Directed By: Baz Luhrmann
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Nichole Kidman, Brandon Walters, David Wenham
Plot: In northern Australia prior to World War II, an English aristocrat inherits a cattle station the size of Maryland. When English cattle barons plot to take her land, she reluctantly joins forces with a rough-hewn stock-man to drive 2,000 head of cattle across hundreds of miles of the country's most unforgiving land, only to still face the bombing of Darwin, Australia, by the Japanese forces that had attacked Pearl Harbor only months earlier. Taken from www.imdb.com.
If you've done something good even once in your life that's gotten you important enough to have name recognition then from that point on you can pretty much turn out whatever shit you want and people will eat it like hungry dogs. Sony does it, Mike Myers does it, and lets not even get started on Alan Moore.
"Australia" is by all means a movie of great ambition. Throwing caution and common sense to the wind it's a Western, a World War 2 Movie, a Romance, and a Drama, with elements of Comedy thrown in to make it interesting.
Basically there's a small cattle ranch in Australia called Faraway Downs that is the only competition against the local cattle seller. We meet plucky fish out of water Sarah Ashley (Nichole Kidman), Obligatory Man-With-No-Name Drover (Hugh Jackman), adorable kid who is only slightly less annoying than Short Round, Nullah (Brandon Walters), and despicable cattle baron King Carney (Bryan Brown) complete with weasly two-faced henchman Fletcher (David Wenham.)
They have to "drove" cattle (because aparrently in 1940s Australia they had yet to master verb tenses) to a ship for a military order before King Carney can fill his. Naturally some shit goes down, I mean come on the poster involves Hugh Jackman angrilly whipping fire!
However you'll soon find that the movie is very low on fire whipping and in fact has no gunfights, but you know, it works. The movie ends and there's triumph and fun to be had by all, but what's this? The movie isn't over? Well surely this is just an epilogue! FUCK NO IT'S NOT! The film goes on for another hour and at least 6 more endings before the screenwriter finally puts a bullet in its head to stop all its flailing.
Hugh Jackman in the first half of this movie seems to be channeling Clint Eastwood. His character is the typical man with no name who seems to sweat testosterone and bleed lesser men, he even manages to pull off that cock-eyed half-squint Eastwood always does and does the voice nearly perfect. He's the average story, prefers a life of freedom, has compassion for "insert minority here" because his late wife was an "insert minority here." However even when the movie seems to nosedive into the "what the fuck, this is still playing?" zone he manages to be interesting.
Nichole Kidman has admitted that she did not read the script before signing on to the movie and did it simply because Baz Luhrmann was directing. This makes sense as I'm fairly certain that what is in the movie is a cardboard cut-out of Nichole Kidman that's moved around as she reads her lines over the phone. While it's no surprise that Kidman is phoning in her performances at this point (Seeing as how she's been doing it for almost 10 years now) it's somehow more annoying this time.
David Wenham goes from sniveling assistant to main bad guy in the second act of this train wreck. He's menacing but his heart never seems to be in it, perhaps if he were wearing an eye patch and carrying a spear I would have been more enthralled with his performance.
Brandon Walters as Nullah is supposed to be the main character of this piece judging by the fact that he narrates, but honestly the entire movie could exist without him and we'd barely notice. It seems he was kept in more for charisma and cuteness and to detract from Nichole Kidman's atrocious acting.
There's something to be said for telling a story in a quick manner. While I respect directors being uncompromising about their visions I've yet to see a movie that doesn't involve Hobbits nearing the 3 hour mark that didn't have a bunch of uneccesary pointless shit that could have easily been left out. (I'm looking at you "Dark Knight")
The thing is, I didn't just like "Australia", I fucking loved it. It was a new spin on the western formula. Okay sure it was formulaic, just change the setting to Arizona, the time frame to the 1800s, and the Aboriginies to Indians and you've got a Western. The problem is the Western ends and the movie has the audacity to continue.
Now I'll admit I like a good World War 2 movie as much as the next person, I also like a good Drama/Romance as much as the next person. The problem is while the adjectives apply, the word "good." doesn't enter into the picture.
Where the formulaic nature of the narrative was charming for the Western portion of the film it proves tedious and annoying for the latter parts. In fact, Luhrmann might as well have named the movie "Chlich'e." Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, is absolutely 100% predictable and I garuntee you've seen it all in some other movie.
So why are people getting their rocks off and calling the "Casablanca for a new Generation?" The answer you seek lies in whose name is on the directing credit. Now don't get me wrong, "Moulin Rouge!" was great so long as you like musicals and "Romeo + Juliet" is probably the only context in which I have ever enjoyed that particular Shakespeare play. But face it people, Luhrmann got a little too excited, decided to do a little too much and made a movie that really isn't all that good.
After having seen this movie I still have trouble wrapping my mind around how this movie even exists, the entire thing seems like a horribly bad idea and the very concept of someone doing this willingly is disturbing to no end. I'm told you have to be a Baz Luhrmann fan to enjoy this movie, which makes no sense, there's no "style" present here. The movie seems to have been phoned in by the screenwriter, cinematographer, director, and most of the cast.
"Australia" is charming and fun so long as you stop it at the halfway point, otherwise you'll watch a bloated cautionary tale abotu the dangers of being a stuck-up-your-own-arse director being overly ambitious about your movie.
I give "Australia" a 2 out of 5.
No comments:
Post a Comment