Joe's Movie Reviews

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Australia

Doubtless you've heard people say of certain movies... you may have even said it yourself... something along the lines of "I don't think they could possibly have seen the same movie I did". Latest case in point: "Australia". Aside from one single positive review in the Mpls. Star & Tribune (from a critic I USUALLY disagree with), "Australia" has gotten virtually nothing but negative comments, and Nicole Kidman in particular has been the target of most of the snarkiest commentary. I cleary did not see that movie... I saw a very entertaining throwback to the large-scale "epic" movies of some 60 or so years ago, with a talented cast and crew doing some of their best work.

Plot? Yeah, there is one: Nicole Kidman plays a British aristocrat who travels to Australia just as World War II is breaking out, for the purpose of selling her husband's land and cattle, and returning to England. But when she finds her husband dead... seemingly killed by an Aborigine... she finds herself forced to avoid the evil, land-grabbing plans of her husband's main rival... and the only way she can do this involves a cross-country cattle drive lead by Drover (Hugh Jackman), as the notorious rival attempts to sabotage the drive at every turn and even kill the participants if need be.

That would be enough for a movie right there, but "Australia" also features some pointed commentary on the racist policies that ruled Australia for many years (where Aborigine children were taken from their families to be raised by whites who supposedly "knew better" than their fathers, mothers and grandparents what was good for them), and a bit of wartime drama as the Japanese armies travel south and start to attack. A large part of the negative criticism seems to be focused on how all of this makes the movie "overstuffed" and overlong (at two hours and 45 minutes), and difficult to follow. 165 minutes is actually relatively short for this kind of film (it's easy to forget that "Gone With The Wind", for example, was nearly FOUR hours), and the film is totally consistent and coherent as it goes through its various changes in plotlines. It's all part of one story that no moviegoer should have any problem following if they actually pay attention (maybe that's the problem... it's not a movie that you can ignore for ten or fifteen minutes and not have missed anything).

As far as the actors: I personally think Nicole Kidman does some of her very best work in this film. Yes, she's definitely very "Hepburn in THE AFRICAN QUEEN" in the early part of the film... but what's wrong with that? Not only is it totally appropriate to the story (Jackman makes a nice Bogart surrogate), but she's often quite funny... intentionally, that is... which is something you can't say about her performance in, say, "Bewitched". And when the story shifts gears to drama and pathos, she's right on top of it, jerking the tears effectively when that needs doing. Jackman is fine as well, as is the largely unknown in the west Australian cast.

Baz Luhrman (who of course previously directed Kidman in "Moulin Rouge") creates a big, sweeping story of his homeland that presents it at its most beautiful and dazzling (the cinematography ought to get an Oscar nomination at least). It's not a modern type of movie at all... this is the sort of film that could easily have been made back at the time at which it's set. Which, I suppose, could also be a part of the problem for some. A lot of people don't seem to be able to appreciate a film that does quite well what movies used to do years ago but can't seem to do any more. And it's probably no coincidence that this all-Australian production had to go completely outside Hollywood in order to do so. Oh, well... Hollywood's loss.

I would like to think that there is still an audience out there for the kind of film of which "Australia" is such a good example. Believe me, I have nothing against fast-paced, contemporary movies that zip right along with a compact story and cast of characters, very MTV-style. More power to them. But if modern audiences have become so completely accustomed to such films that they can't possibly enjoy anything else, that would be a real shame. I hope more people will give "Australia" a chance... if they approach it with an open mind, they might be very pleasantly surprised.

2 Comments:

  • I didn't plan to see this movie but maybe now I will. I like a movie that relies on character, plot, and views - not just action, gadgets, and special effects.

    Would you call this an epic? I am not sure what defines an epic. Is it a "type" or is it just a loooong movie?

    By Blogger Unknown, at 9:30 AM  

  • I would say that an "epic" movie TENDS to be longer than most, although it doesn't necessarily have to be. But the main thing that defines an epic to me is the story: an epic tells a story that is a bit "larger" than most (one that, say, involves an entire country or group of people (such as the Aborigines) or some sort of quest or journey over long distances (like the cattle drive in this movie). Or significant historical events (though those are just a peripheral part of this film). All of that as distinguished from a story about a group of three or four people and what happens to them in their home town over the course of a few days. A movie can certainly be long without being an epic... for instance, if you recall the 3-hour "Meet Joe Black" from 1998 with Brad Pitt & Anthony Hopkins, that was most definitely NOT an epic. And if you DON'T recall it, don't worry. You're not missing anything.

    By Blogger Joe Bunce, at 8:20 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home