Filed under: Movie Reviews

Movie Review: Australia (2008)

A major miscalculation if there ever was one

Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman in Australia
Photo: 20th Century Fox

Australia is a film that is a drastic miscalculation on the part of director/co-writer Baz Luhrmann. This much stalled project once starred Russell Crowe, then Heath Ledger and ultimately Hugh Jackman and has taken forever to get to the screen, and once you it you will know why. This is a daunting effort as Luhrmann hopes to make a film as grand as the likes of Gone With the Wind and Lawrence of Arabia all while telling a love story mixed in with the tragic racial policies imposed on half-white/half-Aboriginal children as they are stripped from their families in an effort to "breed the black out of them". The idea is as offensive as it sounds, but in Australia's attempts to make sure the film is as much a love story as it is (more, actually) a tale of a "stolen generation" it loses its focus and turns into a boring trip through the Outback that seemed to pass by at a snail's pace.

The film begins in 1939 as the voice of a young boy begins introducing us to the story in broken English. The violence against the Aboriginal people is quickly realized as well as early introductions to our two main characters Lady Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman) and a man simply known as The Drover (Hugh Jackman). Why's he called The Drover? Because he is what he does… plain and simple. Sarah Ashley, however, is more than she initially appears to be as this stuffy aristocrat comes from London to Australia to confront her presumed-to-be-cheating husband at Faraway Downs, a remote outpost in Darwin, Australia.

Things change once Sarah arrives to find her husband has been murdered and the outpost is in ruin and damn near worthless as Aussie cattle baron King Carney (Bryan Brown) and his crony, the film's primary villain, Neil Fletcher (David Wenham) have run the land ragged and have been stealing their cattle. Sarah can either sell the land at a loss or try and work it herself; an option most would laugh at considering her refined nature and the dusty prerequisite for working such a savage land. The twist in the story arrives in the form of Nullah (Brandon Walters) a young half-white/half-Aboriginal child Sarah takes to mothering and with the help of The Drover believes the land is salvageable.

From this point, the film becomes a story of the love between Sarah, The Drover and Nullah as they form a strange family unit. Their story combines with the territorial war against Fletcher as he hungers for power and Carney's place as king of the land all while the battle of race relations and search for one's inner self acts as the film's thread line. All this plays while the threat of World War II is in the background and ultimately serving as the film's climax. Epic is an understatement, but with so many hats in the air none of them are able to be caught as the story gets caught up in the middle ground and only to try and find its legs in its multiple climactic moments when I was already too weary to care.

Scenes between Lady Ashley and The Drover are never interesting until the final moments when a problem is either reconciled or expanded upon. Their love is realized in the smaller more personal aspects of the film, once the grand scope of Baz's vision is stripped away and he remembers this is a story and not a visual exercise. Luhrmann got a lot out of both Kidman and Jackman when the script asked for it, but unfortunately it doesn't ask often enough as the majority of the film is so uninteresting you can almost feel the seconds tick away.

A lot of praise has been shouldered onto young Brandon Walters and I am not sure why exactly. As a first time actor he does just fine, but nothing to warrant anything more than a pat on the back and a "Good job" at the end of the day. The Nullah character is so cliché and contrived there is no heart left. The only emotion comes when the downright laughable villain, Fletcher, continues to refer to Nullah as a "Creamy" over, and over, and over, and over again with a snarl in his voice as he mimics the character he played in Zack Snyder's 300 with deft efficiency. Fletcher is a character so empty and so sickly laughable it hurts to watch him on screen. I kept hoping a stray boomerang would end his involvement in the film as each scene he is in only gets worse and worse. Meanwhile you have Nullah running around screaming at Sarah Ashley yelling, "Ms. Boss, Ms. Boss, Ms. Boss!" If Luhrmann had a point here I wish he would have included it in subtitles as he explains the film's true intentions just before the credits roll because the non-stop pandering was insufferable.

The only place to find any enjoyment in this film is to take in its beauty, but that is to be expected with anything involving Luhrmann. However, if you are to do that it will take you even further out of the film as CG set pieces and attention to detail make the film feel as artificial as it actually is. Beautiful? Yes, but not without distraction.

I can't help but feel bad not liking this film knowing how important it is to Luhrmann and how much he loves his native land, but to take any pity on the film for those reasons would be a lie. Australia is a mess of a picture with hardly a handful of entertaining scenes. It's billed as a love story, but you will soon realize the love story isn't even really the film's true intention and on top of that it isn't even all that romantic as much as it is obvious. In the end I took nothing away from this film, but I am sure it would make a decent picture book.

GRADE: D
Related post categories: Movie Reviews :

Click Here to add an
Avatar to Your Account
Post #1
Gravatar

Wow, And i was thinking of watching this with my sister on Thanksgiving Weekend.

Any suggestions on what I should see instead?

p.s.

I haven't been to the theaters in months, so any movie that you say I should see, i haven't seen yet.

- Jerzey Jon
( November 24th, 2008 | 12:22 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #2
Gravatar

@Jerzey Jon: Well, I would take a look at some of my other reviews before avoiding this one outright and see if you agree with me most of the time. After leaving the theater one person agreed with me, another really liked it and another seemed luke warm on it.

Other critics also seem to enjoy it and right now I am in the minority so you may still want to give it a shot.

As for other films coming out this Thanksgiving, Milk is great.

- Brad Brevet (Post Author)
( November 24th, 2008 | 12:32 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #3
Gravatar

For some reason I got a bad vibe about this one from the start; it smacked of Pearl Harbor and I didn't know why. Perhaps I wasn't that far off base. This looks like another weekend where we'll see whichever new movie has the highest Tomatometer, an approach that hasn't steered me wrong yet.

- aerinpegadrak
( November 24th, 2008 | 12:39 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #4
Gravatar

Hmmm. Hopefully I won't agree with this review!

- Maiglo
( November 24th, 2008 | 11:48 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #5
Gravatar

I tend to follow the Tomatometer. Sure, I may not agree with one critic, but on the whole, I tend to agree with the critical consensus. Not always; Zack and Miri was at about 50% and I really enjoyed it, but that approach caused us to choose Role Models over Soul Men, which ended up being a wise decision. Currently Australia is tracking at 62% and Milk is tracking at 93%, so we'll probably end up seeing the latter.

- aerinpegadrak
( November 24th, 2008 | 5:23 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #6
Gravatar

Im going on Wed to see it. I must say the last trailer that was cut was quite good and one of the best trailers I have seen it quite some time. I hope my reaction is different because Im really looking forward to it.

Chuck

- entertainmentodayandbeyond
( November 24th, 2008 | 7:18 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #7
Gravatar

I'm pretty much in complete agreement with this review. Even the visuals seemed to be all over the place at times with some aspects just feeling fake. I don't remember noticing this with Moulin Rouge. There were hints of some nice moments, but man this was a missed opportunity. Hearing Baz say that he didn't know of another movie that was a drama, period piece, comedy, action, fantasy, epic, sfx movie, etc all in one, just reiterates this is a movie that couldn't find it's focus. Ugh, and I waited so long. I actually hope this does well enough at the box office for Baz to get another shot at a big movie like this and hopefully he'll pull it all together this time. I wanted a Dances With Wolves and got Indy 4…

- Nick
( November 24th, 2008 | 7:55 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #8
Gravatar

@Nick: I am with you in hoping audiences turn out for this and actually I wouldn't mind if people enjoy it even though I won't understand what they see in it. From what I understand this is supposed to be the first film in Baz's trilogy of epics following up his "Red Curtain Trilogy". His Alexander the Great film with DiCaprio was supposed to be a part of it as well and that one unfortunately fell apart. I have no idea if it is gone for good, but I would love to see Baz's take on it since Stone's was terrible.

- Brad Brevet (Post Author)
( November 24th, 2008 | 8:02 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #9
Gravatar

After months of advertising here in Sydney and every competition on TV attached to it I had a bad feeling this was going to be a massive flop. And it is. I think it's the worst movie I have seen in years. I left the cinema scratching my head, 140mil to make that pile of crap. You shoot on location in the outback but light everyone to make them look like a cartoon and use waaaaaaayyyy to much BAD cgi. Just shoot it normally and let the local speak for itself.

Story line……..which one???? stupid. There must have been to much of a love fest filming this movie and no one remember the plot so they stuck something together post.

Really is the worst movie and I'm very embarrassed for all involved.

- Rob
( November 26th, 2008 | 8:56 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #10
Gravatar

Well, you can def. take this out of any consideration for Best Picture….Or any other major award for that matter.

- Jerzey Jon
( November 27th, 2008 | 12:47 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #11
Gravatar

Well well well, the pic is so bad that people who have just seen it are already ruling it out of award consideration. Okay, but if the expectations where not so high would it have really garnered a D or would it be worth a C or even a B if it had been given a less than stellar promotion? Yes the CGI is not the best and probably better left on the floor, but it is still, with all it's flaws quite an event and will do reasonably well, even up against the half dozen critics on this page. Some people won't like the actors but most people will. And for the Aussie who said it was the worst movie, is that the worst movie Australians have made or the worst movie full stop. What garbage some people talk. Their souls are mad.

- Doug
( November 27th, 2008 | 10:04 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #12
Gravatar

@Doug: I don't judge films based on expectations, but obviously that plays a part in it whether we want it to or not. However, I can't get passed how boring this movie was and don't ever think I could watch it again. If this had been Baz Luhrmann's debut film it would be forgivable, but as it turns out it seems he learned nothing over the course of his first three films.

Strictly Ballroom is a good debut, Romeo + Juliet I did not like at all outside of the one scene where Claire Danes lets her papa have it, but I believe Moulin Rouge! is a masterpiece, it is honestly one of my favorite films of all time.

So I would say my expectations were middle of the road, but they got less and less as time came closer so in this case I don't think it affected my opinion at all. And as far as saying would it possibly turn into a C or even a B? Sorry, now that is truly mad. :)

This is not a good film and I would say expectations, if anything, are driving grades higher, not lower. Critics have been very generous when it comes to this film.

- Brad Brevet (Post Author)
( November 27th, 2008 | 10:33 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #13
Gravatar

Wow .. So far this is the only negative review I've seen for this movie. Maybe it just wasn't your type of film .. Personally, I loved it. I thought the effects were great and though long, it was never boring.

- Kerrdog
( November 27th, 2008 | 11:37 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #14
Gravatar

@Kerrdog: Yeah, I have a feeling I will be in the minority on this one and I am still hoping it does well so we get another Baz Luhrmann film sooner rather than later.

- Brad Brevet (Post Author)
( November 27th, 2008 | 1:11 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #15
Gravatar

@Doug..Talk garbage???? If you like this film and after 2 and a half hours came out with a big smile on your face well that's great. But I would never value your opinion on films.

This is a big mistake of a movie. Everything from casting to editing to fx to story line. The hype will only make it worse for most viewers (here in Aus)

- Rob
( November 27th, 2008 | 3:51 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #16
Gravatar

I agree the film is somewhat of a mess but I still really enjoyed it. Movies can be flawed and and still have tremendous merit. Tim Burton is proof of that. Luhrmann's use of the Wizard of Oz was a ballsy move but I thought it really worked. There were many scenes in the second half that were very moving and thats what the movies are all about. At least for me! There will be distractors but many will love this film, warts and all!

chuck

- entertainmentodayandbeyond
( November 27th, 2008 | 5:01 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #17
Gravatar

Well, I think Mr. Brevet is just being a little unfair to Baz…..its a feel good movie, at least give credit to it. Unlike the melodrams coming our way. Its not that bad…and trust me, I don't agree with the reviews at all. IMDB. is the best judge for me…..Watch it.
I bet atleast, Hugh wud be an option, besides, Kidman's presence

- Damien
( November 28th, 2008 | 1:05 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #18
Gravatar

What a load of cods wallop! Cliche after cliche, ad nausiem, for 144 minutes!

- Alex
( November 28th, 2008 | 4:51 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #19
Gravatar

Wow. If you don't like this movie, then you probably are more of book person or maybe a tv person? This is what "the movies" is all about. It was one of the best movies I've ever seen. And I'm a huge fan of great movies.. I even have my 2000 AFI list of the best 100 movies of all times here in my house somewhere. And I can tell you, without a doubt, this has made that list in my opinion. That is why whoever reads this, needs to see this film for themselves and not stay away from it just because of what a so called critic thinks. They can't tell you how to feel about a movie and this one willl evoke just that…feelings.

- candie
( November 29th, 2008 | 12:21 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #20
Gravatar

In my view the film "Australia" is just wonderful and I will
be amazed if it isn't a huge success world-wide!
It's a film of epic proportions and has several layers.
It is pure entertainment, with a clever mix of sensitivity,
comedy, drama, and spectacular cinematography.

Some of the truths about the treatment of the aborigines
by the white population is addressed (but not laboured)
and is mingled with timelessness and spirituality of the
aboriginal perspective and their connectedness with this
incredible land.

It is a long 3 hour film but the last segment is so gripping that
it didn't drag at all for us. Don't miss it!!! It's a FEAST! Julie D.

- Julie Duell
( November 29th, 2008 | 6:09 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #21
Gravatar

I loved every minute of it. I was frozen in my seat, completely captivated, and hated to have it end. I guess I'm not a professional critic, but I think I am common enough that many like me will find it a very entertaining couple of hours. Dont' let it pass you by.

- Judy Morse
( November 29th, 2008 | 9:53 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #22
Gravatar

@Julie Duell: Prepare to be amazed because it isn't going to be a huge success.

- Brad Brevet (Post Author)
( November 29th, 2008 | 1:24 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #23
Gravatar

I'm sorry but I've seen this movie and i think it is a total masterpiece. Truly every moment of my movie is sensational, I would go watch it again. The fact that you pointed out that it wasn't about a love story is what i think Luhrmann wanted to express. The love for his land and the history behind it.

- hello
( November 30th, 2008 | 6:58 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #24
Gravatar

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I've heard that it is a movie in the old Hollywood style, epic and sweeping–a big, walloping romance. But I'm reading the negative reviews on this forum and then the positive ones and I'm thinking two things: 1. The way people view movies will always change over time, morphing as society and time change. Big epic Hollywood movies of the past years aren't the same as they are today. 2. The moral of this argument seems to be that everyone will just have to see the movie and judge it for him or her self. As much as I respect critics, I still think that their critiques are still opinions and will always have a certain amount of bias in them–that is just inherent. I plan to watch and enjoy.

- angel
( December 1st, 2008 | 1:18 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #25
Gravatar

My lady and I saw this film today. She thought it was great; I believe it to be one of the worst I've ever viewed. Yes, the scenery was fantastic and the music was stirring
from time to time. It starts out as a romantic comedy, progresses to an unbelieveable 'western', and then mixes in shamanism and fantasy. yes, some of the effects were slick, but why would several planes break off from a formation to attack a island retreat when the radio house and antenna were ignored? Why, when a town is being abandoned and evacuated, would soldiers be shown spraying water on a pile of rubble? very little of this film was believeable or interesting. Save your money.

- Mike
( December 2nd, 2008 | 8:52 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #26
Gravatar

What rot! I absolutely loved Australia – and I encourage everyone to make up their own minds. What's wrong with an epic romance every now and then? I attended with 8 people and we all loved it. Sure it's no 21 Grams, Mystic River or Atonement (thank God). Each of these films were disjointed and depressing. At least with Australia you walk away feeling good and wanting more. Not too many films do that anymore. Oh – and you can learn a little about Australian history.

In terms of Awards, I think the young boy who played "Nulla" was exceptional.

- Jo M
( December 4th, 2008 | 4:18 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #27
Gravatar

Reviews and comments are predicated on the viewers life experiences and beliefs
as well as their responses to scenes that evoke emotional responses. i.e. Your view of this specific movie is all about you and less about the actual film.

Some people like boiled carp; others prefer baked halibut. The film 'Australia' provides a little of each. The attempt to mix comedy with drama, mysticism, wide screen
beauty and unbelieveable situations may have been designed to appeal to a broader type of audience with different intelligence levels. There was something for everyone. Overall, this film was a most dismal failure.

- Dr.Trevor
( December 4th, 2008 | 11:09 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #28
Gravatar

I don't understand all the negative vibes about this movie. What's that all about? Is it jealousy? Most people go to the movies to have a couple of hours of entertainment. I was completely entertained, in this case for nearly 3 hours. I enjoyed this movie more than I expected because I had read the unfavorable reviews.

- Trixie
( December 6th, 2008 | 9:08 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #29
Gravatar

I love epics, but this movie just plain and simple sucks! I totally agree with Brad's review.

This doesn't deserve to make money and I hope it flops so no one attempts to make crap like this again.

In any case, I would love to see a good Alexander the Great movie. Oliver Stone totally ruined one of history's icons!

- adu
( December 6th, 2008 | 10:10 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #30
Gravatar

I saw this last night..and as an aussie it made me cringe a bit..it's a very grandiose name for a movie about a cattle station and how we whites ..well the previous generations..used to treat our aborigines (I'm sure that's Baz's major reason for making this..)..quite a few clichés..and it would appear quite a few in the movie were able to time travel..fun noticing the errors..but good to see the bade get it in the end ( must have been his overdone aussie accent that did it..)..the mystic aboriginal experience was interesting..the Darwin attack was bizarre..fires 2 days after the attack..the troops in their winter dress..in Darwin..all the officers with English accents..and the NCOS with overdone aussie ones..I guess this is how Baz thought it was….but even so I liked the music and the scenery..as well as the cinematography..and it sure didn't seem like 3 hours wasted to me..go see it and just enjoy it!

- pete the bloke
( December 6th, 2008 | 11:00 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #31
Gravatar

This is a great film. It's an epic, it's magnificent ! I challenge those who knock this film to go make one of your own. the amount of work that went into this , the wrting, editing acting is awsome..It is an old style movie, very entertaining and Brandon (Nullah) needs more than a pat on the back, he's delightful and thoroughly conving. It a very sweet fairy tale packed with eveything you want from a movie.

- ginger smith
( December 6th, 2008 | 11:13 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #32
Gravatar

@Jo M: I agree, Nullah was gorgeous and a real talent. This movie will not appeal to cynical up their own bottoms types…I challenge the knockers to do better ! I saw it in the USA (and I am Aussie) the ausience loved it, expecially Nullah.

- ginger smith
( December 6th, 2008 | 11:17 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #33
Gravatar

I went to see Australia today, and thought it was a terrible film. I totally agree with the review. Overrated, and too long.

- P. Doelan
( December 7th, 2008 | 3:44 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #34
Gravatar

The title of this film, Australia, is very bold…because the land of Australia is vast…the nation and peole of Australia are controversial,… like any people, and are not universally loved.. SO the film is often seen as a promotion of the nation itself, and therefore many critics of the nation, Australia, also choose to automatically predjudice their reviews against this film aswell….Just get over the title!…just enjoy some great fun. I thoroughly loved it and recommend it!

- Urs Leuenberger
( December 7th, 2008 | 11:50 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #35
Gravatar

Here's a helpful review for those who haven't seen it. If you enjoy watching "Friends" you'll like this. If you don't you'll hate it. For us Australians the last few months has been a bombardment of advertising for the movie and it's been hell. Australian tourism has been doing big tie-ins with the movie to bolster our tourism. But let's be honest, you either like the outback of Australia or think it looks like a hot dry hell. I go with the latter. What a horrible embarrassing film.

- Jeeves
( December 8th, 2008 | 4:07 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #36
Gravatar

Went to see it with my wife. She loved it – but then she has the hots for Jackman. I tolerated it because I love her – even if I do play second fiddle to Hugh. Some movies you wish they'd never end. This one I THOUGHT never would. But then the last 20 minutes I spent squirming in my seat because I had to use the rest room. In retrospect, I shoulda gone. The time would have been better served. On a positive note – The popcorn was great.

- Dan
( December 18th, 2008 | 10:55 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #37
Gravatar

I loved this movie. Its big, bold and beautiful. A majestic story told with a beautiful backdrop. Baz Lurhman's style is always over the top, so we would be disappointed if this was anything less. Just enjoy it!

- Dale
( December 20th, 2008 | 6:26 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #38
Gravatar

@Mike:

yeah I agree with you.

- Pavvy
( December 30th, 2008 | 5:16 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #39
Gravatar

There are great defining moments about this movie but i felt like it was disjointed and the producer left it upon me to craft the story…at the end. I struggled to pick up the plot and when i did as i tried to appreciate the unique depiction of the characters like Brandon Walters Innocence and Nicole Kidman's beauty of course,i kept getting lost and had to start again. I felt like the movie ended three times!! Wasit the producer's failure to initiate a smooth continuation? Was it a love story? Yes, the bond love between Nicole kidman and Brandon walters was truly evident but i found Nicole and Hugh's relationship aloof and lacked intensity that would term this as a love story. Not a waste of time but i think Baz should have spent a little more time refining the movie.

- Belinda
( January 7th, 2009 | 3:31 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #40
Gravatar

Going to see this movie would have to be one of the biggest wastes of time I have had recently. Fortunately I had free tickets! The story line had too many 'bits' to it and nothing in depth. Most of the acting was clearly seen as 'acting'. And the Boab tree should have been in the credits because it appeared in so many scenes. If it is hoped that tourists will want to come to Australia after seeing it … I don't think so!
It was wrongly named!

- Diana
( January 15th, 2009 | 9:29 pm )
Reply to this comment
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Leave Your Feedback
(required)
(will not be shown) (required)
DON'T WANT YOUR COMMENT DELETED?
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Follow Us On Twitter!
RSS Email
Latest Posts
Latest Video
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time ~ Trailer
New Pictures
Friend RopeofSilicon on Netflix!