie summarizes the plot as follows:

Luhrmann's film is set in northern Australia prior to World War II and centers on an English aristocrat (Kidman) who inherits a cattle station the size of Maryland. When English cattle barons plot to take her land, she reluctantly joins forces with a rough-hewn stock-man (Jackman) to drive 2,000 head of cattle across hundreds of miles of the country's most unforgiving land, only to still face the bombing of Darwin, Australia, by the Japanese forces that had attacked Pearl Harbor only months earlier.

Plus, it's got other Australian actors, like Faramir, and the mentor guy from Cocktail. And it's co-written by the writer / adapter of The Pianist and one of the writers from... G.I. Joe. (OK, he did Collateral too).

If you really want to know a lot about the movie, <a href="http://www.australiamovie.net/">here's a fansite</a>. It comes out in the fall from Fox.

[B.A.]

I realize people's looks change as they grow older, but is it me or has Kidman had plastic surgery sometime in the recent past?

[Sierra Disc]

Kidman's definitely hittin' the botox.

I have to admit the plot on this is fairly generic, but I'm counting on Luhrmann to make it visually marvelous, and I'm excited to see an epic set down in this part of the world myself. Not sure how good it will be but the fact Kidman, Jackman and Luhrmann are all actually Australian makes me hopeful...

[UAIOE]

I realize people's looks change as they grow older, but is it me or has Kidman had plastic surgery sometime in the recent past?

You noticed that too?

I swear she did something before "Stepford Wives" because that was around the time I first thought she got a nose-job or something.

I still think she looked her all-time best in "Batman Forever".

[hardercore]

Is this the first time Luhrmann has gone non-musical? I don't really know much of his stuff.

[Daytripper]

I realize people's looks change as they grow older, but is it me or has Kidman had plastic surgery sometime in the recent past?

Kidman has always had porcelain skin, but I agree she's possibly getting Bo on top of that. And if she's had any plastic surgery done, she's done it the right way. Very very subtle. She looks absolutely perfect in "The Golden Compass".

Re: "Australia", I'm all over this. I've always felt Luhrmann was way style over substance. This could be the movie that brings him home an Oscar.

[Daytripper]

More new pictures. Just beautiful!

http://www.firstshowing.net/img/australia-april-01.jpg

http://www.firstshowing.net/img/australia-april-02.jpg

http://www.firstshowing.net/img/australia-april-03.jpg

http://www.firstshowing.net/img/australia-april-04.jpg

http://www.firstshowing.net/img/australia-april-05.jpg

[chris_sc77]

Looks amazing...You can tell just from these pics that this is just about guaranteed to get an Oscar nom for Best Picture.

[Giantrobo]

Wow, that looks like it might be really interesting.

[The Bus]

I'll still hold my breath since you can get nice shots of movies like 300. I hope this is real/deserving Oscar material, not made-for-Oscar material.

[riotinmyskull]

JUNO getting the oscar nom for best picture over THE ASSASINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD = no hope for westerns in hollywood

[Daytripper]

I'll still hold my breath since you can get nice shots of movies like 300. I hope this is real/deserving Oscar material, not made-for-Oscar material.

I agree with you.

And riotinmyskull, "Unforgiven" won the Oscar. "TAOJJ" was robbed though. So much better than "Juno".

BTW, I was bummed with Russell Crowe had to back out of "Australia" due to other obligations. But now, after seeing these pictures, I'm not so much. These guys have great chemistry in the photos alone.

[riotinmyskull]

And riotinmyskull, "Unforgiven" won the Oscar. "TAOJJ" was robbed though. So much better than "Juno".

i realize UNFORGIVEN won not too long ago but i just meant no hope nowadays and the JUNO nom was the nail in the coffin.

[Daytripper]

i realize UNFORGIVEN won not too long ago but i just meant no hope nowadays and the JUNO nom was the nail in the coffin.

Never say never. The fact that "Unforgiven" won gives me some hope.

[Giantrobo]

I'll still hold my breath since you can get nice shots of movies like 300.

That's gives me hope. I loved "300". :D

[hardercore]

JUNO getting the oscar nom for best picture over THE ASSASINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD = no hope for westerns in hollywoodExcept for the Western that won Best Picture and the other Western that tied it for most nominations, including Best Picture.

[PopcornTreeCt]

I can't picture Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman as Australians.

[hardercore]

I can't picture Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman as Australians.Humour. A concept I was able to grasp, just in time, before beginning a outraged rant.

[Apone]

WWII? Hell yeah! A war setting guarantee rich story. I mean look at the recent output.

Nowhere in Africa
The Pianist
A Very Long Engagement
Downfall
Sophie Scholl
Days of Glory
Pan's Labyrinth
Black Book
Flags/Letters
Atonement
Lust, Caution

Australian outback with McLeod's Daughters? Damn, I will still watch it.

[PopcornTreeCt]

Pan's Labyrinth was set during the Spanish Civil War

[Apone]

Not quite, my sweettree. It was set after the Spanish Civil War and during 1940s. They talk about the Allies landing in Normandy, Franco's post-civil-war uniforms and etc. Now I was wrong about A Very Long Engagement because that's WWI but the point still remains - war background stories sell esp. dramas! :)

[The Bus]

Maybe he was thinking of Devil's Backbone. :)

[PopcornTreeCt]

What the hell then were the rebels rebelling against if they already won? What the hell was this film about?

I'm so confused.

[MoviePage]

What the hell then were the rebels rebelling against if they already won? What the hell was this film about?

I'm so confused.

They were rebelling against the new fascist leadership imposed by the side that won the war.

And the movie was about goblins who kill and/or eat babies. Or something.

[2SwiFt29]

the screenshots look great..

[riotinmyskull]

trailer is up: http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/australia/

[Daytripper]

trailer is up: http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/australia/

Gave me chills. I cannot wait.

[chris_sc77]

Looks fantastic. Love the use of Morricone's score from the Good the bad and the ugly.

[riley_dude]

Looks like an epic romantic movie and a good one too.

[CloverClover]

It looks like a musical without song / dance, I think that's a compliment

[B5Erik]

Now this looks really good! Part western, part drama, part WWII movie? Count me in!

[Zen Peckinpah]

Hated Moulin Rouge, but love Romeo + Juliet dearly, and the trailer looked quite eye-popping.

All they need to do, especially with Morricone's music in the trailer, is add "Once Upon a Time in" to the title. I'm getting a SERIOUS Once Upon a Time in the West/Duck You Sucker vibe from this one.

[sauce07]

I love that this is being called Australia, it makes it seem like a event. Movie looks like a painting.

[Hokeyboy]

I've never seen a Luhrmann movie worth a damn... maybe this one will be different (doubtful).

[Ranger]

Anyone see the new Australia trailer in the Desperate Housewives slot?

It looks amazing.

[Geofferson]

Anyone see the new Australia trailer in the Desperate Housewives slot?

It looks amazing.
Yes - can't wait for Thanksgiving. Surprised it has not yet been rated.

[vwbeetlvr]

I won tickets to see this at the New York Premier and saw it last night.

I predict this movie will be the biggest bomb of the year.

It was boring and I wanted to leave.

I walked past Nicole Kidman on the red carpet, was Literally 5 feet away from her :)

I saw Hugh Jackman, Nicole Kidman, and Baz Luhrmann introduce the movie. They thanked Rupert Murdoch (president of fox and supposedly Australian himself) for taking a chance on a Movie that no one said could be made in this day and age. I am sure there WILL NEVER be another movie like this made again. They didn't even have any faith in themselves because they walked out as soon as the lights went out before the movie started.

The cinematography was great but there is just so much wrong with the movie.

Too much cheesy forced humor. Too much cheesy forced drama. Nicole is laughable in places. And you can hardly understand what the little kid is saying in half the movie. He brings it down even further.

I would compare it most to Pearl Harbor. Now Pearl Harbor was cheesy in so many ways but I enjoyed it 10,000 times more than Australia.

Judging by how this thread hasn't had any activity in over 2 months just shows how little interest there is in this piece of turd.

Again, I predict this movie will tank and tank HARD.

I really wanted to LOVE this movie. Romeo + Juliet is one of my all time favorites and Luhrmann's odd sense of humor was much better in that movie.

[mdc3000]

They didn't even have any faith in themselves because they walked out as soon as the lights went out before the movie started.

Most Actors/directors etc. do this at their premiere ALL THE TIME. Lots of actors don't like to watch themselves on screen or have already seen the movie countless times beforehand, so I don't think that's indicative of anything.

I know that a lot of people were lukewarm on Moulin Rouge the first time they saw it, and only days later did they start to like it...perhaps that's the situation here? What about it was so terrible? Everything from the trailers etc. has me extremely intrigued and I will most likely be seeing this one tomorrow night (Unless I opt for the mindless action of Transporter 3).

[Shannon Nutt]

I predict this movie will be the biggest bomb of the year.

It was boring and I wanted to leave.



Most of the early reviews agree with you. Even the critics that are giving it a moderate recommenation have major problems with the movie.

[Seantn]

Well, with a budget of about $130 million, it needs to not just be a hit, but a big hit.

However, I've read that Baz's films often make double overseas what they make here, so I'm guessing that once it's all said and done the film will make back its money.

[Suprmallet]

I've been hearing a lot of negative reviews, as well, unfortunately. I may still see it, but I'm not rushing to as I once was.

[Dr Mabuse]

Hell it made the main stream news that 2 weeks before the premiere the studio had decided to add more 'love scenes' and romance between Jackman and Kidman, and they were frantically trying to re-edit the entire film for the premiere to change the nature of it in whole as it had tested horribly.

I decided when I saw that on CNN I would be skipping this.

Who knows what they did to the movie, the 'forced' jokes and crap mentioned above might have been added with the studio re-cutting the movie to make it more 'marketable' to the moronic mass audience in theatres. Who knows.

[NoirFan]

Nicole Kidman really has become box office poison. Granted, she often appears in more edgy, challenging fare (which I respect her tremendously for), and those kind of films don't tend to connect with large audiences, but even her popcorn flicks bomb.

[Hokeyboy]

I know that a lot of people were lukewarm on Moulin Rouge the first time they saw it, and only days later did they start to like it...
My reaction was the complete opposite. I saw the MOULIN ROUGE in theaters, liked (but didn't love) it, a few days later I realized it was the closest thing I'd ever seen to a bloody, third-trimester cinematic abortion.

Future viewings have only reinforced this sentiment.

I've no interest in the movie, but from a detatched standpoint I can't see this movie being successful. Neither Jackman nor Kidman are big box-office draws (unless the former has claws sticking out his hands). I think Jackman's an insanely talented and charistmatic performer, though. Kidman, on the other hand, has always been pretty awful in my book (except for in THE OTHERS and TO DIE FOR, where her stiff, icy, deer-in-headlights delivery actually fit the characters quite well)... well anyway, a bloated epic with mediocre reviews and generally weak box-office leads? Bring out your dead...

I think people will be driven to the even SHITTIER-looking "Four Christmases" this holiday weekend. Shorter running time, lighthearted fare, and proven leads. But I could be wrong here.

[Dave7393]

Kidman's almost always rubbed me the wrong way, every time. She brings a frigidity that permeates every character (for better or worse-- usually worse), and for the life of me I can't understand what her draw is, at all. Does this film really look that good? I'll agree that it may indeed be beautifully filmed, but I'd find it excruciating to have to watch her in a three-hour period piece like this. It's a definite pass for me.

[NoirFan]

Variety review (http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117939080.html?categoryid=31&cs=1): Embracing grand old-school melodrama while critiquing racist old-fashioned politics, Baz Luhrmann's grandiose "Australia" provides a luxurious bumpy ride; like a Rolls-Royce on a rocky country road, it's full of bounces and lurches, but you can't really complain about the seat. Deliberately anachronistic in its heightened style of romance, villainy and destiny, the epic lays an Aussie accent on colorful motifs drawn from Hollywood Westerns, war films, love stories and socially conscious dramas. Some of it plays, some doesn't, and it is long. But the beauty of the film's stars and landscapes, the appeal of the central young boy and, perhaps more than anything, the filmmaker's eagerness to please tend to prevail, making for a film general audiences should go with, even if they're not swept away.

[Daytripper]

Just got back from seeing it and I absolutely hated the first half. It was just way too over the top and cartoonish. It took a turn for the better (and more serious) from the scene where Kidman tried to teach Jackman how to dance by the campfire. That was a really nice scene and that's also where their chemistry started. Also bad? The CGI and painted background were HORRIBLE! Where did the 130M budget on this movie go!?? And last, the inclusion of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" throughout the film was beaten into the ground. I'm deeply deeply disappointed with the movie. I've been waiting over a year for it. My rating, 5/10. Would have been much lower had the second half not been good.

[Daytripper]

Nicole Kidman really has become box office poison. (snip)

Sorry, but this is just Perez Hilton thinking. Nicole is NOT box office poison. Sure, she's had a few films that have not made as much money as the studios anticipated. But it's not her fault. Let's take a look at her major films over the years that under performed (or tanked). "The Stepford Wives"? Terrible movie. "Bewitched", AWFUL! "The Invasion", a movie I actually liked a great deal. And felt the tone matched all the other body snatcher films. But, again, she's not the reason it tanked. Most critics didn't like the movie. They didn't single out her performance. "The Golden Compass"? You can thank the religious idiots for sabotaging it's fate. It was actually a great movie. And it cleaned up at the box-office in the rest of the world.

As far as her acting skills and ability. "The Others" and "To Die For" are not the only films in which she shined. You can also include "Cold Mountain", "Malice", "Eyes Wide Shut", "The Hours", "The Human Stain", "Birth" and "The Interpreter".

[RichC2]

Sorry, but this is just Perez Hilton thinking. Nicole is NOT box office poison. Sure, she's had a few films that have not made as much money as the studios anticipated. But it's not her fault. Let's take a look at her major films over the years that under performed (or tanked). "The Stepford Wives"? Terrible movie. "Bewitched", AWFUL! "The Invasion", a movie I actually liked a great deal. And felt the tone matched all the other body snatcher films. But, again, she's not the reason it tanked. Most critics didn't like the movie. They didn't single out her performance. "The Golden Compass"? You can thank the religious idiots for sabotaging it's fate. It was actually a great movie. And it cleaned up at the box-office in the rest of the world.

As far as her acting skills and ability. "The Others" and "To Die For" are not the only films in which she shined. You can also include "Cold Mountain", "Malice", "Eyes Wide Shut", "The Hours", "The Human Stain", "Birth" and "The Interpreter".


Stepford Wives and Bewitched showed she could open a movie, but also reconfirmed that bad movies don't hold up well. The Invasion was just bad (We need another car chase!!). The Golden Compass did not tank because of the "religious idiots", it tanked because it didn't please the fans of the book nor most anybody else that watched it, and Kidman really wasn't even in that movie all that much. The Others was equally forgettable.

In otherwords, she needs to hire a new agent. She gets to work with some great directors, but it almost always seems to be their lesser work. That said, I actually think she is a solid actress when needs be.

[Daytripper]

The Golden Compass did not tank because of the "religious idiots", it tanked because it didn't please the fans of the book nor most anybody else that watched it

Yes, it did. How else do you explain the 302M it made outside of the U.S.?
Clearly it pleased fans of the book there. And anybody else. The negative press it got from those those religious groups certainly made a big impact on it's box-office in America. And none of those people even saw it. And oh btw, it did extremely well in video sales and rentals. Because those who shelled out 70M to see it in the theaters, told others it wasn't anti-God.

Also, "The Invasion" was "bad" because the studio intervened (again) and hired another director to make it more dumbed down. With those said car chases. To appeal to the masses. Not Nicole's fault.

[Hokeyboy]

Sorry, but this is just Perez Hilton thinking. Nicole is NOT box office poison.
Yes. Yes, she is.

To say her movies bombed but it was "not her fault" is irrelevant. We're talking about the numbers here. And simply put, she is NOT a major draw. Certainly not big enough to justify a huge double-digit salary. She simply doesn't put asses in seats.

[Daytripper]

Yes. Yes, she is.

To say her movies bombed but it was "not her fault" is irrelevant. We're talking about the numbers here. And simply put, she is NOT a major draw. Certainly not big enough to justify a huge double-digit salary. She simply doesn't put asses in seats.

No. No she's not Matt. Nicole Kidman is an ACTRESS. Not a "box office draw"! No studio on the planet has ever said "Let's get Nicole Kidman to open our movie and break the bank". And if they did, they're idiots. Also, if they agreed to pay her the big bucks, that's their fault. So it is VERY relevant. And I'm pretty sure her paycheck has shrunk since then.

[RichC2]

Yes, it did. How else do you explain the 302M it made outside of the U.S.?
Clearly it pleased fans of the book there. And anybody else. The negative press it got from those those religious groups certainly made a big impact on it's box-office in America. And none of those people even saw it. And oh btw, it did extremely well in video sales and rentals. Because those who shelled out 70M to see it in the theaters, told others it wasn't anti-God.

Also, "The Invasion" was "bad" because the studio intervened (again) and hired another director to make it more dumbed down. With those said car chases. To appeal to the masses. Not Nicole's fault.

No, it really had nothing to do with the religious aspect. I slam americans blindly following religion as much as anybody else but blaming the failure of Golden Compass on it isn't valid (hell the minor uproar about it is one reason I saw it in theaters). Afterall, the banning of Harry Potter by numerous religions/churches really hurt that franchise. It doesn't hurt that the book series (His Dark Materials) is far more popular in Europe than it is here. Hell, The Island tanked in the US ($35m) but did respectable business overseas ($127m) what does that tell you? Just like The Golden Compass, not much at all. Hell, Troy only made $133m stateside yet pulled a solid $364m overseas.

I never blamed those things on Kidman, she just manages to find her way into some incredibly shitty movies, such as The Golden Compass and Invasion. And Yes, I know they chopped The Invasion up to high hell to spice it up (And did a really bad job of it. I kept expecting Jack Bauer to pop in for a brief shout out)

[Daytripper]

No, it really had nothing to do with the religious aspect. I slam americans blindly following religion as much as anybody else but blaming the failure of Golden Compass on it isn't valid (hell the minor uproar about it is one reason I saw it in theaters). Afterall, the banning of Harry Potter by numerous religions/churches really hurt that franchise. It doesn't hurt that the book series (His Dark Materials) is far more popular in Europe than it is here. Hell, The Island tanked in the US ($35m) but did respectable business overseas ($127m) what does that tell you? Just like The Golden Compass, not much at all. Hell, Troy only made $133m stateside yet pulled a solid $364m overseas.

I never blamed those things on Kidman, she just manages to find her way into some incredibly shitty movies, such as The Golden Compass and Invasion. And Yes, I know they chopped The Invasion up to high hell to spice it up (And did a really bad job of it. I kept expecting Jack Bauer to pop in for a brief shout out)

Rich, everything you're saying about "TGC" is backing up everything I'm trying to say. Yes, "His Dark Materials" is not as popular in the U.S. as it is elsewhere in the world. So it's potential movie audience was limited right out of the gate. But when it was met with all the negative religious press on top of that, the film never stood a chance. And sorry, but I don't think "TGC" was shitty at all. Quite the opposite in fact. I thought it was one of the better fantasy films I've ever seen.

[Seantn]

I thought The Da Vinci Code had bad religious press as well, and it did wonderfully (but I thought it was boring as hell)

[danstheday]

I loved this movie. Sweeping wide screen movie. See it on a big wide screen. The movie plays like three movies in one. First a somewhat like harted western, then a romantic western, then an action western. Everyone was great in the movie espically the little boy. Lots of actors from Baz's last few movies where in there and the music was great and the whole Wizard of Oz subplot was awsome.

[Finisher]

Painful. Strained, forced, joyless. Tried to do too much.

And Hugh Jackman can't act.

[Daytripper]

I thought The Da Vinci Code had bad religious press as well, and it did wonderfully (but I thought it was boring as hell)

It did do well. But it wasn't a children's movie.

[chris_sc77]

It was ok. Not great but not bad. Didnt flow right for a lot of the runtime. Still I admire its intentions and cinematography. I give it a B.

[Hokeyboy]

No. No she's not Matt. Nicole Kidman is an ACTRESS.
A bad actress, yes (in my opinion, of course...) But I would say she's more of a MOVIE STAR than an "actress"...
Not a "box office draw"!
Agreed there... but that's what we're talking about here. Not her merits (or lack thereof) as a thespian, but whether or not she's a proven FINANCIAL draw. And several high-profile box office flops in a row does nothing to lessen that perception.
No studio on the planet has ever said "Let's get Nicole Kidman to open our movie and break the bank". And if they did, they're idiots. Also, if they agreed to pay her the big bucks, that's their fault.
No question there. For what it's worth, they also labeled Katherine Hepburn "box office poison" in the 1930s. YMMV, as always...

[chris_sc77]

WOW. This is going to destroy fox. This was a huge bomb yesterday.

[Seantn]

It'll make quite a bit more overseas. His films always do better there. That being said, this is going to be a HUGE bomb in the US. Not only that, but with a $130 million budget, I'm not sure even good foreign sales could help it that much if it flops completely here.

Moulin Rouge:
Domestic: $57,386,607
+ Foreign: $120,291,216
= Worldwide: $177,677,823


Romeo & Juliet
Domestic: $46,351,345
+ Foreign: $100,960,033
= Worldwide: $147,311,378

In the actual Australia (not the movie) it had an opening day of $1.4 million, only $1 million less than in the US, so it sounds like it'll make some money there for sure.

[Daytripper]

BTW, box office increased 30.1% from Wednesday to Thursday.

[CloverClover]

i loved the first 1/2 hr when luhrmann was in moulin rouge mode, applying that style to an epic western is something movies have never seen before, but after that IMO it got shitty fast, don't know when it lost me but it gradually went down hill with only occasional slight recoveries, overall I'd give it 2 1/2 to 3 stars out of 5

[Giantrobo]

Kidman's almost always rubbed me the wrong way, every time. She brings a frigidity that permeates every character (for better or worse-- usually worse), and for the life of me I can't understand what her draw is, at all. Does this film really look that good? I'll agree that it may indeed be beautifully filmed, but I'd find it excruciating to have to watch her in a three-hour period piece like this. It's a definite pass for me.


Yeah morning show radio host Adam Carolla did this whole rant last week about how Nicole Kidman seems to be the antithesis of what makes Aussies great people.

He said that all the Aussies he's known or ever seen have been the type you could just sit down and have a great time, throw back some beers, and end up with a great friend. According to him Nicole just seems like the total opposite of all that. He said, it's like she's a total phony and anything she says he automatically doesn't believe her no mater how true it is. :lol:

[BullGooseLoony]

I don't think Australia will be the megabomb that some people are making it out to be, but it won't make much of a profit, not until DVD. The fact is: it had flop written all over it. A $130 million dollar, seven-years-in-development epic about a topic no one's particularly interested in...it'll be lucky to pull in $20 million over the five day weekened.

But as everyone said, it'll probably make more money overseas, kinda like Golden Compass, and that'll even out.

[Patman]

Didn't really enjoy the tonal shifts, where the film starts with some strange farce-like comedic introductions of the main cast of characters that goes on a little too long (but I admit to laughing at one spot pretty hard), but about half-way through, the film settles in a more steady dramatic groove that fits the story it was telling. The film touches on racism as it existed in Australia in WWII. Also the film features Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman) a woman who rises up (with the help of Drover, played by Hugh Jackman, and others) to the challenge of prospering in the face of treachery. The other main subplot is about remaining true to your roots even if one's heritage is diluted by bloodlines. All of this within the framework of WWII happening, and how Australia played its part in the war efforts.

Overall, it's sort of a messy film, very much a bumpy ride. The voiceover by the little boy, Nullah, who ties many of the themes and plot elements together can be a little too cute at times, and also hard to understand due to the accent. That being said, the child actor playing Nullah is very earnest, and Sarah's love for the child comes across as genuine, which raises the stakes for the final act of the film.

I did not like the David Wenham in the Neil Fletcher role (playing a part of the antagonist side against Sarah), just didn't really have that dramatic spark to elevate the role, though Bryan Brown does well with his part as King Carney (who owned most of the north territory and was cattle tycoon).

There are some nice aerial sweeping shots, but there are also some really obvious scenes shot on sets, with fake-looking backgrounds, not something you expect from a film with a huge budget (over $120 million). The film is over 160 minutes long, and it feels like it, mainly due to the first half that takes forever to find its legs.

Overall, I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.

[movielib]

I absolutely loved it and pretty much agree with Brian Orndorf's DVD Talk review but I would give it at least another half star above his 4/5 and maybe a full star above. I thought the 2:45 running time seemed more like 2:00. It flew by.

Admittedly, one has to go for Luhrmann's stylized look and tone and appreciate his not holding back one bit from his somewhat over-the-top vision but if you do buy into that you will love it as I did. The acting, within that stylization, is terrific and I loved the music and the cinematography is stunning (if nothing else it will be a crime if it doesn't get an Oscar nomination for that). I think it's one of the best films of the year. Obviously, looking on Rotten Tomatoes and here, everyone does not agree with me.

(BTW, I like Moulin Rouge but I was so irritated by Romeo + Juliet (even by the "+" instead of an "and") I couldn't make it past 20 minutes).

[Sanjuro37]

This was one of the shittiest, most overblown movies of the year. You cannot spend and hour and a half making wacky faces (and what the fuck was up with that BTW?), then tack on a 45 minute final act that veers the whole thing into Serious Business. Wenham was the only good aspect of this film. The score is pompous and barely ties into what's happening on the screen at the moment, plus it drowns out a lot of the dialogue. And that little Jar-Jar child made me want to go door to door performing abortions. Luhrmann is a flashy hack; hell, I'll take Michael Bay over this shit any day. At least the only pretension in Bay's work is the dumbass "patriotism." Luhrmann just tacks on a simple take on a big issue to make it Oscar bait.

[Daytripper]

This was one of the shittiest, most overblown movies of the year. You cannot spend and hour and a half making wacky faces (and what the fuck was up with that BTW?), then tack on a 45 minute final act that veers the whole thing into Serious Business. Wenham was the only good aspect of this film. The score is pompous and barely ties into what's happening on the screen at the moment, plus it drowns out a lot of the dialogue. And that little Jar-Jar child made me want to go door to door performing abortions. Luhrmann is a flash hack; hell, I'll take Michael Bay over this shit any day. At least the only pretension in Bay's work is the dumbass "patriotism." Luhrmann just tacks on a simple take on a big issue to make it Oscar bait.

I'm so glad several of you agree with me that the first half was a cartoon and the last half was the complete opposite, serious. Had Luhrmann done the entire film like the latter, it could have been one of the year's best films. Well, maybe with less Mowgli.

[devilshalo]

I thought I was watching Crocodile Dundee, when it turned into City Slickers, but then out of nowhere, I was watching Pearl Harbor. I'm sure there were 5 other movies that made this "epic".

[Rizor]

I didn't really notice too many tonal shifts. The first half hour or so, just like any other Luhrmann movie, is a bit on the wacky side, but by the time the characters got to Faraway Downs, the movie was in full-on drama mode to me.

[riotinmyskull]

let's just hope that this bombing won't make hollywood scared of westerns.

[NoirFan]

let's just hope that this bombing won't make hollywood scared of westerns.

Appaloosa made $19.8 domestic and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford $3.9 million, so I'm not sure Westerns are considered a hot genre by Hollywood these days anyway, though 3:10 to Yuma grossed a respectable $53.6 million.

[FlickMan]

I didnt care for Romeo Juliet, Strictly Ballroom was just "okay" - I LOVED and still do, Moulin Rouge as the most wildest advante Garde Musical I've seen. As for Australia, I just dont go to the theater to see these types of long epic romance movies, no matter how I much I admire a directors past works. So I guess I am guilty of helping to make it not a success. I do like these kind of flicks but not at the show.

I will however rent it on dvd and see it on my 120inch movie screen - which means I wont miss any sweeping spectacle.

[toddly6666]

Australia was a great film, one of the best of the year...I thought Kidman was very good in this as well, as plastic and cartoony as she is...

[Zodiac_Speaking]

Some of the shots needed to be filmed for IMAX. It was decent; as long as you buy into the elements that are reminiscent of MGM epics of the '30s and '40s, it's fine. The cattle drive, WWII scene, and King George are the film's best elements.

[Superman07]

Doesn't look like this made good money this weekend.

[Solid Snake PAC]

This film could've used a lot less CG backdrops and elements in the Western part of the film. Otherwise I really enjoyed the film. A solid B maybe a B+.

[PaintballDork]

Did anyone notice the movie used Tora! Tora! Tora! footage in the air raid scene? Or was it just me?

[Captain_Zahn]

I had a good time with it. It's not everything it could have been, but it wants so much to please you, that it's hard not to be won over by it.

[Sierra Disc]

Finally saw this and very mixed. I actually liked the more cartoony, amusing first half over the pompous and overblown second half when it becomes "Pearl Harbor" part II. Other Aussie films like "Rabbit Proof Fence" and "Walkabout" have handled the Aborigine/white cultural clash thing in more realistic and interesting fashion too I thought. Jackman was pretty good even if he sounded like Crocodile Dundee (and I know he's Australian, but still....), while Kidman was pretty bad. I used to be a real fan of hers myself but she's been on a big downhill slope the last few years I think. Worth seeing for the cinematography alone, but too long (it could've ended 40 minutes earlier I think).

I felt like Baz was really holding back on his own unique voice; even if you hate "Moulin Rouge" and "Romeo + Juliet" you can't deny that they had a distinct style, whereas this one too often I felt him sinking into generic epic mode.

[Solid Snake PAC]

I say...less CGI outback..more actual REAL Australia used in the film.