Australia

[Ezee E]

I've heard about this for a while. Intrigued so far, and these screenshots make it moreso:

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/australia1.jpg

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/australia3.thumbnail.jpg

[Boner M]

I hope this bombs, which it will, and puts Baz Lurhmann out of work.

[Raiders]

At least it meets the prerequisite that any Australian film taking place in the wilderness must have David Gulpilil.

[Duncan]

Man From Snowy River?

[Raiders]

Man From Snowy River?

Clearly a terrible film.

[Duncan]

Clearly a terrible film.
Aww, childhood fave. I haven't seen it in about 10 years though. Remember Kurt Douglas with a peg leg? That was awesome!

[Raiders]

Aww, childhood fave. I haven't seen it in about 10 years though. Remember Kurt Douglas with a peg leg? That was awesome!

I haven't seen it, but since it fails to meet the prerequisite, it cannot succeed.

[Duncan]

I haven't seen it, but since it fails to meet the prerequisite, it cannot succeed.

What prerequisite?

[Raiders]

What prerequisite?

... and all this time I thought you were responding to my Gulpilil comment above. Oh well.

[D_Davis]

I like The Man From Snowy River.

[Ezee E]

I hope this bombs, which it will, and puts Baz Lurhmann out of work.
Nah.

[Duncan]

... and all this time I thought you were responding to my Gulpilil comment above. Oh well.
Yeah, I have no idea who that is. The stills and setting just remind me of TMFSR. And its sequel, Return to Snowy River.

edit: oh, that guy.

[megladon8]

I heart Hugh Jackman, so I'll see it eventually.

I'd see it before Deception, anyways.

[Watashi]

Trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/australia/trailerc/)

Hmmm... what the hell?

Sure looks like Lurhmann.

[Sxottlan]

First trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/australia/trailerc/) that I know of is up.

Looks alright. I look forward to a film about the country told from their point of view, but it also looks like there's a very good chance of it being a big unwieldy effort too.

[transmogrifier]

Trailer looks okay, but it's still the stupidest title in the history of titles. And stupid.

[Winston*]

Trailer looks okay, but it's still the stupidest title in the history of titles. And stupid.
Ha. I was just coming in here to comment on how much I hated the title. So bad.

[Boner M]

I hope this bombs, which it will, and puts Baz Lurhmann out of work.
.

[Watashi]

Such anger boner.

I think it looks pretty great, actually. Hugh should be fun to watch.

[Boner M]

Hugh is never fun to watch.

[Watashi]

Hugh is never fun to watch.

:|

[Boner M]

:|
He's a profoundly vanilla actor. I suppose he can do petulance and bland charm well, which is OK if that's all the role asks for. Hugh Jackmehn, etc.

[Qrazy]

I hope this bombs, which it will, and puts Baz Lurhmann out of work.

If he'd stop editing his films like an asshole they'd actually be quite good... so here's to hoping he's changed that element of his style in this case. I think the trailer looks promising... perhaps in a very Hollywood cliche way but it could work.

---

Jackman is a quality actor. I've enjoyed every performance I've seen of his (6).

[Ezee E]

I don't see any problem with Hugh Jackman's work. He may not have the standout charisma of someone like Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise, but each performance of his has never been bad. He has a good amount of range too, going from someone like Wolverine, to The Fountain, to Scoop.

[Qrazy]

At least it meets the prerequisite that any Australian film taking place in the wilderness must have David Gulpilil.

*looks at filmography*

That is truly bizarre.

[Qrazy]

Been posted.

[Sven]

I think I side with the bone man... Hugh seems like an affable enough chap, but damn if his performances don't leave something to be desired. Intensity? Insight? I dunno. But I'm always underwhelmed. Still, he's better than Kidman.

At any rate, trailer looks pretty neat, sorta, though I was a bit taken aback by its copping of Leone's Morricone music. Still, I guess it's supposed to be a Western, and it doesn't look like the movie's got a composer yet, so I suppose it can be forgiven.

[Qrazy]

At any rate, trailer looks pretty neat, sorta, though I was a bit taken aback by its copping of Leone's Morricone music. Still, I guess it's supposed to be a Western, and it doesn't look like the movie's got a composer yet, so I suppose it can be forgiven.

Just one riff really and for a trailer... the rest of the trailer music has been done even more to death.

[megladon8]

This Hugh Jackman bashing hurts me deeply.

He's one of my favorite modern Hollywood actors.

[Grouchy]

Still, he's better than Kidman.
None's better than Kidman.

I still love Moulin Rouge!, so the idea of Luhrmann taking on a traditional Hollywood epic and on the western genre has me excited.

[Lasse]

None's better than Kidman.

I still love Moulin Rouge!, so the idea of Luhrmann taking on a traditional Hollywood epic and on the western genre has me excited.

Ditto on all accounts. :)


EDIT: Also, I thought the trailer was good.

[Ezee E]

Just watched the trailer, and laughed my guts out.

Jees.

[Rowland]

The only Jackman performance that has really stuck with me is his work in The Fountain, which is amazing.

[Qrazy]

Just watched the trailer, and laughed my guts out.

Jees.

It does have a bit of a Finding Neverland vibe... which is a bad thing.

[transmogrifier]

The only Jackman performance that has really stuck with me is his work in The Fountain, which is amazing.


I'm not sure if you are referring to Jackman's performance or the film with that "amazing" malarkey, but it's wrong in either case.

[Rowland]

I'm not sure if you are referring to Jackman's performance or the film with that "amazing" malarkey, but it's wrong in either case.Thanks for correcting me. I'm sincerely grateful.

[transmogrifier]

Thanks for correcting me. I'm sincerely grateful.

At your service, whenever you require.

[Boner M]

Jackman winning the 2006 Matchcut award for best actor in The Fountain will forever be one of this board's greatest shames.

[Watashi]

Jackman winning the 2006 Matchcut award for best actor in The Fountain will forever be one of this board's greatest shames.
Seriously, what the fuck do you have against his performance in the movie?

I can't think of a better performance from that year off the top of my head.

[lovejuice]

Seriously, what the fuck do you have against his performance in the movie?

I can't think of a better performance from that year off the top of my head.

indeed. his performance and the movie is pure comedic gold.

[Grouchy]

Check out this very well-made trailer:

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

[Barty]

I think the trailer is one of the best I've ever seen. But that's just because the music choice is so fucking awesome.

[Sven]

Check out this very well-made trailer:

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

I counted no fewer than 5 shots directly lifted from Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor. Yuck.

[DavidSeven]

Seriously, what the fuck do you have against his performance in the movie?

I can't think of a better performance from that year off the top of my head.

Ray. Winstone. And probably at least 50 others.

[Grouchy]

I counted no fewer than 5 shots directly lifted from Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor. Yuck.
Yeah, well, ok, but the point is the trailer. It's VERY well made. Better than most real ones.

[Sven]

Yeah, well, ok, but the point is the trailer. It's VERY well made. Better than most real ones.

I don't get it... it's very status quo. What's so special about it that isn't done in, like, every other trailer ever?

[Grouchy]

I don't get it... it's very status quo. What's so special about it that isn't done in, like, every other trailer ever?
...

Never mind.

[transmogrifier]

I don't get it... it's very status quo. What's so special about it that isn't done in, like, every other trailer ever?

Indeed.

[Grouchy]

What's great about the trailer is that it combines footage of nearly twenty different films, most of them with Jackman or Kidman, and it seamlessly edits them into a completely believable Australia trailer. A trailer that's not bad at all, either.

I gotta explain fucking everything to you people.

[Sven]

I gotta explain fucking everything to you people.

But it wasn't seamless. Kidman kept changing age and period costuming, Jackman's appearance fluctuated wildly beyond the scope of one-film believability, and the locations and film stock were also far too divergent (and many of them didn't look like any Australia I've seen, which has admittedly only been from the movies). And that's not even to mention how conventionally structured the trailer is... are we celebrating someone's ability to follow a mediocre formula?

[Raiders]

I gotta explain fucking everything to you people.

Sheesh. No wonder people are posting less.

[Grouchy]

But it wasn't seamless. Kidman kept changing age and period costuming, Jackman's appearance fluctuated wildly beyond the scope of one-film believability, and the locations and film stock were also far too divergent (and many of them didn't look like any Australia I've seen, which has admittedly only been from the movies). And that's not even to mention how conventionally structured the trailer is... are we celebrating someone's ability to follow a mediocre formula?
I now direct you to the picture of a Magic: the Gathering card:

http://www.distrimagic.com/images/Chub%20Toad.jpg

[Morris Schæffer]

Just saw the trailer. Pretty dang impressive.

[Boner M]

I hope this bombs, which it will, and puts Baz Lurhmann out of work.
Hmm... I've changed my mind. Please everyone, pay to see this extended Qantas advertisement, or there won't be an Australian film industry anymore.

[Sven]

Saw the trailer. So shocked was I at how ridiculous is looked that there was a literal combustion within my brain. Could've been from all the alcohol. Nicole Kidman doesn't look real anymore.

[Ezee E]

Saw the trailer. So shocked was I at how ridiculous is looked that there was a literal combustion within my brain. Could've been from all the alcohol. Nicole Kidman doesn't look real anymore.
Isn't it horrible? She looked great a few years ago. No idea why she made such changes. She looks like something out of Speed Racer. When it was animated.

[number8]

I blame her method acting for Stepford Wives.

[megladon8]

Along with that new trailer, news that studios interfered to give it a "happy ending"... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/nov/10/australia-nicole-kidman-hugh-jackman-baz-luhrmann)and not the kind found at Thai massage parlours!

[Ezee E]

Oprah's made her pick, and it's Australia.


“I have not been this excited for a movie since I don’t know when. I’m telling you, have I got the movie for you. It’s the best movie I’ve seen in a long, long, long, long time. It literally swept me off my feet.”

While this might be due to a shirtless Hugh Jackman it doesn’t really matter, does it? She also said “They don’t make movies like that anymore!” And she kept repeating “was that a movie? Was that a movie?”

She also said “This is the movie to see over Thanksgiving. it is epic, it is majestic, it is romantic, and the scenery is so gorgeous you can barely stand it - it’s everything a great movie should be.”

And then Nicole Kidman was interviewed - tall, gorgeous, plumped up in the face, Botoxed within an inch of her life. I’m sorry to be so petty but it freaks my shit out. I still love her and I’ll probably plotz for this movie too. More on Oprah.com.


Her last two raves? Crash and Juno.

[Amnesiac]

Her last two raves? Crash and Juno.

And The Great Debaters.

[Winston*]

It literally swept me off my feet.

No it didn't, Oprah. You run a book club, use words correctly

[Boner M]

Mike D'Angelo gave this a 23, with a three word review of 'Make. It. Stop.' on his twitter (http://twitter.com/gemko). :lol:

Meanwhile, my mum asked me to see this with her on Wednesday, saying it'll be "a date". Aww.

[Watashi]

This looks a lot better than Cold Mountain at least.

[Watashi]

Has anyone read the plot synopsis for the film Afterschool that D'Angelo splooges over?

It sounds absolutely insufferable.

[Boner M]

Has anyone read the plot synopsis for the film Afterschool that D'Angelo splooges over?
Yeah, it's been getting pretty bad reviews nearly everywhere else, and I watched an interview with the director and he seemed a bit of a douche.

Then again, Derek gave it a pretty high rating, so I'm still curious.

[Derek]

Yeah, it's been getting pretty bad reviews nearly everywhere else, and I watched an interview with the director and he seemed a bit of a douche.

Then again, Derek gave it a pretty high rating, so I'm still curious.

It's pretty great. Reading the synopsis gives you about as much idea as what to expect as Elephant or Paranoid Park did. I went in with fairly low expectations as I figured I'd get something faux-gritty like Larry Clark's bullshit (and it does sound gimmicky), but what I got was more Haneke and Antonioni than anything else. It's very impressive stylistically, using silence and space to great effect, capturing a sense of quiet desperation and restrained rage while effectively balancing these impulses with a realism that is rarely given much screen time.

I'm certainly not nearly as high on it as MDA, but I can understand his enthusiasm. I expect it will be rather divisive w/MatchCutters with more lining up against than for it.

[SirNewt]

But it wasn't seamless. Kidman kept changing age and period costuming, Jackman's appearance fluctuated wildly beyond the scope of one-film believability, and the locations and film stock were also far too divergent (and many of them didn't look like any Australia I've seen, which has admittedly only been from the movies). And that's not even to mention how conventionally structured the trailer is... are we celebrating someone's ability to follow a mediocre formula?

I don't know who's joking anymore.



arrgghhh I hate the internet.

[thefourthwall]

When does this move to General rather than Upcoming thread?

I just saw it this afternoon and will share thoughts soon, I just need a little time to think about it critically, rather than emotionally responding to it.

[MadMan]

Based on the previews, yeah I'm gonna pass. The movie just doesn't seem like my kind of thing. Although I am a fan of Hugh Jackman, and yes Nicole Kidman is still hot.

[Ezee E]

Based on the previews, yeah I'm gonna pass. The movie just doesn't seem like my kind of thing. Although I am a fan of Hugh Jackman, and yes Nicole Kidman is still hot.
What's the clincher to get you to see it?

you must hate aborigines.

racist.

[Qrazy]

I don't know who's joking anymore.



arrgghhh I hate the internet.

He's not joking.

[Boner M]

I managed to catch a few seconds of this film on a corner of the screen as I walked past the cinema it was playing in, on my way into and out of Stuck last night. On both separate occasions I saw a windmill creaking gently and a beer being plonked down onto a bar in succulent closeup.

I still can't believe this film isn't a commercial.

[dreamdead]

It's not bad. Certainly Luhrmann's attempts at creating a grandiose, romantic melodramatic metanarrative about Australia is dangerously simplistic (and the film traffics in this simplicity on more than one occasion), and the film's tone early on is far too slapsticky and pastiche-filled for the later dramatic moments, making the film have to work overdrive and turn manipulative to earn those moments (there's a moment here to rival Crash's manipulativeness). And the heroic aborigine who sacrifices himself for his people, as well as Jackman, reeks of melodrama that's couched in Luhrmann preying on stereotypes of the noble savage, even if he's trying to offer humanity to the character. And the use of Wizard of Oz--meh.

That said, the recent frozenness of Kidman's face and persona become wonderfully unhinged here. She's almost back to the expressive wonder that made her so sexy back in the late '90s, early '00s. And Luhrmann's camera, when not overdoing the overhead panoramic pans, settles on several quiet moments that resonate and echo the best of Walkabout. When Luhrmann stays with the personal instead of the national, the film works wonderfully. When it strives for more, it falters under the weight of Luhrmann's excessive romanticism of film and his country.

[MadMan]

What's the clincher to get you to see it?

you must hate aborigines.

racist.Goddamn whitey's the star in this movie instead of the aborigines (so it seems, anyways). Pass.

Which reminds me that I still need to see Walkabout. And The Tracker as well.

[thefourthwall]

It's not bad. Certainly Luhrmann's attempts at creating a grandiose, romantic melodramatic metanarrative about Australia is dangerously simplistic (and the film traffics in this simplicity on more than one occasion)

I'm not sure what you mean by simplistic? That the film relies on stereotypes and is broader, but shallower in its scope? On some level, I think it's fine if the subject matter is so vast that the focus on more complex minutia isn't there. To be honest, I don't know tons about Australia during WWII so I'm glad to start with a primer rather than a grad level course.


And the use of Wizard of Oz--meh.

I kind of liked the Wizard of Oz running through it, even though I'll admit that it was a bit heavy-handed at times. I love films and filmmakers who also love films, so the importance of such a historical cinematic giant in the plot makes me happy, since movies are important in the plot of my life.


That said, the recent frozenness of Kidman's face and persona become wonderfully unhinged here.

Here, here. Combined with Moulin Rouge!, I am beginning to suspect that Kidman is only really likeable, dare I say talented?, in Luhrmann films.


And Luhrmann's camera, when not overdoing the overhead panoramic pans, settles on several quiet moments that resonate and echo the best of Walkabout. When Luhrmann stays with the personal instead of the national, the film works wonderfully. When it strives for more, it falters under the weight of Luhrmann's excessive romanticism of film and his country.

Maybe. But I like the overhead pans, makes me want to go to Australia (and I certainly hope that the tourism board co-opts some of the footage). However, I too am a bit concerned by the final sweeping picture of the country
in which King George (played quite well by David Gulpilil) tells Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman) that this is "our country" and they share a happy moment of reconciliation as representatives of both the colonizer and the colonized peoples
which seems potentially to be wishful thinking rather than reality--but hey, reconciliation has to start somewhere, right?

Overall, the film had the sweeping epic feel that seems reminiscent of old Hollywood and was nice to see. The plot wasn't much surprising, but in the way of all good genre films it gave me what I wanted. I've read that Luhrmann wanted to make the Australian Gone With the Wind, and if that was his goal, he succeeded quite well.

[Watashi]

As soon I saw David Wenham torture a fly to make sure his character was extra evil, I knew I was in for a long time.

[dreamdead]

As soon I saw David Wenham torture a fly to make sure his character was extra evil, I knew I was in for a long time.

Yeah, that part hurt. Thanks, Baz. Because the rest of society totally isn't supposed to be viewed as that fly, so the metaphor is subtle. Le sigh.


I'm not sure what you mean by simplistic? That the film relies on stereotypes and is broader, but shallower in its scope? On some level, I think it's fine if the subject matter is so vast that the focus on more complex minutia isn't there. To be honest, I don't know tons about Australia during WWII so I'm glad to start with a primer rather than a grad level course.

The film is simplistic because it tries telling four (or maybe even more) stories, thereby denying nuance as it tries to cram the thematics into one self-contained narrative. We have the comical, screwball-lite story of an Englishwoman who comes to define herself on this land during the cattle drive; we have the romance between Lady Ashley and Drover; we have the humane story of Nullah's coming of age and the culture of the walkabout; and we have the WWII bits. Those are four narratives that, taken separately, could allow Luhrmann the ability to convey ideas about the culture-specific qualities of Australia. Unfortunately, all four get shoehorned into one film and streamlined until only the superficiality is present.

And when did these types of films necessarily become a primer for world history? That's the attitude that leads to fare like Forster's The Kite Runner being seen as vital cinema about the Middle East, since it highlights a culture we know little about. Yet rather than researching the area or even searching out the filmmakers most associated with that region (Abbas Kiarostami, Jafar Panahi), we end up with a Marc Forster film? Meh. While Luhrmann isn't as egregious of a director for this type of national history, memory, and recollection, nor is he the best choice. Instead, it's a middlebrow choice that doesn't educate so much as entertain us.


I kind of liked the Wizard of Oz running through it, even though I'll admit that it was a bit heavy-handed at times. I love films and filmmakers who also love films, so the importance of such a historical cinematic giant in the plot makes me happy, since movies are important in the plot of my life.

And that's fine if a film wants to rock the self-referentiality of cinema as a whole. To take just one recent mainstream film that utilized this idea we have Scorsese's The Departed. You've got The Third Man and Touch of Evil invoked in the film, but it doesn't hammer you with those films, nor does it depend on those films, as this one does, for greater gravitas. And Scorsese's film isn't dumbing down a national history for the sake of a romance narrative, so he gets an additional pass there.


I like the overhead pans, makes me want to go to Australia (and I certainly hope that the tourism board co-opts some of the footage).

I should hope that Australia has more to offer than the visual representation of the country seen here, though only Boner can say for sure.


However, I too am a bit concerned by the final sweeping picture of the country
in which King George (played quite well by David Gulpilil) tells Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman) that this is "our country" and they share a happy moment of reconciliation as representatives of both the colonizer and the colonized peoples
which seems potentially to be wishful thinking rather than reality--but hey, reconciliation has to start somewhere, right?

Reconcillation does need to start somewhere, yes. But does it need to be done so sweepingly, where we leave the theater feeling uplifted (though chastising of Australia because it took them till '73 to leave aborigine children alone) and purged of any crime that all the European nations committed on these people? This is the type of moment that will foster lots of bitter resentment critically, since it's so heavy-handed and weepy; and even though Luhrmann clearly chose to make this kind of film, it does injustice to the story of the aborigine people. King George and Nullah leave, still not guaranteed equal rights at film's end, offering reconciliation? The whole film has the feel of a privileged class' thoughts about the people, and doesn't adequately represent the people it seeks to except in platitudes.