Directed by:
Baz LuhrmannCinematography:
Mandy WalkerComposer:
David HirschfelderCast:
Hugh Jackman, Nicole Kidman, Brandon Walters, David Wenham, Bryan Brown, Bruce Spence, Jack Thompson, Bill Hunter, John Jarratt, Jacek Koman, Ben Mendelsohn (more)VOD (2)
Plots(1)
A romantic action-adventure epic set in Australia prior to World War II that centers on an English aristocrat (Nicole Kidman) who inherits a large ranch. When English cattle barons plot to take her land, she reluctantly joins forces with a rough-hewn cattle drover (Hugh Jackman) to protect her ranch. Together they experience four life-altering years, a love affair and the bombing of Darwin during World War II. (20th Century Fox)
(more)Videos (4)
Reviews (10)
Australia is a theatrical, affected overly sweet monstrosity that decides anew what it is about every half an hour. In order to hold itself together, it relies on the relationship of the central couple, which is, however, drier than Australian desert. I haven’t suffered like this in a theater for a long time and I can’t believe that this suffering was brought by the same Baz Luhrmann whose beautiful, emotional and complex Moulin Rouge! I love with all my heart. I’m giving this the second star only for the poetic story line with the little Aboriginal boy and the only really nice scene in the film, which is connected to him (stopping the cattle just before the abyss). Australia deserved its fate as a box-office bomb.
()
"Every continent should have its blockbuster," said likely director Baz Luhrmann and made the film "Australia," which is a patriotic film, but shows the dark sides that Australia had to go through in the 20th century. After the first few minutes, the viewer is unsure of what they are actually watching. Is this supposed to be a comedy, which tries to showcase the two big Australian stars Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman in beautiful shots? Or should we take the film seriously and expect that there will be a little more to it in the end, and that we can look forward to some drama that will really move our emotions? In the end, it turns out to be a drama that wants to be grand, but actually remains somewhat small. It still focuses on the main actors and how good they look, especially Hugh Jackman, which raises the question of whether Luhrmann might be gay. He is not, at least as far as I can judge from the fact that he is married to a woman. The story of the little boy, which the film is actually about, is not as touching as it was supposed to be, and therefore - but not only for that reason - the film did not gain much favor with me, because on a runtime of almost three hours, it is not that exceptional. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/05/noc-patri-nam-voda-pro-slony-posledni.html
()
It begins like an unfunny, madcap comedy (all praise to those kangaroos), then it suddenly turns into rather a good adventure fantasy movie about hunters with magic and a nice amount of tongue in cheek, but then subsequently flops over into a remake of Pearl Harbor. Just even stupider and deadly serious into the bargain. At the end it becomes a politically correct appeal with at least seventeen ending acts. The cherry on the cake is the finale “gets out of boat and rifle shot" which easily wins the prize for sky-high dumbness in the movie theaters this year. Of course, you shed some tears while watching it, which certainly was the filmmakers’ aim, but I’m not so sure that they were meant to be tears of laughter. It’s all in a visual guise which, unlike Moulin Rouge!, doesn’t balance playfully on the line between kitsch and genius, but becomes puke-worthy digital kitsch of the third kind. The characters (not the actors - they do their very best to save things) are a parody of themselves, because for instance every ten minutes Sarah turns into a different character, thinking, acting and behaving completely differently to before. A movie about strength and the need to tell a story that doesn’t have a clue about how to tell a story is bound to fail. And it does.
()
I'll be upfront and honest - I'm not at all surprised that Australia has such a low rating here and also that it has barely earned its own budget back. Why? Because you need a special and proper approach to this film. Admittedly, if the running time had been a third shorter, nothing would have happened. Maybe?! But for me, despite its 150 minutes, Australia is interesting and engaging. The setting in the Australian outback was a pretty good choice. The cinematographer did a great job and many times a lot of the scenes are just about the camera (and a pretty good one at that). The cast I thought was good and the characters fit the actors perfectly. And then, of course, there's the mix of different genres: a narrative romance between kangaroos against the backdrop of war and other dramas of life. Simply put, a long film, perhaps, but still something special and engaging that deserves the 5* from me.
()
Kitschy silliness that for two and a half hours smothers smart viewers in digital cattle, while pulling the more sensitive viewers by the nose with a stupid love story between an English lady and an Australian cowboy. Jackman is alright, Kidman is too vague at times, but the fundamental problem is, of course, the script. If told you that the twists are all predictable half an hour before they happen, I’d be lying, they are predictable already from the trailer, even before the film begins. Think about the most clichéd romance you can imagine, set it in Australia during WWII, add some bollocks about the importance of the art of storytelling (this is how ridiculous this movie sounds!) and you have Australia.
()
Ads