Read Mixed User Reviews for Australia

4

csw12May 21, 2014

To call Australia an epic is insulting to what makes epics special. Epics aren't corny, empty and have characters that are uninteresting. Just because it looks like an epic doesn't mean it is one. It fails to meet any of these criteriaTo call Australia an epic is insulting to what makes epics special. Epics aren't corny, empty and have characters that are uninteresting. Just because it looks like an epic doesn't mean it is one. It fails to meet any of these criteria because Baz's original flaw of trying to tackle 4 different stories at once leaves each story having zero impact by the end.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

5

ImUnavailableJul 19, 2011

As beautiful as this movie looks, it seems split over the story it wants to tell. Is it discussing the lives of cattle ranchers or the plight of the aborigines or the impact of WW2 on Australia or the romance between an unlikely couple? YouAs beautiful as this movie looks, it seems split over the story it wants to tell. Is it discussing the lives of cattle ranchers or the plight of the aborigines or the impact of WW2 on Australia or the romance between an unlikely couple? You can't fault the movie for lacking ambition but the movie cannot possibly tackle all of these stories effectively, even with its lengthy running time. Each of these story threads feels undercooked as they are systematically left behind after each act. Australia is an overlong, overstuffed test of the viewer's patience.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5

JillboMar 20, 2009

A rather average film. Romanticised history of British colonisation and Aboriginal genocide, then becomes even shallower through the love story! It makes Australia (the place) look good though.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

syzygyNov 30, 2008

Baz whips together large themes across a classic Hollywood canvas in the tradition of Lean, Ford, and De Mille. The trick is to balance the contradiction between a shallow pop-history narrative and the demands of serious drama. Baz tosses in Baz whips together large themes across a classic Hollywood canvas in the tradition of Lean, Ford, and De Mille. The trick is to balance the contradiction between a shallow pop-history narrative and the demands of serious drama. Baz tosses in one convention after another for a risky ride that succeeds as much as it fails.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

FranceL.Dec 23, 2008

A less sophisticated, less poignant, more derivative, more melodramatic, over the top, anything goes, everything goes, overly long 'Out of Africa' wannabe.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

ChadS.Dec 9, 2008

The grass isn't singing, perhaps the Australian outback is too arid. The grass is tired. Lady Sarah Ashley(Nicole Kidman) seems at complete ease with the Aborigine people at Faraway Downs, even though there's early speculation that The grass isn't singing, perhaps the Australian outback is too arid. The grass is tired. Lady Sarah Ashley(Nicole Kidman) seems at complete ease with the Aborigine people at Faraway Downs, even though there's early speculation that her husband was killed by a native named King George(David Gulpili). Because of the times, you would suspect a British subject to be uncomfortable with Aborigines living under her roof. Lady Ashley doesn't have to be stereotypically colonist(like something out of a Doris Lessing novel), but "Australia" could have benefited from some moral complexity out of the ex-Brit. Saints aren't interesting. "Australia" works best as a western; it should have remained in this milieu instead of genre-hopping: the war epic that follows is not nearly as successful. The Aborigines are cast in "Indian" clothing, at first, when it's believed that King George is responsible for the murder of Lady Ashley's husband. During this interim period, the Australian emigrate seems too contemporary in accepting Nullah(Brandon Walters), a half-breed, as more than her charge. The filmmaker doesn't want to portray the Aborigine people as one-dimensional brutes, like the Indians, as seen through the lenses of Hollywood filmmakers during the studio system heyday. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and the filmmaker neglects to capture the urgency of the Aborigine cause. Since their children are being taken away, nobody would fault them if they responded to the government provocation by vigilant means. The filmmaker renders them impotent. When Nullah and some other Aborigine children are marooned on an island, it's Drover(Hugh Jackman) who comes to their rescue.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

HyperSJan 26, 2009

Hollywood drivel. The beginning was fine [kind of a Western theme], but the last 30-45 minutes was just the director throwing every Hollywood movie cliche he could at the audience. The Japanese attack was out of place and obviously used to Hollywood drivel. The beginning was fine [kind of a Western theme], but the last 30-45 minutes was just the director throwing every Hollywood movie cliche he could at the audience. The Japanese attack was out of place and obviously used to simply facilitate the director's "Happy Ever After Ending" that we've seen a hundred times before. And forcing the villain scenes on us at the end was just a pathetic piece of film making. Lazy, unimaginative, and extremely predictable is the only way to describe the ending. But, ladies out there don't worry as I'm a guy reviewing this movie... if you're a girl out there just ignore my score and go watch the movie as its the classic formula for a successful chick flick. You'll love the young kid and the love story and Hugh Jackman and of course the predictable happy ending.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

NeilKNov 21, 2008

Eh... a little better than average. It tries to be three different types of movies shot in two different styles. Sometimes Baz Luhrman is just too "smart" for his own good. This is a decent date movies... the gals will swoon over Huge Ackman Eh... a little better than average. It tries to be three different types of movies shot in two different styles. Sometimes Baz Luhrman is just too "smart" for his own good. This is a decent date movies... the gals will swoon over Huge Ackman as well as the story of the child. Guys? Well, it is not completely boring... but, be warned, after seeing Huge with his shirt off, you will be looked at as sloppy seconds when the lights come back up. Sorry folks, the CGI looks ridiculous, the story tries to do way too many things with overly cardboard characters.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

smijatovJan 9, 2012

I had very high expectations from Luhrmann, being that "Australia" came as his next project after "Moulin Rouge," which is my favourite film of all times. However, "Australia" is far from deserving that honour. The critics got right the factI had very high expectations from Luhrmann, being that "Australia" came as his next project after "Moulin Rouge," which is my favourite film of all times. However, "Australia" is far from deserving that honour. The critics got right the fact that the film is epic. Yes, it clearly is. Almost 3 hours of glorification of Australia - how could it not be? But grandeur alone does not make for a great film. Don't get me wrong - I did enjoy the film, and thought it was good. However, it had a bunch of things wrong with it. First of, it is not one story, it is a dozen of stories mixed into one overly-long film. Seriously, this could have been his next trilogy or something, since Luhrmann squeezed so much material into the film, that it's bursting out of its seems. Technically, though, "Australia" is amazing. With breathtaking cinematography, the usually spectacular art & production design, as well as costumes, and a good soundtrack, technically the film is superb. Acting is pretty good, too. Kidman is very good in comedic moments, but her lips indeed are too distracting from her acting. Jackman is his usual action-her self, so good, but nothing spectacular. The outstanding performances came from David Wenham as the arch-nemesis and the boy Brandon Walters, who stole the show. The screenplay is the weakest link of the film, along with its editing. Overall, "Australia" is a good film, but the story is too long, too stretched out, improbable and just not credible. At the end of the film you are visually amazed and in awe, but you are annoyed with the story. A nice try from Luhrmann, but he should have definitely cut at least 20-30 minutes from the film and worked more on the screenplay. Still, entertaining to watch for the visuals!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

TyranianOct 6, 2019

Epic in scope and has some decent visuals but is a failure on most counts. Acting is goodish.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

SpangleFeb 20, 2017

Australia is a film with a sweeping vision and epic ambitions, but it simply does not live up to its own expectations. It is hardly a bad film as it has many beautiful and tremendous elements that do justify its efforts. Unfortunately, it isAustralia is a film with a sweeping vision and epic ambitions, but it simply does not live up to its own expectations. It is hardly a bad film as it has many beautiful and tremendous elements that do justify its efforts. Unfortunately, it is simply maligned by a bevy of issues that hold it back from being a great modern epic. Thinly written, predictable, and tonally jumbled, Australia is a film with an important message and the hope that sum up Australia and its most important pieces - cattle herding, World War II, the wet season, the dry season, aboriginals, and love of theland - in just under three hours. Unfortunately, the end result is a film that simply feels too unfocused and lacking conviction.

This grand scope leads Australia to feeling like two films shoved into being one film. The first half focuses on Lady Ashley (Nicole Kidman) arriving in Australia to find her husband dead and Neil Fletcher (David Wenham) scheming to steal their cattle away. With the help of The Drover (Hugh Jackman), she embarks on a journey to bring 1,500 cattle to Darwin to be used as meat for the Australian troops. Along the way, she falls in love with The Drover and half-aboriginal, half-white boy Nullah (Brandon Walters). In this film, Australia most closely aligns with being a western and is gritty and unafraid to show the dirty and dangerous work entailed by cattle driving. However, the film turns on a dime and becomes a war film in the second half with the bombing of Darwin conducted by the Japanese. Hinted at in the first half with war footage, two years pass from 1939 to 1941 between the first and second halves. The end result is a film that feels too unfocused and split. Both films could reasonably stand on their own, but wind up being part of one overlong film, out of the necessity of scope. While director Baz Luhrmann's ambition is admirable, it simply is a film that never justifies its runtime and could have been either shorter and more focused or split into two separate films that celebrate the various elements of Australia. Together, the two halves simply do not gel with one another.

The film tries to string these two halves together, however, with the love between Lady Ashley and The Drover. From two different worlds, it is a cliched romance but it works incredibly well. The characters are pretty cookie cutter and indistinguishable from a variety of characters in other films, but the romance is the element that comes closest to meeting the grand scope of the film. It feels triumphant and authentic, even if maligned by elements that are clearly scripted and cliched, such as The Drover rejecting an invitation to the ball only to then show up unexpectedly. It is cute, but it is hardly unpredictable or original.

Yet, the writing's greatest fault is Neil Fletcher. A rival cattle herder working for King Carney (Bryan Brown), the head honcho in the meat business in Darwin, he is an unnecessary bad guy. In both halves of the film, he shows up randomly to make the film take longer to get the end. Both the herding and the war are thrilling enough with enough entertainment to work without a villain, so adding in an antagonist merely feels excessive and a useless addition to a film that simply did not need another character. At no point during the film does Luhrmann justify his addition to the film and he merely exists to add turmoil and strife to the point that existed without his presence. Even worse, just as with the romance, each moment with the villain is predictable and easy to see. The expected side characters die and the expected routes are taken to save our heroes in the face of this man who hates them for very little reason.

That said, Australia has a resounding plus that almost makes the whole thing come together: the visuals. Gorgeously dreamy landscapes in the Australian outback, breathtaking aerial shots of the desert, the bombing, the contrast of the black/orange fire with the blues and greens of Darwin, and the absolutely astounding shot of all orange and black overtaking Darwin after the bombing. All of the shots are brilliantly framed and a gorgeous mash-up of color. The end result is an awe-striking beauty that matches the ambitions of Luhrmann and makes the film pure eye candy. For those that love Australia, the visuals have to be the reason why and it is the reason why the film is one that is disappointing. In spite of its great visuals, it offers very little else that matches the quality of the sights to be seen in the film.

For a film seeking to sum up Australia, it is simply unable to reach the grand scope. From hamfistedly bringing forth the nameless drover as a representation of the heroism and strength of the nation to thinly written characters and a predictable and cliched plot to the far-too-long runtime, Australia is an ambitious film but exceeds the grasp of Baz Luhrmann. It is boisterous and at times dream-like film with a heart-wrenching romance and brilliant visuals.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

JP32Oct 15, 2017

Luhrmann tries to have his cake and eat it too when it comes to balancing the art-house elements he's famous for and the traditional elements the material calls for. The result is a movie that is not artsy enough to separate itself from itsLuhrmann tries to have his cake and eat it too when it comes to balancing the art-house elements he's famous for and the traditional elements the material calls for. The result is a movie that is not artsy enough to separate itself from its obvious inspirations, And not traditional enough to stand alongside them.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

DawdlingPoetNov 28, 2021

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This is a historical drama, covering themes including racial inequality, acceptance, trust and determination. The first thing I noticed about it was the clear stereotypes of both the Australians and aristocratic/upper class English people. Kangaroos feature within the first twenty minutes as well, plus there's the clear sound of everyones favourite Australian musical instrument, the wobbleboard! so it would be wrong to say that this film doesn't carry a number of obvious cliches and panders to set stereotypes but then you may well have expected this to be the case, given the rather critical reception I believe it received on its release.

There are some lovely landscape, panoramic style shots featured in between scenes and the like and I imagine it would do well being viewed from as large, or wide, a TV screen as possible. This is one of those films that would have been well worth seeing at the cinema for this reason. There is narration during the film, provided by a young boy, a native Australian (Aborigine). He gives a strong sense of naivety and innocence to the plot in his descriptions during said narration. I felt that it was a relatively immersive film, with a decent use of incidental music at key moments helping to make viewers feel confused and concerned about what may happen next, as the characters involved would have at that point.

It is quite dramatic in parts although overall the plot pace was relatively slow to moderate I suppose. This is a particularly long film, with a running time of approximately 2 hours and thirty five minutes and so its clearly hardly a case of a 'short and sweet' film, both in plot and in actual running time.

I felt that the main letdown of this film was the aforementioned caricatures that were the main characters. The cast provided decent performances but I can't ignore the fact that both Drover and Lady Sarah Ashley sounded like cliched stereotypes of the countries their from. I did enjoy watching the film and I felt that as far as the visuals and some of the cast are concerned, their pretty good but I found myself struggling to take it entirely seriously. Drover is played by Hugh Jackman, who is your typical macho type true adventurer Australian (think of, perhaps, a mix of Crocodile Dundee and the late Steve Irwin perhaps), while Nicole Kidman plays Lady Sarah Ashley, someone who frankly I'm surprised wasn't shown as passing out under what surely was a very hot summers day on her arrival, given her fragile stature and delicate skin (remember that she is English of course). The fact that Nicole herself is Australian and yet she plays the English character in this film I found to be rather ironic, although she does well (as usual) in portraying her character. I should perhaps also mention that Hugh Jackman is also Australian. I suppose, due to this, I can't entirely accuse him of putting on an overly fake Australian accent as such as I presume it to be his mother tongue as it were but still the dialogue and accents, certainly at times, didn't quite sit with me entirely well, make of that what you will.

Some scenes I felt were quite touching, scenes featuring Lady Sarah Ashley spending time with the native Australian for example. For the most part, the music is quite theatrical, classical in style and it accompanies the wide shot panoramas quite well. It definitely helps make it seem more of a cinematic classic type film, although I find it hard to ignore the more lazy aspects of the characters, accents and all. I couldn't quite get away from the feeling that some aspects of the film were rather 'convenient' shall we say but equally I don't think it would be fair to completely slate it for that reason alone. I did find it surprisingly watchable overall, given my doubts based on what I've heard others say of it. I do try to be open minded when watching films in general.

I noticed the ocassional scene featured fairly mumbled dialogue, which may be slightly difficult for those who are hard of hearing to entirely follow but this is only an issue now and again and not constantly throughout the film. There was also what I felt to be an amount of cheesiness present, due to the way the plot panned out but I won't say anymore so as not to spoil the film. Its definitely not an entirely positive or negative film plot wise.

The cast do a pretty decent in their roles and I liked the narration used but I did feel that some plot aspects seemed slightly 'convenient' and its not the sort of thing I'd make time to watch very often, mainly as I don't usually watch films much over two hours long but thats a personal thing. Its not really awful and I feel it could have been better, so overall I suppose I'll leave it up to you to decide whether you'd like to see it and I'll go for a 5 out of 10 rating overall and select undecided, as far as recommending it is concerned.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews