Australia

brendansmith

My god that was terrible.

Absolutely desperate!!

The Black Oil

How so?

monkeyfudge

Well the trailer doesn't exactly paint a great picture.

Pigman II

Was it worse than Gallipoli and Young Einstein?

brendansmith

It was sooooo cheesy!

You know when you get embarrassed watching something because its so poor in quality?
Well i was head in hands mortified for everyone who had anything to do with this film.

Xavi6

Lol it's amazing how much it has been bigged up over here for the past year or so and now when it finally comes out it gets slated by all corners of the industry.

I refuse to go see it having seen the trailers. I also hate Nicole Kidman.

ShoulderChip

... and its such a lovely country.

brendansmith

monkeyfudge wrote: »

Well the trailer doesn't exactly paint a great picture.

No, it dosnt, listen there was nothing else on and i was with my ladyfriend. I thought it might be watchable. I was wrong

Xavi6 wrote: »

Lol it's amazing how much it has been bigged up over here for the past year or so and now when it finally comes out it gets slated by all corners of the industry.

I refuse to go see it having seen the trailers. I also hate Nicole Kidman.

I heard about it ages ago and how 'Australia' would put Australia back on the map and 'Australia' would be the word on everyones lips

I officially fu(kin hates Nicole Kidmans stupid fu(kin face after this film. She was terrible with her pouting etc. She reminded me of that one who played Bridget Jones with the stinky little pi$$ eyes.

monkeyfudge

I believe it had a troubled production which can't have helped what was likely to be a crappy movie anyway.

Kintarō Hattori

It's worth going to see for this alone:

PhiliousPhogg

Were the shots of the countryside and outback any good?

It was filmed up there in the Northwest, I forget the name of the area. It's supposed to be fantastic landscape, and seems to be the only reason to go see the film. I don't think I'll bother though.

About the film, I've heard bad things from reliable sources (guys) and good things from unreliable sources (girls).

JP Liz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p447zpUmbxw

Kintarō Hattori

I just saw Australia tonight. It was cheesy, it was cliched. I liked it..... I'll buy it.

Basq

Typical Baz Luhrman cack.. one of the most over-rated and woeful film-makers out there!

dolliemix

I read all the reviews about how bad it was and went to see it with really low expectations....Thought it would be like Titanic which I hated but ....I LOVED THIS FILM. It was funny, sweet and unpretentious. The colours were amazing. I am so glad I saw it on the big screen....and Hugh Jackson was gorgeous...(swoon!)

Dont be at yourself

I thought it was fantastic, myself. It was too long, but I couldnt help but be glued to it. One of the best films of last year, for me.

Pigman II

I have a list I keep for particular directors who spend a career making a series of movies that contain entirely nothing noteworthy or exceptional until a point comes where they make a particular movie that is so amazingly horrible and devoid of hope for me of them ever offering me anything worth watching again that I just cross them out of existence and commit to never watching another of their directorial efforts.

The list includes among otheres : Guilermo Del Toro (Pants Labyrinth), Roland Emmerich (Godzilla), Sofia Coppola (Lost in Translation).

Baz Lurhman made the list after Moulin Rouge so I imagine I shall live a very long and happy life without seeing this Australia film.

faceman

I heard its awful too. too much going on and bits of history made up for no obvious reason.

manicmonoliths

Just saw it there and I thought it was great. Completely predictable and very cheesy. But I can honestly say I thought it was fantastic.

Stargal

It's a difficult film to like for the simple reason that there is absolutely zero chemistry between Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman. Their sex scene together is like seeing two planks of wood being rubbed against each other. When are film-makers going to realise that no-one wants to see Kidman as a love interest?

It does look beautiful, particularly some of the aerial shots of the ranch and the war scenes in Darwin, but that doesn't make up for the stilted dialogue, Kidman's over-acting in the early scenes or the clichéd and messy plot.

Now to be fair it isn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. It's still worth seeing but it just tries to be too many things. If it had focused solely on the love story or on Australia's role in the war or on life in the country in the 1940s then it might have worked but as it stands it does a half-assed job of trying to be about all these things.

The little kid is the best thing in it; he's the only one who comes out with any credibility. And Hugh Jackman is pretty decent in what was a pretty crappy role.

Valmont

Pigman II wrote: »

until a point comes where they make a particular movie that is so amazingly horrible and devoid of hope

Surely not these fantastic films? To each his own and all but... :eek:WTF!

Pigman II wrote: »

Guilermo Del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth),Sofia Coppola (Lost in Translation)

wow, I'm quite amazed that so many didn't like it. I went to see it earlier today and I thought it was completely fantastic, I loved it.

Slutmonkey57b

Pigman II wrote: »

I have a list I keep for particular directors who spend a career making a series of movies that contain entirely nothing noteworthy or exceptional until a point comes where they make a particular movie that is so amazingly horrible and devoid of hope for me of them ever offering me anything worth watching again that I just cross them out of existence and commit to never watching another of their directorial efforts.

The list includes among otheres : Guilermo Del Toro (Pants Labyrinth), Roland Emmerich (Godzilla), Sofia Coppola (Lost in Translation).

Baz Lurhman made the list after Moulin Rouge so I imagine I shall live a very long and happy life without seeing this Australia film.

Always remember there are people out there who will try and change your mind with every new film released ... "I KNOW you didn't like X, but Y is MUCH better". These people are ALWAYS lying. I reached the same conclusion about the Coen brothers after my second attempt at watching the godawful lebowski.

MagicMarker

It looks like an Australian Far & Away.

MagicMarker

MagicMarker wrote: »

It looks like an Australian Far & Away.

ha! that's EXACTLY what my husband said - weird. He liked it though, just not as much as me.

Mikey23

Stargal wrote: »

It's a difficult film to like for the simple reason that there is absolutely zero chemistry between Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman. Their sex scene together is like seeing two planks of wood being rubbed against each other. When are film-makers going to realise that no-one wants to see Kidman as a love interest?

It does look beautiful, particularly some of the aerial shots of the ranch and the war scenes in Darwin, but that doesn't make up for the stilted dialogue, Kidman's over-acting in the early scenes or the clichéd and messy plot.

Now to be fair it isn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. It's still worth seeing but it just tries to be too many things. If it had focused solely on the love story or on Australia's role in the war or on life in the country in the 1940s then it might have worked but as it stands it does a half-assed job of trying to be about all these things.

The little kid is the best thing in it; he's the only one who comes out with any credibility. And Hugh Jackman is pretty decent in what was a pretty crappy role.

+1

Best review I saw for it was Empire's, which nailed my biggest bugbear about the movie.

... The final superfluous half-hour, with the sudden intrusion of World War II and the Japanese bombing of Darwin, and all momentum drains out of the picture, replaced by contrived conflict between the Drover and Sarah. And when the dust settles, we finish up… roughly where we were 30 minutes ago. Maybe you’d best be advised to slip out at the hundred-minute mark, after all.

BlitzKrieg

the films major flaw is that it is fat!


Really really fat!


But its not that kind of John Candy fat, in that if it was done the right way it would be very entertaining.


Its really really OTT Hollywood and it knows it is and plays on it being this very grand but bland image of Australia. Think very much in the same way of the American epics of the 40s etc

You accept that much then the film is not an absolute joke, it can be entertaining.


Anywho the film could have been alot better if for one change.

*knife*

go about 2/3rds of the way through the film.

SLICE!

dump the final 3rd.

It really is two films, it blatantly brags that its two films stuck together. And thats why it falls on its face.

This big plot element in the film brought up early on is that Australia is a place of 2 seasons, the dry season and the wet season. And the film has two plots, one that is tied around the dry season and the other is tied around the wet season.

Watching the film, you'd think that when the dry season ends, the film is going to end. Because it literally does. All the plotpoints up to this point actually do get fully resolved and there is even a climax.

Then the wet season begins and the film goes off and starts whole new plots.


And thats a bad kind of fat, thats the fat where you've eaten your twin sister and she lives on inside your fat.

You cant trim that here and there, its needs a full blown operation to cut it out.

Das Kitty

Went to see it last night with friends (myself and himself didn't want to see it, but the things you do for friendship or if there is nothing you really want to see in the Cinema).

I have to say, it was just as I expected it to be. Balls.

Nicole Kidman's immovable face means that she does most of her "acting" with her pouting lips and flailing limbs. Just terrible, she also looks wretched and stringy.

Hugh Jackman's character has next to no substance and even I, I great admirer of his looks found some of the "sexy Hugh" scenes a bit much. There was absolutely zero chemistry between the two, it was frigging painful.

The bad guy has no personality other than he's evil. Really there should be some conflict over

the fact that he fathered a boy whom he won't claim for race reasons. They don't even give him the opportunity to have even a facial expression to show that he might have some feeling other than evil.

Not exactly realistic.

The aborigine characters were the only ones that had any bit of believability to them.

It was arse-numbingly long and that stupid tacked on bit at the end was just painful, I think I saw more of my watch than I did of the screen.

Nice cinematography but it was pretty much the same ole Baz Lurhman shtick, zooming in and out and all that guff. Definitely didn't make me want to visit Australia that's for sure.

jank

Nice cinematography but it was awfull. A huge flop from what i believe.

jdscrubs

Saw Australia today as I had the day off. Wasnt expecting much due to the reviews it got. However I was surprised by how good it was. Yes I am a guy&straight but I liked the fact that it was never boring and anytime it threatened to, something interesting happened. It looks amazing, the cow chase where they nearly fall off the rocks is cool, the darwin battle scenes are very well done, the aboriginal actors were good though I found the one who played Nulla hard to understand sometimes.

My only problem with it was Nicole Kidmad's english accent. She sounded like Renee Zellwegger from Bridget Jones. I couldnt understand why they gave her that accent seen as she is Australian and the film is about Australia, its history and its people.

Thought it was never going to end though. Finally I learnt some things about Australian culture from the film. I thought it was all aboriginal kids who were stolen when the film outlines it was halfcasts and that Australia came into World War 2 after Japan bombed Darwin. I never really followed history in school

BlitzKrieg

why they gave her that accent seen as she is Australian and the film is about Australia,

Uhmm her character is english

I thought it was all aboriginal kids who were stolen when the film outlines it was halfcasts

It was both and all:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_generation

and that Australia came into World War 2 after Japan bombed Darwin. I never really followed history in school

actually technically they came into the war on september 3rd 1939 when it declared war on germany

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II#Following_the_German_invasion_of_Poland

jdscrubs

Thanks Blitz for informing me of my mistakes but like I said history is my strongest point.

As for her being English, why did they make the character English if they wanted Kidman in it. Why not have her character an Australin cos then she and us wouldnt have had to sit through nearly 3 hours of her trying but failing to convince with her accent.

BlitzKrieg

jdscrubs wrote: »

Thanks Blitz for informing me of my mistakes but like I said history is my strongest point.

uhmmm

As for her being English, why did they make the character English if they wanted Kidman in it. Why not have her character an Australin cos then she and us wouldnt have had to sit through nearly 3 hours of her trying but failing to convince with her accent.

dunno.

I assume the character came before the actress and the director has worked with Kidman before, maybe he liked her as an actress and opted to cast her again because they have a comfortable working relation and he likes her acting ability *matter of opinion of course* Maybe the studio forced Kidman onto the cast regardless of casting. Maybe the character was originally australian but then changed to British during the scripting process and kidman had already signed on.

There are countless reasons that could be for her getting the role. Just have to accept that.