I return from my three day ban with a movie review that I actually wrote two days ago, but couldn't post because of my circumstances. Enjoy.
And just so we're clear, I didn't specify this was a movie review in the thread title because the shock that a user might review a whole continent (which might not be that strange considering some of the other reviews that have been posted in recent days) will cause more people to open the thread.
You know what would surprise me, Hollywood? A shiny big name film where the auxiliary character that narrates it doesn?t survive. At least that would keep the film interesting. I can tolerate derivative clichés for the average movie, but when I?m expected to spend three hours staring blankly at a screen, you could at least make an effort to mix things up from time to time. The only thing about Australia that keeps you guessing is exactly when the hell it?s going to end.
So I?ve broken my promise to never watch another Nicole Kidman movie after The Invasion was a pile of suck and Daniel Craig tricked me into paying admission for The Golden Compass. Since I don?t attend linguistics classes anymore, I spend my Monday nights wandering around campus looking for something to do. Usually this leads me to the ole theatre house. After spending ten minutes debating whether to watch Australia or something else, I decided to pick the movie that would kill the most time. I emerged from Auditorium #23 of AMC at Yonge and Dundas three hours later with a strengthened resolve to boycott Nicole Kidman.
Maybe that?s a bit harsh since Australia really isn?t that bad if you ignore the deliberately indulgent run time (that is why they call them epic movies after all). The year is 1939 and World War II is just getting into the swing of things. Not that anyone in the land down under particularly cares though since most of the residents spend their days getting into bar fights and pondering new racial slurs. Lady Sarah Ashley (Kidman) owns a cattle farm in northern Australia that?s fallen on hard times and leaves England to protect her interests from a rival cattle company on the verge of a monopoly. At the same time, World War II has Australia on edge since their position on the conflict isn?t exactly clear. Australia can be neatly cleaved in two: the first half following Lady Ashley?s cattle rustling adventures with Drover (Hugh Jackman, who seems to be channeling Clint Eastwood for most of the film), and the second half being a collection of dramatic air-strikes.
But wait, this is actually all beside the point. Australia is really about the ?Lost Generation,? a group of mixed coloured children delightfully dubbed creamies, although I?m pretty sure I was the only one who found this funny. The narrator is Mulla, a young creamy boy who hangs around Lady Ashley?s cattle farm. Between the cattle rustling and air-strikes is the main plot thread of tolerance and family, tragically overshadowed by the more visually interesting things surrounding it (even if there is some god-awful green screen work from time to time). The closing captions of the film tug at the heartstrings of family and acceptance, but I couldn?t buy into it since the characters never really gave me a reason to, and it never seemed important. Sure the film pointed this out before they could even throw up the 20th Century Fox logo, but it's a shining of example of how not to tell a story. This thread was so downplayed and poorly drawn that indeed no one would have cared had the film not reminded us at the end. I can?t be generous either since they had plenty of time to get this point across effectively (165 minutes to be precise).
There's also a really subtle bestiality joke that I'm pretty sure I was the only one to pick up on...
Australia is visually pretty though, as it had damn well better be considering how long I have to sit there and look at it. The scenery is well captured and there?s a great sense of scope and breadth. The cinematography is never particularly inspired and hardly takes any chances, but for the most part it?s competent. The only real grievances come from the director?s lopsided tone. The film begins with a jaunty score and light humour, and this dissipates into serious drama without much subtlety. The narrative isn?t quite as streamlined as a film of this nature demands, which is unfortunate because it could have actually been really excellent. Instead, it just settles for passing entertainment.
It?s difficult to pass judgment on Australia because while it?s a solid film that achieves its goals, it does so without an appreciable panache that demands attention. It?s the type of film I?d recommend seeing if you?re standing outside a theatre with $12-$13 in your pocket and three hours to kill, but it?s not necessary viewing. An ambitious project that the world will soon forget.
And just so we're clear, I didn't specify this was a movie review in the thread title because the shock that a user might review a whole continent (which might not be that strange considering some of the other reviews that have been posted in recent days) will cause more people to open the thread.
Australia (Movie Review)
You know what would surprise me, Hollywood? A shiny big name film where the auxiliary character that narrates it doesn?t survive. At least that would keep the film interesting. I can tolerate derivative clichés for the average movie, but when I?m expected to spend three hours staring blankly at a screen, you could at least make an effort to mix things up from time to time. The only thing about Australia that keeps you guessing is exactly when the hell it?s going to end.
So I?ve broken my promise to never watch another Nicole Kidman movie after The Invasion was a pile of suck and Daniel Craig tricked me into paying admission for The Golden Compass. Since I don?t attend linguistics classes anymore, I spend my Monday nights wandering around campus looking for something to do. Usually this leads me to the ole theatre house. After spending ten minutes debating whether to watch Australia or something else, I decided to pick the movie that would kill the most time. I emerged from Auditorium #23 of AMC at Yonge and Dundas three hours later with a strengthened resolve to boycott Nicole Kidman.
Maybe that?s a bit harsh since Australia really isn?t that bad if you ignore the deliberately indulgent run time (that is why they call them epic movies after all). The year is 1939 and World War II is just getting into the swing of things. Not that anyone in the land down under particularly cares though since most of the residents spend their days getting into bar fights and pondering new racial slurs. Lady Sarah Ashley (Kidman) owns a cattle farm in northern Australia that?s fallen on hard times and leaves England to protect her interests from a rival cattle company on the verge of a monopoly. At the same time, World War II has Australia on edge since their position on the conflict isn?t exactly clear. Australia can be neatly cleaved in two: the first half following Lady Ashley?s cattle rustling adventures with Drover (Hugh Jackman, who seems to be channeling Clint Eastwood for most of the film), and the second half being a collection of dramatic air-strikes.
But wait, this is actually all beside the point. Australia is really about the ?Lost Generation,? a group of mixed coloured children delightfully dubbed creamies, although I?m pretty sure I was the only one who found this funny. The narrator is Mulla, a young creamy boy who hangs around Lady Ashley?s cattle farm. Between the cattle rustling and air-strikes is the main plot thread of tolerance and family, tragically overshadowed by the more visually interesting things surrounding it (even if there is some god-awful green screen work from time to time). The closing captions of the film tug at the heartstrings of family and acceptance, but I couldn?t buy into it since the characters never really gave me a reason to, and it never seemed important. Sure the film pointed this out before they could even throw up the 20th Century Fox logo, but it's a shining of example of how not to tell a story. This thread was so downplayed and poorly drawn that indeed no one would have cared had the film not reminded us at the end. I can?t be generous either since they had plenty of time to get this point across effectively (165 minutes to be precise).
There's also a really subtle bestiality joke that I'm pretty sure I was the only one to pick up on...
Australia is visually pretty though, as it had damn well better be considering how long I have to sit there and look at it. The scenery is well captured and there?s a great sense of scope and breadth. The cinematography is never particularly inspired and hardly takes any chances, but for the most part it?s competent. The only real grievances come from the director?s lopsided tone. The film begins with a jaunty score and light humour, and this dissipates into serious drama without much subtlety. The narrative isn?t quite as streamlined as a film of this nature demands, which is unfortunate because it could have actually been really excellent. Instead, it just settles for passing entertainment.
It?s difficult to pass judgment on Australia because while it?s a solid film that achieves its goals, it does so without an appreciable panache that demands attention. It?s the type of film I?d recommend seeing if you?re standing outside a theatre with $12-$13 in your pocket and three hours to kill, but it?s not necessary viewing. An ambitious project that the world will soon forget.
