The Tribal Mind: In advance of <em>Australia</em> | Who We Are

Australia, or is that Australia!, will probably do reasonably well here, in the region of $35-40m I predict. However, Moulin Rouge! had a budget of around $50m and only grossed around $60m in the USA. It did, however, gross $170m worldwide. Australia has a budget of $120m. It will struggle to make this back in a cinema run even with worldwide takings. What will hold it back is its name, which is now too late to change; Kidman's lack of bankability - her biggest hit in terms of her star power was The Others and that was a long time ago. All her other films that were successful were largely not to do with her presence such as The Hours or Batman Forever. She also has bad press for her string of flops including Fur, Stepford Wives, The Invasion, Birth etc. Hugh Jackman doesn't have a hit outside of the X Men franchise. Van Helsing cost more than it returned. This film is his first foray as a leading man (Oh, there was Kate and Leopold I guess... which made a fairly good 50m) Most people are predicting big flop or huge success but it will probably will sit somewhere in between and make its money back through DVD sales in a few years time.

by michael on October 20, 2008 at 01:22 AM

Kidman is known today for Magazine stories, public "private" life and photo ops, hardly representing a woman from the bush by any stretch of the imagination, Bad move Baz!!

by Geoff on October 20, 2008 at 01:28 AM

I feel Michael's analysis is very strong, yet as is somewhat important in the argument is the quality of the movie itself. I believe its a stinker, a Pearl Harbour of sorts, it seems old Baz is still big on the look but light on the substance...I hope to be wrong, I'm a fan of cast and crew, just thought the preview was empty, awful and too fake looking, but I will still cough up the $15 for sure.

Tribal Mind replies: So do you want to put a figure on it, in $A and $US?

by Jason on October 20, 2008 at 05:28 AM

Kidman has definitely jumped the crocodile...I mean "shark". Going by the trailer and those bloody awful ads Luhrmann has just done for the Orstrayan Tourism, this will be a fizzer.

by Mal on October 20, 2008 at 06:32 AM

A$12m in Australia, US$20m in the US. Those trailers are awful.

by dot on October 20, 2008 at 06:38 AM

I think it will fall well short of expectations simply because we are in a negative social mood. When the mood is negative we go and see dark films like Black Knight. In optimistic times we go and see Crocodile Dundee. If they wanted Australia to be successful they would have made the character of Hugh Jackman a serial killer with Nicole Kidman fighting for her life. A film that will struggle to be remembered.
Best guess is $30m for Aus and maybe $50m for the US. It won't cover costs.

by Les on October 20, 2008 at 07:38 AM

Although people may not flock to see it on the first weekend, I think Australia will hold out for a longer time and end up making a fair amount. I'd say A$50 mil here, but perhaps only US$125 mil... It has the intrigue factor going for it.
After all, when times get tough, the tough buy popcorn and try to forget reality...

by Claire on October 20, 2008 at 07:46 AM

A$10m at home, $US$16m the rest.
Could have doubled that 10 years ago, but our country as a brand has past it's prime... as have Baz and Nicole.

by Hans Olo on October 20, 2008 at 07:51 AM

I dont think the movie will do anywhere near as well as people hope.
Its the sort of mini-series we would love to catch on TV, but I cant imagine families taking their kids to watch it, or todays kids even wanting to watch it.
I dont think the US audiences will take to it either. The current world crisis in the US, along with election, will evoke feelings of nationalism (I know thats a broad comment, basically more focus on things US) and I think US audiences watch movies about Australia that display our sense of humor or our quirky nature, as opposed to true to life dramas.
My prediction: 17-20m here, 40-50m in the US.

by Donald Rayner on October 20, 2008 at 08:09 AM

At 16 seconds into the Australian trailer, Nicole glances straight at the camera then embarrasingly glances away. If even the trailer has this type of slip-up, I don't ahve high hopes for the movie.

by alan on October 20, 2008 at 08:14 AM

BazL is channeling "Gone with the Wind". but unlikely to get that snap, crackle and pop that the two central characters had that makes GWTW so enduring. Not putting paul hogan in somewhere and a few more local likely lads was a box office mistake for australia. The older AU demographic will go see it in droves and will be the best looking australian movie ever. $40 mill in AU and $50 mill in US.

by peterlake on October 20, 2008 at 08:20 AM

Oooops... as for the box office take in Aust/USA? Australia - $18.5m. USA? Anybodies guess - but lets say $40m and the odd hanging CHAD..
I note that the trailer has to use a map graphic to establish the location. This is in order to explain to `Joe the Plumber' in Ohio the difference between Austria and Australia.

by jaksbak on October 20, 2008 at 08:28 AM

As for dollars earned in Aus & US, I'd say around $20mill + $80mill. I feel Kidman looks the same as in every recent movie of hers - but nothing like an Aussie country girl!
As for the title, it does not surprise me at all - probably a good indication of how creative the movie will be.

by robbie on October 20, 2008 at 08:47 AM

I've seen a couple of scenes from Australia involving Nicole Kidman and I won't be bothering seeing the rest of the movie. The combination of the ever-so-fake pommy accent and the whispy Marilyn Monroe voice did my head in, I wouldn't be able to last more than 2 minutes, it was just awful. Truly, really awful. Not even Hugh Jackman is a Hollywood version of drovers gear could get me to pay money to sit through hours of Nicole whispering.
Nicole jumped the shark round about the time she finished making Dead Calm. When the truly abysmal Moulin Rouge was released Nicole gained extra publicity for the movie by announcing she had spilt with Tom. This time she's managed to produce a kid and is claiming that swimming in mysterious fertility waters while making Australia got her pregnant. Yeah, sure, anyone believe that one?
Despite my boycott the movie will do well here - Ms Kidman's legions of misguided but relentlessly devoted fans will see to that.

by meg on October 20, 2008 at 08:55 AM

For the land of Oz: its got everything we love - the huge sunburnt country shown in its best light, the tough but gentle larrikin finally paired with the posh outsider after overcoming huge odds with a wave to xenophobia (japs) and paternalism (aborigines).
it will be huge here though not quite in the croc dundee stakes as it lacks the international self-deprecating comedy we love.
for the yanks: seen through 'Gone with the Wind' goggles it will do nicely during hard and uncertain times but won't be a blockbuster like the recent Batman
for moi: I like my leading ladies to have the ability to show some signs of life - she is a great actress but that forehead! best line I've heard all year was what she has one "like a friggin flatscreen tv"..
Jackman just goes from strength to strength - the 'gay' jibes are just wishful thinking from gay men and jealous women :p

Predictions: $A 35-40m, $US 80-100m

by Michael on October 20, 2008 at 09:01 AM

I really don't think the movie will be the blockbuster in the U.S.A. that it might be in Australia. The subject matter is more of a local interest. Having Nicole & Hugh in it might prove me wrong though.

by Amy on October 20, 2008 at 09:01 AM

The African Queen in the outback? Nickers is no Kate Hepburn, Hugh is no Bogart & Baz is certainly no John Huston.. even Australian audiences want more than this surely.. $8 mill locally & $15mill in the US..

by rml on October 20, 2008 at 09:02 AM

I think it will do well in Aus $50 mill, not so well OS but Catherine Martin will be nominated again, she's the true genius at work here.
Mandy Walker's cinematography looks stunning but the acting looks really melodramatic and awful.

by carol on October 20, 2008 at 09:10 AM

This movie will flop. It should be placed in tourist shops alongside toy koalas, crocodile keyrings and bottle openers shaped like Australia.
The reason is that it does what nobody is interested in, not even in Australia: revisits the past and coats it in icing so thick you can gag on it.
At least American cinema examines the USA in the light of modern contexts like the Iraq war (Rendition).
Baz Luhrman seems to think we want to escape into the past, but I'm predicting that modern Australians are more concerned with now.

by El Rey on October 20, 2008 at 09:11 AM

From what i have seen from her in the last 3 years, I think Kidman has had her day. Jackman on the other hand seems to know how to pick decent movies.
This looks like (based on the trailers) another patronising story about outback stugglers. Like we haven't seen all that crap before from other directors...
Awful trailers... Looks like Baz is trying to remake a Man from snowy yet again in another setting.
Really who cares. For my $17 they are going to have to try a lot harder than a period drama with horses and natives.
Definitely a wait for DVD for me and my clan.
It will do well here with local support and media over-hype and stupid cross promotion, but not sure it will really take off in the USA. Heart-warming storys are a dime a dozen in american cinemas.

Tribal Mind remarks: Good reasoning, but how about putting a figure on it? You can't be in the contest unless you predict a box office total here and in America.

by Andrew O on October 20, 2008 at 09:21 AM

Thanks for the trailers - at least I won't be spending my money on the film. I predict 28 million in Australia and 80 million in USA, and most of that will be contributed by people bored out of their minds with screaming kids and nowhere to take them.

by Jae on October 20, 2008 at 09:59 AM

This film will flop. There's lots of advertising, and lots of column inches, but no "Buzz" - no one I know is talking about it. No I don't mean I'm not hearing people talking about how much they're looking forward to seeing it. I mean no is even disparaging it. It's going down a black hole.

Tribal Mind asks: How much?

by JL on October 20, 2008 at 10:00 AM

It will outdo Croc Dundee in returns. $70m plus in Oz, $200m plus in the US. Why? Because Baz Luhrmann is cleverer than he seems. Qantas is running a series of "inspirations" for "Australia" at present. I'd seen most of them but watched "Lovers and Luggers", a Ken G. Hall movie from the 30s. Given that this and Casablanca are both inspirations, the awfully-named movie will do extremely well in the long run. Mind you, first weekend sales may be crap as it won't appeal to 14-year old boys (which seems to be the only group of which anyone takes notice for initial reactions).

by Dave on October 20, 2008 at 10:16 AM

...where's the blog submission for jaksbak?.. Part A is missing and Part B is up there.. did I cause offence by referring to Luhrmans directorial talent being a `one trick dog' ? Its TRUE!

Tribal Mind replies: I have published the only comment we have received from you. I wondered why you started with "ooops". Please send whatever else again.

by jaksbak on October 20, 2008 at 10:18 AM

It looks rubbish - 12 million Australia,
16 million US

by Jj on October 20, 2008 at 10:31 AM

Saw the trailer on the "big screen" (Burn After Reading....fanbloodytastic movie!!) It looked like a cross between Pearl Harbour / The Overlanders / Man from Snowy River. Kidman looked like she'd brake if you touched her. At nearly 3 hours long I can guarantee there will be numerous "long & meaningful looks" numerous pans of the huge wide brown land of Australia which will all take up 20-30 minutes. For the industry I want it to succeed but really have my doubts. Predictions Home = $16.8mill Rest of Universe = $88.1. DVD sales will ensure the cost will be covered, fingers crossed.

by PJ453 on October 20, 2008 at 10:40 AM

Self indulgent navel gazing w@nk on Baz's part, he neeeds some fresh blood in his productions, both on and off screen.
There are just no new ideas here or in the last few lots of paltry tripe he has dished up to us. Over cooked plot, way too much directorial fiddling, and really just how many cliche's can we get in one movie?
It feels like a magnificent watercolour painting that has been made grey and muddy by the artist not knowing when enough is enough and going that one step too far and with one flick of the brush and ruining it.
Nicole's as wooden as ever (maybe the botox has made it's way to the vocal chords?) and Hugh is valiantly, desperately, trying to pull it all together. Or prove he's not gay, can't decide on that one.
You need to ask with all the publicity around just who are you trying to convince about this one Baz? You or me? It's being oversold which makes them look desperate and unsure which waves a huge red don't go there flag.
Here 5-8 mil and there maybe 25-30 mil.

by Sailor Gal on October 20, 2008 at 10:47 AM

I will find out if Australia has a happy ending (ie nicole and hugh getting together happily and with no question marks hanging around) and if it has i will go to see it. if not, i won't :)

by LOUISE on October 20, 2008 at 10:52 AM

Kidman is only good when she's playing duplicitous schemers: i.e. 'To Die For' (her best role by far) and 'The Golden Compass'. She has too chilly, brittle and artificial a screen presence for the audience to empathise with her in any other role.

by James P on October 20, 2008 at 10:55 AM

Americans may want to see movies about their country, but when was the last blockboster that had America as a character and not just a set?
The title 'Australia' does me me cringe though, and it will again when i ask for my tickets at the cinema.
From what i have seen in the trailors.. i can't seem to shake the idea that it will be similar to Cold Mountain, but with Australian Landscape
AUS - $18m
USA - $42m

by Michelle on October 20, 2008 at 11:03 AM

I'm predicting that the film will open strongly in Australia, based on curiosity and the fact that it will be extremely hard to avoid all its marketing and publicity. However, as it looks like it will be a dull and uninspired blend of GONE WITH THE WIND and THE SHIRALEE/MAN FROM SNOWY RIVER, it will tank thereafter. So probably about $30 million in Australia.
It will fare even worse in the USA, where it will not stand out and will not generate the same curiosity. My guess is its opening weekend gross will be $15-$20 million, which will fall off by 70% in the second weekend, and its total take will be about $35 million.
Part of the film's biggest problem is that much of Luhrman's success in the past has come from Catherine Martin's inspired production and costume design, which has made the films look so fantastic. When teamed with a great story (ROMEO AND JULIET) this has resulted in a hit. With a badly-adapted and confusing story (MOULIN ROUGE) it has still been enough for the film to work as a whole. AUSTRALIA, being a pseudo-realistic period piece in outback Australia, has not allowed the full play of Martin's talents. Instead of her inspired design, we have the natural beauty of Australia, which while stunning, has been seen many, many times before.
The story also seems to be something we have seen many, many times before, possibly made even worse by a cynical salting of current political correctness to try and make the history more palatable.
As for Jackman and Kidman, I think they are simply miscast and neither is a drawcard in this kind of film. This is probably in part due to the requirement to get stars attached in order to get funding and investment, and there's not a lot of Australian actors who are bona fide international stars to call on.
I'm sure the movie will look absolutely beautiful, but that isn't -- and never has been -- enough for a film to work.
To sum up: weak, over-used story in a genre that either should be avoided or completely reinvented; no scope for the genius of Martin; and lead actors who are miscast and not drawcards in themselves.

by Not Nostradamus on October 20, 2008 at 11:03 AM

I agree with Jason that it smells like another 'Pearl Harbour'.
Maybe patriotic films are so loaded with the potential for offending someone somewhere that film-makers play it extra safe and end up with something that offends everyone albeit for different reasons.
Usually the trailers make the film look better than it actually is. So it's not looking good.
The trailers remind me of Nicole Kidman's perfume ads for Chanel, or those ads for Lamb cutlets that look like movie trailers until they hold up the meat and you understand.
I imagine it will appeal to the same people who pushed 'Mamma Mia' to $31.5 million or 'Pearl Harbour' to $19 million, so I'll have a stab at say.... $26 million here. $110 million in the U.S.A. because I think they will be less interested than we imagine, and will probably be at home counting out beans for their supper rather than spending money on three-hour-long tourism promotions.

by darren on October 20, 2008 at 11:22 AM

People will either see this movie or not - those that do will be because of Nick or Hugh (they want to see Nick sink or swim and Hugh - well we know about that 6 pack dont we)
Im going for the people and outback grandure of this wonderful country that I call home - Australia
Taking into consideration that there are discounts for pensioners, kids are cheaper and that there are Tuesday/Wednesday 1/2 price nights I see it earning $63M-$65M in Ozland
Now the USA is interesting - elections + GFC who knows maybe this will help them see that there is actually a better place on earth than there - $240M (and that Aussie $$$$ - considering you gave us US$8 in your sermation and fluctuation of our $$)
I would encourage anyone (especially those of other cultures) to go and have a look at whats behind your own backyard
ITS A GRAND COUNTRY WE LIVE IN
(Oh yeh - the 6 pack is good too)
Good luck BAZ

by Marisa on October 20, 2008 at 11:56 AM

My rule of thumb: the more intensive the pre-release promotion, the worse the film. This so-called epic has been flogged for the past 6 months, complete with good old unforgettable whastshisname (Jack Thompson)'s tiresome voiceovers. Eeek, the whole idea of it makes me cringe. Hasn't anyone else noticed than Nicole can't actually act? Plenty of people will love it, but I predict it will do better on DVD than the big screen after a mediocre opening here and a moderate fanfare in the US. It will barely break even.

by Kate on October 20, 2008 at 11:57 AM

There is no doubt in my mind this will be a steaming pile of 'Australiana' gone horribly wrong. The simple fact is when we look back on the movies that Australians seem to take a shinning too there always seems to be a certain element of our own hills hoist attractiveness to it. It's films like Two Hands, The sum of us, Chopper and Mad Max that tend to reflect our own unique sense of what is entertaining - 'Strayen Style'. Unforfunately this one loos like Baz has tried to inject a slice of Hollywood's silicon valley into it and come up with something which could only be described as 'plastique'. I can't see Nicole Cruise-Kidman-Urban being able to recreate the magic of BMX bandits or Huge (Jackman) shaking his maracca's to 'When my Baby goes to Rio ' in this one

by Daniel Barrow on October 20, 2008 at 11:59 AM

I saw the trailer twice in Cinemas while recently in the US and the buzz after it played was significant and some of the comments around me were very positive `That looks good', `omigod, Hughe Jackman is soooo cute' etc. It'll be a modest hit. I have no idea what numbers are for that as I'm an artist and failed vegy maths at school. But the yanks will love it and it'll do well here in the burbs, inner city types will just `sniff' at it. (as they are doing on this board).

Tribal Mind helps the numerically challenged: How about I put you down as $A25 million and $US100 million?

by Ross Carroll on October 20, 2008 at 12:08 PM

I didn't think plastic surgery was invented in the 1940's and given Nicole's recent makeover, it will be hard to associate her procelain face and "are my lips big enough" lookl, with the period that the movie is set in.
PASS

by Jack Motel on October 20, 2008 at 12:08 PM

While Nicole is more wooden than Pinocchio, she is cast appropriately - up tight british aristocrat. Yanks and Aussies LOVE the idea of aristocratic brits losing their finer touches and becomign "one of us" -tough, real and no bs.
Hugh is a proven star in the action (but not period).
In reality all this gives the right ingredients for Fox to bank on it - and Rupert doesn't like to bet the farm (or studio in this case) on a so so venture.
Baz has been pushed and pushed to put the finishes on it appropriately and TA has pushed a lot of money into it as well.
It will be heralded as "The 21st Centuere Gone with the Wind" with a happier ending. The times is right for the ultimate in escapism - things are bad but people will have returned to "getting" on with it.
Word will quickly spread - people will love to leave the cinema feeling uplifted. In Australia it would be unpartriotic not to see it.
Thats guessing the ending is suitable....
$AUD 52m
$USD 460m
Optimisticaly yours

by Q on October 20, 2008 at 12:16 PM

the length of time this one seems to have spent in post production suggests that its appalling and Baz is desperately trying to save it..

by JL on October 20, 2008 at 12:18 PM

Trailers are deceptive and rarely herald a film unless part of a franchise (Lord of the Rings, Batman etc). What drives movie viewing and hence revenues is word of mouth particularly in the world of SMS. That is why there are 'preview' screenings ahead of releases.
People also listen to respected reviewers - although the people who listen to David and Margaret are unlikely between them to produce the figures that lifted Mr Dundee into the Pantheon of Australian cultural experience. It will have to appeal to a wider audience. Baz did that with Romeo and Juliet.
Interesting that the US trailer reviewer thought that the bombing of Darwin was of Pearl Harbor. Would be good to show the yanks that there were a few other people involved in WW2.
So without knowing anything really of the film other than the trailer which I admit does not compel me, I think that "Australia" will do quite well (remember that most films do not recover their costs with just the theatrical release). It was a difficult time in a part of Australia that most Australians have not seen - the horizons stretch on forever; it's truly beautiful and unique.
Locally, it will tip $45M because we want Australian stories and dreams, and we will have that connection.
In the US unless it has something with a wider appeal I would see it doing about $US80M, though I hope that it does more, a lot more.
Baz Luhrman is a great creative talent. We have a lot more like him in NIDA and in schools throughout the country. Films like this can inspire budding story tellers to begin. So we need to celebrate our difference and think seriously of the type of society that we want to have. It is often the artists that can initiate some of that thought and acceptance.
So I wish them the best of success. I'll be seeing it.
It may well remind us that in this difficult uncertain time that we have faced them before.

by Martin on October 20, 2008 at 12:38 PM

huge post production time is needed as Baz overshoots to buggery just to be sure any gaps can get fixed in the edit. Ratios of 50:1 are order fo the day.
There is a risk that this board is full of `inner city types' as someone put and that out in the burbs and malls they will sit thru a 3 hr load of tosh.. but if I were in marketing dept reading this blog I'd be feeling as comfortable today as Nathan Rees' press secretary is aftre the weekend by elections.
I reckon the public knows a stinker has been made.. no amount of hyper hype will put a shine on a turd.

by jaksbak on October 20, 2008 at 12:40 PM

I don't think this movie has got what it takes to be a big money spinner, the short trailers feel like Gone with the Wind, Pearl Harbour/Man from Snowy River all roled into one. Kidman & Jackman just don't have that chemistry about them to attract moviegoers to the big screen!A$60m - US$90m

Tribal Mind remarks: Hang on. You say it does not have what it takes, and then you predict $A60m -- which would make it Australia's biggest moneymaker of all time (Titanic made $57m). Do you want to reconsider your prediction?

by Sophie on October 20, 2008 at 12:51 PM

The movie underwent a number of reshoots last month due to early poor screenings. Baz is known for being a perfectionist but I am surprised he picked Kidman as the final lead. She is not convincing with those new lips. It's hard not to laugh at her when says "do you want to hear a story". That is one scene I would have re-shot. And no, I don't want to hear a story. This will be a "wait for DVD".

by Eddie on October 20, 2008 at 01:08 PM

"Streuth, stone the flamin' crows, where'd ya' blow in from Curly?"
12 here, 43 in the US.
This is proof that we still don't know who we are.

Tribal Mind wonders: Perhaps they were like that in Darwin in 1941.

by Itchin on October 20, 2008 at 01:12 PM

AUS $8m / US $22m.... Not looking very impressive.. looks as if it might have bad casting, depressing, botoxed Kidman, gay guy(?), bad acting, long drawn out storyline in a depressing time frame.. won't go down well.. The Doris Day catalogue looks better than this. Should have cast Eric Bana, Naomi Watts or that girl from the Secret Life of Us, Sybillia... Kidman's glory long gone and Jackman just not up to the macho image of the real Aussie bloke...This will sink in the US because they'll be going to the movies for a laugh not a dusty, war time folk movie with a couple of has beens....they are sick of war, Iraq, $7 minimum hourly wage, and doing it tough...to give more critique, the contrast of prim and proper verus rugged and raw - is well versed, audiences are much more clued up these days with script and what to expect, big picture budget and all show, never beats great writing and dialogue, because ultimately the audience has become expectant of the ups and downs and contrast of the movie agenda... they are way to sophisticated to fall for just the big picture.

by Gene on October 20, 2008 at 01:22 PM

I'm very Australian (like heaps of people here) but couldn't get through the trailer. Seems to me that 'Australia' is a pretentious title, as if the movie wants to somehow sum up the historical and cultural experiences of this entire country. Do filmmakers do that with other countries? It's almost an insult. I predict that the movie will be flat and forgettable and will barely cover its budget worldwide.
Oh yeah, the competition... 20 mil absolute max in Australia, a rough 30 in America (no-one cares about Australia, let's not Kid ourselves). And nearly three hours? Sounds like Baz forgot to edit this movie. I'm tired of this kind of over-long self indulgence - I'll take a tight ninety minutes any day.

by Ren Hoek on October 20, 2008 at 01:52 PM

I don't think it will do well anywhere outside of Australia. Kidman's an awful actress and I don't think Hugh's appeal is enough to overcome her being in it. In this econmy I don't think that many people are going to fork out 10 bucks to watch a plastic mannequin that can't show any emotion try to portray passion.

by Debbie on October 20, 2008 at 02:28 PM

David
My predictions for the movie Australia:
Australian Box Office - AUD$45m
USA Box Office - US$300m
If you look at the all time box office winners here and in the USA:
USA
http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross tells us it's:
Titanic US$600m
Australia
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/alltime/australia.htm tells us it's
Crocodile Dundee AUD$40m
This plus further analysis of those links above and the other films makes me believe Australia will just outdo Croc Dundee here and do about half Titanic in the USA. Note, I'm an unasamed Baz Luhrmann fan, just love his films, and from watching the trailers and speaking to others, there is a buzz. True, we don't like too much hype, but if the film works on the basic level (great script, well acted, cinematography, etc) then it will be a massive hit.
I think it can tick all the boxes, as the cast is top-notch, the trailers show impressive production values, and there's an X-Factor there with that young inidigenous Australian. I think the film will respectfully show Australia's indigenous culture combined with our beautiful landscapes, creating a "must-see on the big screen buzz"
Additionally, Australia.com has launched a couple of TV commercials produced by Baz Luhrmann, featuring the young indigenous actor: they are impressive too. See http://www.australia.com/campaigns/walkabout/au/index.htm?ta_cid=au:brand:20081008:hp:flash and watch the two videos.
Finally, I have heard people 60+ talk of looking forward to seeing this film at the cinema, so there will be, like Dark Knight, a large demographic going to see Australia the movie.
I am looking forward to the release of the film.
Cheers
Tony

by Tony Hollingsworth on October 20, 2008 at 02:30 PM

I'm not going to do figures but I think it'll tank here but will probably do ok in the US because they seem to buy that super fictionalised ideal narrative better there.
It looks like a shocker, I can't think why Baz has the reputation that he does.
Is it going to show the Aust pastoralists hunting down our indigenous people and exploiting them for domestic labour, stockmen etc etc etc, I think not somehow.
and for anybody who says that this didnt still happen when this movie is set, don't kid yourselves

by scooby on October 20, 2008 at 02:34 PM

It amazes me beyond...........amazement how people (the optimists) can make up their minds about the actors and the movie in general based on a 2 minute trailer.
firstly Nick may have had a few flops of late, but hey she was married to that controling sceintologist husband.......Tom Cruise wasnt it?
Also considering the rubbish that has come out of hollywood and other places there isnt much for the ladies out there to choose from (especially in the drama field).
Hugh is playing the true Aussie (outback)Bloke - of its time - and Im certian that aussies spoke exactly like that (i can't see Eric Bana play an outback station jackaroo).
And thats just it - the movie is set in a time that many of us were not around in but its set in a place that has remained as constant, mysterious and dangerous as ever I know, I spent 6 weeks out there and some time with the lands original inhabitants - and its because if this mysterious/unknown part of Australia that the curiosity of people will want to make them see it and the movie will do well.
So before you bag the living hell out of it and everyone involved with it- just go and see it - then make your comments.

by Marisa on October 20, 2008 at 02:34 PM

The film looks a good old fashioned epic & Fox is certainly putting the resources & all in marketing clout behind it.
I'm tipping Australian result $AUD 38,576,485.
North America $US 65,984.267.
Worldwide theatrical $US 150m+

by Michael Eldred on October 20, 2008 at 02:44 PM

I refuse to consume any product from Rupert Murdoch. And I don't consume modern Hollywood style movies. I will however make an exception in the case of Baz Luhrmann's tribute to his country. Lurhmann has shown great courage to attempt the Great Australian Movie and he deserves our support.

by Peter on October 20, 2008 at 02:49 PM

I am quite keen to see the film, although if I see any more of those awful ads Baz might lose my $15.

by Kirsten on October 20, 2008 at 03:02 PM

I must be in the minority here. I'm actually looking forward to seeing this. Probably for my own curiosity but the big Australian epic thing kind of gets my patriotic senses tingling. I'm not really a Kidman fan and agree Naomi Watts would have been a better choice.
It's amazing that people complain about the state of the Aussie film industry and as soon as something comes along that could be something good people are quick to bring it down. This looks a hell of a lot better than The Craic, Take Away etc. And hey if Beverly Hills Chihuahua can top the box office i think this one can manage to do well.
With Aussie tv shows doing so well at the moment i think Australians are looking for some good home grown movies as well so i actually think it might do well. Overseas not too sure on though.

by JG on October 20, 2008 at 03:29 PM

As I said in the other thread, $A15m in Oz and $US50m in America. And perhaps another $US50m equivalent in the rest of the world (I reckon Asia will REALLY take to this).
"My rule of thumb: the more intensive the pre-release promotion, the worse the film. This so-called epic has been flogged for the past 6 months". Well I've only seen two trailers for it in the cinema. Compare that to the 5+ I've seen for the sure-to-be-dodgy Bond movie.

by arthur on October 20, 2008 at 03:38 PM

Of the top movies so far this year, 8 are SuperHero Action Movies
2 are Escapist Chick Flicks
3 are kids movies
2 are comedies (click here for details).
In hard economic times, with America involved in an unpopular war, and in the aftermath of the American election, the American public won't be interested in a period drama from Australia dating back to WWII. I predict $40million. (Unless they misunderstand and think this is the Hugh Jackman 'Wolverine' spin off!... in which case... $200 million)
Australians may be more favourable, although a release date around Australia Day may have been more successful. Coming up to Christmas big budget special effects movies tend to do best... it will take alot to get people to leave the improving weather for a 3 hour bore-fest starring the ice-queen herself Nicole Kidman... $20 million

by Robert on October 20, 2008 at 03:47 PM

I would love to see a genuinely great Australian film take the world by storm, but this surely won't be one of them. Coming from an already overrated director, it has all the cliches of Australian films: overblown soundtrack, exaggerated accents from wooden actors, mystical blackfellas (the deus ex machina of bad Ozzie films), heroes and villains writ loud and large, and lame cinematography replete with slow motion footage of dust storms and horsies jumping logs. This is the type of cinema that Australia revelled in 25 years ago, but today it'll come across as patronising, overwrought slush of the type Australian directors should have left at Snowy River. A movie dreamt up by committee, it'll be a flop. After the first few thousand people who are supposed to see it have seen it, it won't appeal at all to the ADD mainstream film market, nor an independent film market with the Coen brother and PT Anderson in it, or US audiences who like their Australians quaint and little bit simple.

by Daniel on October 20, 2008 at 03:59 PM

Great competition Tribal Mind! There's no doubt that trailer looks bad bad bad. Kidman is a chronic overactor and a little bit of a sexless wraith.
However, there's no way a Luhrmann film called Australia with a megadollars advertising campaign is going to flop in this country. Unless it really was atrocious, its scale and local interest would have to attract audiences of every demographic.
But it could be a different story in the US. The historic dynamics of World War II Darwin will be completely obscure to a US audience I'd imagine, and galloping horses have been flogged to death in the cinema for decades and decades. But assuming this film will carry some degree of the Luhrmann brilliance (a leap of faith given the trailer) I'd guess:
Australia: $44 million
US: $130 million

by Rosco on October 20, 2008 at 04:20 PM

Based on the production budget and the 'at risk" factors, I think it will do $336m USD in box office revenue worldwide. It puts it in the same league of ROI as The Golden Compass but it won't be a Titanic record revenue breaker.

by Chris G on October 20, 2008 at 04:48 PM

24.5 million in australia and 44.4 million in the US
nicole kidman cannot make a profitable film as no one can see past her very public persona and life. her super star status has over taken her acting ability and her characters do not reasonate with audiences as all they see is last nights 'Entertainment Tonight' headlines.

by nathan on October 20, 2008 at 04:49 PM

The Kimberley area is one of the last true wilderness frontiers - what a fantastic location for an Australian western starring our very own Nicole Kidman with good looking Hugh Jackman, who looks every bit an outback male Australian. The young Aboriginal boy has the fresh happy face of the young. I am looking forward to seeing this great Australian movie on the big screen. We all should leave the doom and gloom of the world behind, and let the movie take us on an old fashioned part Western, part history, part love story, imaginary journey. All for the small price of a move ticket. Australia could take as much as $73.5 million and America $265 million.

by marie Gaven on October 20, 2008 at 05:01 PM

The American trailer is far more expansive in scope and shows the plot with more emotional invovlement. Lack of emotion is one of Kidman's difficulties, however nowhere near as bad as her English accent. I will still see the film though. Go Baz!

by Taya Hosby on October 20, 2008 at 05:29 PM

Nicole Kidman is a dreadful, wooden actress (too much botox) who often whispers her lines, so it astounds me why Cate Blanchett wasn't cast in this instead. The Kidman factor is going to put a lot of people off from watching this (Especially those who saw The Invasion & Fur) and Jackson's name alone isn't enough to draw in moviegoers. The plot seems trite and cliched and therefore predictable. I'd say US around $40 million - AUS $30 million.

by myra hudson on October 20, 2008 at 05:33 PM

I hope it does well. I'm a huge fan of Luhrmann (English teacher - he created Romeo and Juliet, every February when I have to teach Shakespeare I thank him for that brilliant film). Loved the Red Curtain trilogy. The problem I think he will have is that he took too long. Moulin Rouge was on the back of the buzz from Romeo and Juliet, so that helped it to get some more attention. The two (MR and R&J) were also a similar in style film - very cinematic and theatrical, amazing designs (I agree with Carol, Catherine Martin is a genius, I used inspiration from Moulin Rouge to style my wedding). That is what Luhrmann and Bazmark do best. This looks very very different, so it's not a guarantee of a success, because we can't rely on previous films to gain an expectation of what to expect.

Two factors I feel are important here: Australian's are already bagging it - people I know who are Luhrmann fans are saying there is no way they would see it, because it's a completely different style (from what has been shown in the trailers). So will he gain people who may not have previously gone to see it, or merely lose the ones that are no longer interested?

Secondly - the reason I think it has a chance is because it is in the style of the big screen epic - event cinema that you actually bother going to the cinema for. I'm not going to bother to see "Baby Mamma" or "Stepbrothers" at the movies because it's not going to affect my enjoyment of the film if I view it on a small screen. Australia looks like it will be spectacular on the big screen. But will the Americans want to see it, or will they be spooked by the comparisons with GWTW - a cinematic canon for some people? I also don't know if the Americans will want to see that style of movie right now. The dumbing down of cinematic audiences means it will be easily beaten by big screen blockbusters like the Dark Knight (not that i'm bagging it, I think Ledger's performance there was absolutely amazing, and they then gained a huge audience who wanted to see his last complete performance at the cinema) rather than this which is quite artistic and very different to what is out in the film world at the moment - will it fall through the cracks because it is so different, or will it do well because of it?

Then add in the lowering of Kidman's status as a top actress to someone whose best work is FAAAARRR behind her... Then Jackman, who is critically acclaimed in theatre but has really only had US hits with comic book characters...

I predict 40 mill Aus... maybe 60 mill US.

But TM - don't discount the Twilight influence. That series is the new Harry Potter, with comparable sales (considering it's only the 4th book in the series on sale now) and fans that are older, wiser and more obsessive!!

by Beckala on October 20, 2008 at 05:43 PM

I think the American trailer was far better than the "first trailer". The Hugh Jackman quote at the end of the first trailer made no sense but when I watched the American one not only did I feel far more compelled to watch the movie, the quote that Hugh Jackman says to Nicole Kidman "We wont let them win" made far more sense!!
I too believe that Nic has made some VERY terrible decisions whenit comes to making a credible movie - we all know she is capable of producing great performances but yet to hit that mark - she is merely famous for being famous these days... she being one of many that should take a leaf out of Greta Garbo's book.... BUT this time round I am going to take the gamble and say this movie will do well at the movies particularly in America and do surprisingly well here (even better with good publicity - perhaps publicity to ignite the romance/history/patriotism that this movie promises). So I predict: America $120 million, Australia $80 million. I think the Americans, although are a particularly self-centered lot, especially with the down-turn of their sorry-arsed economy will still be huge suckers for a Kidman/Jackman pairing and will see the movie in droves just for that alone...
Hopefully, and I remain very hopefull after watching the American trailer, that this movie delivers substance while telling a romantic story set in a very scary time in our history... movies with substance are lacking in every corner of our globe - they just don't make movies/movie stars like they used to....Gone are the days when audiences sat on the edges of their seats waiting in anticipation for Greta Garbo to utter her first words in her first "talkie" "Anna Christie"... and they waited for 15 minutes and it was MGM's highest grossing film of 1930 earning $1.5 million worldwide. And the more Garbo retreated from the public the more they wanted to know and see of her... just the way stars should be... we want to see their movies.. them playing characters and us getting lost in that character - going on a journey with them... not thinking about Nicole Kidman in a movie... what is it about so-called stars who are becoming more famous for merely being famous ie.Nicole Kidman, Angelina Jolie - and they are actually good at acting....
Sorry, I could go on but I will spare you all of my grandstanding but I am sure you get the picture... thanks - this is my first comment after years of reading the blogs and alot of the comments as well..

by Samantha on October 20, 2008 at 07:39 PM

Two big points: (1) It's an unknown story that skews old; (2) America is only interested in itself. They're dreaming. Sorry Baz.

by CHRIS T on October 20, 2008 at 08:00 PM

This film looks truly awful; the trailers appear to portray a film full of cliches and stererotypes; it will not be getting any of my hard earned.
However, despite running against what could be promising to be the best Bond film yet (Quantum of Solace), the 007 flick has been pushed forward a week to come out ahead of Australia, so clearly this movie has got some rival studios worried. Could be interesting to see how it fares...

by Some Guy on October 20, 2008 at 08:40 PM

They say, according to a recent article, that the film is runinng at around 160million in production costs. + Fox will spend $20mil or more on marketing. In the US it will be considered a flop as it will only bring in around $100mil US over its 500 cinema run. i predict a possible $220mil worldwide box office takings of which australian box office will contribute $20 - 28mil. But who knows i could be completely wrong! Looks great, i can't wait to see it!

by mikeymike on October 20, 2008 at 08:57 PM

Due to lack of other decent movies being released, I think australia will be a suprise blockbuster.Although i think nicole kidman may have been a wrong choice for the lead female actor...You still have to take in to account Hugh Jackmans bankability with all his hits and baz's reputation in presenting fantastic films...Everyones talking about it good or bad and will all prob go and check it out .cinematography will be fantastic..prediction 150 mil us and 60 mil aus..

by sally on October 20, 2008 at 10:22 PM

Kidman & jackman have little screen charisma.She was ok in Dead Calm but all her recent movies were duds. I predict a good first week takings but a quick path to Dvd.

by doug on October 20, 2008 at 10:26 PM

Unfortunately I haven't been able to watch Nicole Kidman for years. Im sure she is lovely but....
Hugh will act his heart out and will add a few million ladies to the total but I feel Baz will leave us flat. As I live in the UK where the horrific new Australian tourism adverts have just premiered (and I am being teased about mercilessly) I am sure the outcome will not benefit Oz. As someone who loves his country and a good Aussie flick, I must admit im not very excited about it.
Prediction: 8 Mill Oz, 8 Mill UK and 15-20 US

by chris Sharpe on October 20, 2008 at 11:29 PM

Hmmm . Box office wise Very hard to predict but Nic is Box office Death. I will go out on a limb though and predict just before the films release Mrs Urban will be snapped visiting some poor child in a hospital. Coincidence of course.

by Bart on October 21, 2008 at 12:27 AM

72 comments on this blog in two days indicates to me that there will be huge interest for this movie in Australia. For all the tall poppy cutters, there seem to be just as many people bursting with Aussie pride. It's had a lot of positive publicity in America too. I think it might do 50 million dollars in Australia and 100 million in the America.

by J Bar on October 21, 2008 at 08:25 AM

Baz Lurmann.... is he a 'Sunrise' presenter? ("Baz"..."Kochie, Mel"..."Baz"....."Nat"..."Baz"....."Berrets, Mon"..."Baz"..."Baz".)
Anyway....it's interesting that a few comments are getting a bit defensive about the whole thing. You do know this article is discussing 'Australia' the movie not Australia the country, don't you?
Why do we feel the need to defend 'our' stars & 'our' movies? If it's good it's good, if it's crap it's not.
When something works (and many Aussie films have), its "Australia's taking on the World, The little fish holding their own against the Big Guys etc...". When it doesn't work (and many Aussie films haven't) its "Lay off you guys, where's your patriotism? We've gotta support 'our' film industry (crap or not)".
Bazza is not making this movie as a patriotic gesture, or to promote his "wonderful country". He's doing it to make money. For himself. And American studios. And looking increasingly desperate to do so.

by darren on October 21, 2008 at 08:39 AM

Second thought, i do think the release date will probably hurt its chances. There's no way that it would be able to compete with Bond. I think a January release would create greater interest in Australia, but i think he wants Oscar buzz doesn't he so he has to get it out early.

by JG on October 21, 2008 at 08:42 AM

The trailer for this movie was shown before the feature on Oct 18 you could virtually hear and feel the whole cinema groan. Cliched and done to death story line. Hugh Jackman might be a hunk but in that colour coordinated "drover's gear" complete with neckchief - dreadful. Nicole Kidman must be the most overexposed person on the planet - looks more like a flat chested Barbie doll everyday. No appeal to young people whatsoever. Distributors must be praying for a wet summer. I always think that good movies sell themselves.
$42m here $32 os

by Ruth on October 21, 2008 at 09:21 AM

Strictly Boring, (if the trailers are anything to go by). In Oz, $19m. US, $20m

by al on October 21, 2008 at 10:55 AM

20mill aud 35usd Bryan Brown , Bill Hunter enough said . Too many aussie hams. Wheres Bert Newton?

by wes johnston on October 21, 2008 at 10:58 AM

I tend to be among the gloom mongerers on this; 22 mill in Aus and around 60 mill in US. I think most Australians will see it as a bit of a yawn, a somewhat sanitised version of reality. I hardly saw a speck of dirt on Nicole, she comes across all too neat for this type of story. As for Hugh, I am not sure Australians see him as an out and out Oz bloke. On the other hand I think Americans, who tend to believe that movies & movie stars are more real than life itself, will go out of curiosity of the Oz outback, become confused with the current travel ads linked to the movie, think thats what its still like here now and come out here in droves. It may do the Australian travel industry more good than the film industry.

by Phil on October 21, 2008 at 11:09 AM

Australia $38m. US $30m.
Aussies will give it a good go cause its "Australia" and for fifteen bucks, their curiosity will get the better of them. But only movie goers will go, not your extra audience types.
Americans won't care less about a World War II picture set in a country they associate with punch lines and larrikinism. It won't intrigue them, it won't give them an escape. Only the cinematically curious will bother forking out the dosh.

by Harry on October 21, 2008 at 11:11 AM

I'll be seeing this film. It probably won't perform wonders in the U.S,however it should do well 'internationally'.
$35 mill Aus/ $50 mill US

by cassi on October 21, 2008 at 11:46 AM

I'm betting $13.5m here and $20m max in the States...there's just nothing in it for Yanks to be interested in. Floparama

by nk on October 21, 2008 at 12:21 PM

Two things worry me about this movie.
One - I read somewhere that the special effects department had to enhance shots of Kidman's face so it showed some sort of expression. The Botox and the surgery meant that all the cameras got was an immobile frozen block.
Two - In an article for the latest Womens Weekly Kidman says her father questioned the way the movie shows Japanese troops actually landing in Darwin - something that didn't happen. Kidman confesses to not knowing anything about the Japanese bombing of Darwin at all before she did the movie and said she was able to tell her dad the Japanese really did land because 'Baz said so'.
So we have Baz rewriting Australian history for the sake of more action in his movie.
I hope it flops mightily, but from all the defensive comments in here it looks like the masses will flock to see it. Dame Nellie Melba once referred to the taste of Australian audiences by advising Clara Butt to 'sing 'em muck'.
It seems little has changed in almost 100 years.

by leone on October 21, 2008 at 02:25 PM

For the record I'm an unashamed Bazmark fan. I think Nicole is drop dead gorgeous and when in the right role can act up a storm, same with Hugh Jackman.
This is going to be a great, solid, epic old fashioned adventure story (like the Lord of the Rings) and I think most folk will love it. People from overseas are going to freak out at the scenery. It's just one of the most beautiful places on the planet. It'll do well at the flicks and even better on DVD. I'll be waiting for the Blu Ray (wonder when Moulin Rouge is coming out on Bluey?)
Gawd the Tall poppy syndrome is alive and well on this board.
Thanks for the help on my maths too. That figure you put sounds about right.
Hell, I'm gunna up the ante and go $50 Million domestic and $250 Million world wide.

by Ross Carroll on October 21, 2008 at 03:42 PM

Baz should have hired Cate Blanchett, or Toni Collette. Both of them don't touch botox and are known for being good dramatic actors. Baz needs to get over his obession with Nicole and stop thinking she is a drawcard. Hugh Jackman has had a string of flops too and is not that cute in my opinion. I hate to say it, but the trailers leave me wanting more.

by Maddie on October 21, 2008 at 07:45 PM

Australia should take $41mill due to extra
screens (after 5% deduction Kidman Curse
and 10% GFC) US box office $US 149mill
(after same deductions

by John Peterson on October 22, 2008 at 11:18 AM

I'll definitely see the movie but will wait for the dvd release because I'm not keen on sitting in a cinema for 3 hours. I predict $15m here, $35m US.

by Mary on October 22, 2008 at 11:22 AM

I think it could possible crack 50mill here, 100mill in the US and around 250mill worldwide.

by Lowi on October 22, 2008 at 03:11 PM

My predictions for Australia box office are USA=$161M and Aus=$42M.
This is based on taking the box office of Crocodile Dundee, Moulin Rouge and "Far and Away" then scaling by the 2nd biggest movie of their release year compared with this year and then averaging.
The USA data was available but I could not find all the Australian data. I had to guess the "Far and Away" Australian box office and use the USA numbers for the scaling.

Tribal Mind remarks: The Australian box office info is available by clicking here: The culture

by Vera on October 22, 2008 at 05:02 PM

I'm really looking forward to this film and admire Baz for his courage in creating an epic narrative, which includes a suppressed aspect of our history. The genre might be old-fashioned, but the narrative and its interpretation will be new. A lot of Australians, as well as Americans and Europeans, are going to want to see this film, especially on the large screen, where the cinematic qualities of our unique landscapes will be extraordinary. The audiences will be far broader than the typical focus on the 18 year old male.
Not everyone wants to see films that focus on the comedy of dysfunctional families or the tragedy of drug addiction. Not everyone wants to see digital manipulation, gratuitous violence or self-conscious narrative twists. In fact, the timing for an old-fashioned style epic might be just perfect.
The negative comments here seem to derive from those who read and view too much derivative catty fiction about celebrities. David Dale has something to answer for here, with yet another swipe at Nicole, who seems to get the blame for everything, even though poor box-office for "The Invasion," for example, was the fault of the director and producers, and had nothing to do with the the performances of Kidman or Daniel Craig. If people bothered to go and see Kidman's recent films, they'd see what a good actress she actually is. She was terrific in the underrated film 'Fur', 'The Golden Compass' (which made a lot of money in Europe, rather than in the US, where the self-absorbed god declarers are rampant), and in 'Birth', for example. Neither the over-rated Blanchette nor Collette can play a romantic or musical lead.
I'd guess that 'Australia' will do: particularly well in Australia, perhaps taking about $40mill; in the US circa $120m, as despite their disinterest in cultures other than their own, the inclusion of a war element and 'cowboys' might be a drawcard, while Europeans especially will like the cinematography of the unusual landscape, and the romantic narrative, thus bringing in another $100m.

by tess on October 23, 2008 at 09:40 AM

We have a serious problem with Tall Poppy Syndrome in Australia. I can't believe how many people can't wait to put the knife into this movie along with the director, actors and producers. Why do so many Australians bag anything Aussies do? Is the Cultural Cringe so bad that we don't think anything Australian is worthy of success on the world stage or can't we stand anyone having any more success than ourselves? No other country in the world takes such glee in condemning their own people in the way I see the media in this country and people in general do it. Almost every country in the world celebrates their successes and supports their people to be more successful in the world. Americans are almost at the extreme opposite end of the scale to Australians with their blind support of one another and will talk up anything another American does even it is complete rubbish. How can people be so judgemental and prejudiced about the movie 'Australia' based on a couple of trailers? Why don't Aussies give other Aussies a fair go?

by Alex Chung on October 25, 2008 at 05:11 PM

AU$20-25 million in Australia, but it's been so long coming with endless post production tinkering I know some people who think it has been and gone and waiting for the DVD for Christmas. US box office I think will be US$20 mill, and that's being optimistic. The trailers are simply awful. The tie-in Tourism Aus ad is even terrible (and why are we spending public money on a tie-in with a movie?) Kidman can't open a film, and Jackman hasn't much success outside of the X-MEN franchise, and even the third one was so poor, we may not see anything more of those, except WOLVERINE. But sine TDK and IRON MAN have so successfully elevated the stakes on superhero movies, WOLVERINE will have to be good to resuscitate Huge's career - and it really is the movie that counts. The sad thing is that the money poured down the AUSTRALIA black hole could have been used to make 12 other Australian feature films. The film needs to succeed, though whether shite or not, simply because local investors need some reassurance that Australian projects are worth investing in... and as the number of creative producers has declined so dramatically in favour of bean counter and profiteers, we are seeing the end of real Australian film culture. AUSTRALIA shows no signs of being anything more than another PEARL HARBOR. All gloss and glam and nothing remotely of what it was really like. Go find a copy of THE OVERLANDERS and see what might have been possible....

by Arizona Dave on October 26, 2008 at 10:35 AM

Why all the negativity? We haven't even seen the movie yet, and the buzz I have heard so far has been quite positive. I for one am looking forward to the patriotism, not something we as Aussie's encounter very often. We seem to prefer cutting down the tall poppies, which is quite sad really.

My prediction:- Australia $36M, USA $150M

by pete on October 26, 2008 at 11:19 AM

Pete,what buzz have you been listening to? I don't think people are being overly negative, I think that they are being honest in saying, that the movie is more than likely to under perform. Sorry Tess, but Nicole is officially box office poison & Hugh is unlikely to be able to salvage the movie purely on his drawcard. The Aboriginal cast and the scenery may prove to be the great highlights of the movie but three hours is a long time and there will be too much of "the pallid one" to watch between the highlights. The only thing that will really help the movie domestically is the number of cinemas it will be screening in. I predict 6.5 million here and 9.5 million US. The movie just reeks of a director's overblown folly, and the local industry may pay the price. Arizona was correct to compare it to Pearl Harbor. The release of the movie is also very bad timing, in these economic times, people have more pressing needs for their $15 and it is unlikely to get repeat visitors who see the film more than once, which is something that always boosts box office takings. TM - what might have been an easier thing to guess is the opening weekend takings.

by kate on October 26, 2008 at 02:46 PM

What is the obesession about the film "Australia" and how it is perceived in the US?
US is one of several major markets i.e. Europe and Asia included.
From Oz cinema point of view do we need another Oz period piece..... yawn.......
From tourism industry perspective film/tv imagery, music etc., "as a whole" in past years, are effective influencers internationally raising awareness of Australia. However, Tourism Australia, like others, "putting all eggs in one basket" based round one new film is a big gamble (with taxpayer funds), seeming desperate corporate TA attempt at staying relevant....
Baz Luhrmann, will probabaly be the big winner being paid to gain profile and cross sector marketing.

by Andrew J Smith on October 26, 2008 at 10:21 PM

I think it will do well here - the GFC is going to make Australians feel more patriotic and want to distance themselves from the rest of the world, and this film will help them feel that this is still a beautiful country with lots going for it. I have no idea what kind of return is a good return for a film in Australia, but I'll go with $40 million.
For the US, it might be a tougher sell, and for the same reasons - US audiences will want good patriotic US films. But they could still have a soft spot for Australia, and some escapism from the politics and Wall Street may be very attractive. I also think that they are less likely to have problems with Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman as some Australians will - the Tall Poppy syndrome is still a very Australian issue! So I'll predict that it will do OK in the US - not brilliantly, but OK, perhaps over a longer period of time while there's not much competition out there. Say, $100 million?

by claudia on October 27, 2008 at 07:41 AM

Meow! A saucer of milk for all those women making those comments about Nicole Kidman.

by Bloke from the Sticks on October 27, 2008 at 02:07 PM

It's not just women making comments about Nicole Kidman Bloke from the Sticks. I'm in the US and have no desire to see this film. I've always wanted to go to Australia but this movie has nothing to do with it. I've barely seen anything about this movie here. I've seen the trailer once on TV & when they played it at the theater, nobody really seem interested in it. I agree with what others have said...this looks like another Pearl Harbor. It comes across as being very cliche and predictable..let me guess, Jackman's character dies at the end? And you have to admit, Nicole Kidman is not a draw (I think she's a lousy actress unless she's playing a cold hearted bitch) & other than the X-Men franchise, Hugh Jackman can't fill seats either (I don't think he's that great of an actor either). I have no idea how much it will make, but I know it won't be getting any of my money.

by Jamie on October 28, 2008 at 08:45 AM

$20 M in Australia! $65M in the USA.
This movie already stinks worse than a bowl of ice cream at the Coogee Bay Hotel. It's been hyped to buggery and appears to offer nothing more than some nice outback shots, some bizarre drover's outfits, and the usual wooden performance from La Kidman. People just don't care - well most of them - to waste their money on tosh like this.
9 out of 10 Nicole Kidman films tank.
Add in the fact that Australia! is 3 hours long and that's a recipe for disaster. Long films flop. Period.

Tribal Mind asks: You mean, like Titanic and the Lord of the Rings trilogy?

by Peter on October 28, 2008 at 04:10 PM

USA $15M Australia $20M
My rule of thumb: If Nicole Kidman is in it then avoid, because her movies are generally pretty bad. Since she's playing an English lady, I can't see why they didn't cast an English actress like Kate Winslet or Keira Knightly?... Failing that I'd happily settle for the superb Cate Blanchett in her role.

by Dennis on October 28, 2008 at 07:41 PM

Tribal Mind asks: You mean, like Titanic and the Lord of the Rings trilogy?
I remember when Amadeus opened in Australia, people were insulted because a brief interval was arranged as they felt that Aussie audiences couldn't sustain their interest for the whole length of the long film without the brief respite... Although I think we have definitely moved on from those days, I do think that Australia! is missing two ingredients that the other two films you mentioned, Titanic had a young good looking male lead who greatly appealed to the teenage girl market and Lord Of The Rings had a strong following of readers who read the books. I did not go to the cinema to see Titanic, I have only seen excerpts. I did go to see Lord of the Rings to see how they translated the books and I enjoy Ian McKellen's work. I will not be going to see Australia! Agree with Jamie, it is not just women making negative comments about Nicole, purely objective non-feline mathematics is also not on her side. She has topped the list of the "least return when compared to salary" list two years running now... so on that basis, it can't be argued that she has strong box office appeal...or is it just completely bad luck? Despite all the pre-release publicity, for me, what is really telling is that there is no frenzy for pre-sold tickets. For the Harry Potters & Lord of The Rings (who had similar pre-release blitzes) sessions were sold out well before release date... Australia! may lack the all powerful "pubescent pester" power which the other two blockbusters (or series in the case of LOTR) had in spades..

by kate on October 28, 2008 at 10:50 PM

Not a huge hit but not a flop either.
Many movies make over $100 million in America easily, as will this. People here are cringing at the name Australia! but I personally believe the name is the biggest selling point of the movie internationally. And yes Nicole�s accent in this may be off putting to potential English viewers, it really is horrid.
I also expect Australians to whole-heartedly embrace this movie. Finally a big budget Aussie movie, not some dark edgy crap about druggies that Australian film studios seem to love spitting out year after year.
America - $125 million (although it depends on how many screens it opens on, under 3000 screens it will struggle. I would expect about $38-$41 mil in the first week.)
Australia - $34 million
Rest of the World - $160 million
The film will lose out on getting the under 16�s boys but may pick up teenage girls and repeat older cinema goers or those who are just plain curious.

by kate on October 29, 2008 at 01:02 AM

ooops I forgot to do figures. I think 15 million in Australia maybe 30 in the US if nothng big is opening that weekend. I know someone who saw the trailer before Indiania Jones and said that people were laughing and making fun of Kidman's frozen forehead and huge lips. She said her lips were so distracting she didn't even notice what she said. That could have been because she whispers her lines too.That's more annoying than her lack of expression. I think it's going to be another flop in a long line of flops for Kidman.

by Debbie on October 30, 2008 at 02:54 PM

Well Jamie, I guess there's some blokes out there that can be just as catty as the women.

by Bloke from the Sticks on October 31, 2008 at 02:08 PM

This film will be an STD (Straight To DVD) and I predict a AUS taking of

by Mind your Mann-ers on November 02, 2008 at 10:15 AM

Saw the trailer. The visuals look fantastic, and I'm sure every frame in the film will look ravishing. But Kidman doing the english aristocrat in Oztralia shtick came across as frightfully hammy. No luv, sorry. Pass. On a positive note: it could have been a lot worse. He could have chosen Kiera Knightly who, like Natalie Portman, disproves the theory that anyone can act.

by Pipsy on November 03, 2008 at 01:02 AM

Where is the quirkiness of the earlier Luhrman films. This sounds and looks like an expensive remake of The Thorn Birds. Schmaltz. Soap. I don't know what to say. A megaflop in the making, one for the blue rinse set at best.

by David on November 03, 2008 at 01:49 AM

Saw a test screening of the film way back in June in the mid-west. Some of the effects weren't finished nor the music and it was quite long. Saw Baz lurking around with some studio types. If you've seen the trailer you've seen the film. While painstaking effort has gone into creating the lush picture postcard panoramas, it's more or less a glorified soap opera where the cliches fly from the screen so fast you gotta duck. Baz loves his slo-mo. Jackman escapes the mess with his reputation in tact but Kidman is simply miscast. As somehow has already mentioned, her whispering English accent borders on parody. She's had 10 straight flops in row, her fee is wildly disproportionate to the pittance her films generate yet producers continue to hire her. Why? She's currently in London filming the Broadway hit Nine alongside Daniel Day Lewis, no less. Apparently Russell Crowe declined to take on the Jackman part because Baz didn't want to pay him his usual fee. I think Russ simply read the script and said "no thanks". Box-office-wise, I'm sure it'll do well in its home country, around 18 to 20 mil. In the U.S. I can't see it breaking 30. I'm gonna see it again because I'm curious about the reshoots and the subsequent tinkering Lurhman has been forced to do.

by Rick Blaine on November 03, 2008 at 03:01 AM

We need Australia. Australians are forgetting their bush roots. We are increasingly becoming a nation of i-pod eared, plasma-eyed, stingy pen-pushers who will now commonly 'charge' guests to come to our barbies and whose aim in life is the 6pm news and a good dose of Today Tonight negativity.

Then for 4 weeks of the year we'll head to some cheap market in Asia to spend our 17% holiday loading.

I hope this movie makes us reflect on what and who is important in life and in so doing ressurects Australians' love for adventure and generous nature. Coupled with SBS' First Aussies, I reckon these two productions could change the way we all feel about ourselves.

by RJ on November 03, 2008 at 06:35 AM

I saw the trailer a while ago and it took me straight back to "Out of Africa" with Meryl Streep and Robert Redford, even down to the sexual tension between the two main characters in the camp scene. Out of Africa was a gorgeous movie. I'll be watching it to see how much alike the movies are....

by Deborah on November 03, 2008 at 07:18 AM

I don't dare to guess at Australia's potential success or failure, when a turkey like Moulin Rouge was such a hit. But I for one will not bother to look at it.
Frankly, I think Luhrmann has a damned hide to appropriate this title, the pretentious sod. And Kidman's movies have always left me cold.

by Luke Webber on November 03, 2008 at 07:23 AM

It looks like an 80s mini series. Or in American terms, an episode of Dallas. Nicole Kidman's only good movie was To Die For, and she didn't really have to do much for that. Hugh Jackman is spreading himself pretty thinly today as well. I can't see it doing anything but bombing.

I'll predict a $10 million gross in Aus (and that's me being wildly optimistic). And maybe $40 million in the US. Again, I wouldn't be surprised if that was an optimistic guess.

by Anatole on November 03, 2008 at 07:24 AM

The film will be PC Bull Dust! Between Luhrman & Flanagan re-writing Oz history, it will present a new age, indigenous magic and outback worshipping FLOP on a grand scale. I am not saying this because I hope that it will fail....the watching worldwill just not view it!

by Neil Innes on November 03, 2008 at 07:30 AM

You either love or hate a Baz Luhrmann film. I'm still sufficiently romantic (just!) to allow myself to be swept up in his extravagant manipulation of our cinematic emotions.

I adore the film clips and new tourism adds. I just hope it all lives up to expectations. I am not a flippant critic of Nicole Kidman...she CAN actually act unlike her former husband. Hopefully she shines convincingly. I also admire the multi-talented Hugh Jackman. May the pairing "work".

I also hope our Aboriginals don't come out of this as some cardboard cut-out. This might be the first time for the ignorant in this world to realise that WE were invaded too..and our responses in the film will be interesting to watch amidst (it appears) a sweeping love story.

Let's reserve cynicism until AFTER we see it ! Good luck to all.

by Darryl on November 03, 2008 at 07:36 AM

I find the title 'Australia' most offputting- It's unimaginative,pretentious and annoying- as if it is purporting to depict what our country and people are all about in one film , and owns the franchise on that- BAz seems to be suffering delusions of grandeur . It doesn't create any interest or mystery in a story- as if there is isn't one- and they've just made up something to give the filmmaker an excuse to showcase the AUstralian outback, with his favourite Aussie actors,as if it's never been done before. It's a title more suited to a documentary. So from the very start the film is on the back foot. And if the trailer is anything to go by, it's going to be awful- is that the best they could do? Nicole's 'proper' British accent sounds awful.

I don't think people will be rushing out to see it in eager anticipation - or out of loyalty or devotion to Nicole or Hugh(despite his appeal) .Going on the trailer, I think it will be struggling to make more than a few million- possibly $6 mill here and double in the US.

by Sally on November 03, 2008 at 07:57 AM

Personally, as a proud Aussie, I can't wait to see this film. Internationally acclaimed Australian movies are few and far between, and I would gladly cough up $15 to see this one. Also I am a huge fan of Baz Luhrmann's, Nicole Kidman's and Hugh Jackman's, so I may be biased. The young Indigenous actor, Brandon Walters, looks promising aswell. I say give it a chance before you crucify it.

Tribal Mnd asks: So do you wish to enter the contest and predict its likely box office in Australia and the US?

by leena on November 03, 2008 at 09:51 AM

Wouldn't want to hazard a guess on the takings, but having watched those trailers, all I can say is, come back Muriel, all is forgiven!

by AJANR on November 03, 2008 at 09:52 AM

David, the reason i want to be known as Les is because that is my name...that's not too strange is it???

Tribal Mind replies: Indeed, but SMH style is to publish the full name of the reader, unless they request otherwise. Since you did not give your full name, I assumed you wanted to be known only as Les. I'm happy to alter the blog entry to fully credit you.

by Les on November 03, 2008 at 10:39 AM

I'm looking forward to the movie, Australia, very much. I think the title is great and its about time we had a good Australian movie to watch other than 'ocker' rubbish that movie makers seem to think we want. No wonder Australians don't go and see Australian movies - most of them are terrible.

by de on November 03, 2008 at 10:49 AM

I really dont understand people knocking a film before they see it. Sure, it may be cliche and silly but for goodness sake's go and see it first before you judge. So stop being so damn negative people!
I am looking forward to it, not that I am a fan of Luhrmann's films, but am hopeful it will be a top film and do well at the box office for the sake of the Oz film industry.
We badly need a world wide hit. Besides it stars the wonderfully sexy Hugh Jackman in it. How bad could it be?
I predict 40mil in Oz and 200mil in the US. I think it will be a summer blockbuster.

by em on November 03, 2008 at 10:53 AM

I wish the film the very best and hope it turns the local industry around.
From what I've seen it's a pastiche of Bush Christmas, The Overlanders and Gone With The Wind (complete with a cute black children). All good films for their time.
Maybe it will be a revelation to contemporary audiences to see something crafted in an old style ... maybe not.

by Richard on November 03, 2008 at 10:59 AM

My Prediction
$43,000,000 in The States
$24,000,000 here
The Film will be helped in The U.S by the bad weather, but only because of that. The Yanks want our humor, not our glamor, and how many of Them even know about The Darwin bombings. As for Us, We know that it,s an overly romantic perception of Our Country and have seen this before with The Man from Snowy River. It's so old fashioned. We also will not want to get out of the good weather.
While Hugh Jackman is good (Who cares if He's gay, He isn't anyway) Nicole Kidman looks like a mannequin and sounds like a snake. She can't show any emotion. Bazz Luhrman is an overrated Director as well. I absolutely loved the shots of the waterfall and the loads of horses galloping, but it made Me want to get large pictures of them for my walls, not see the movie. It looks like boring pretentious mash. Bazz isn't getting My $16.

by Sophie.P on November 03, 2008 at 11:26 AM

when is everybody going to realise nicole kidman IS overated put simply she stinks

by ompman on November 03, 2008 at 11:29 AM

In tough times we all go for entertainment and a bit of escapism - my buddies also think "Australia" will crash and burn...
The trailers do lack something - and I sense so far it to be so 'hum-drum'. Much as we wool love a successful local film, I am pleased to not be a backer.

by Katya on November 03, 2008 at 12:11 PM

I have been worried about this film for some time now. It seems to me that they set out to make "A Blockbuster" and then filled in the gaps and ticked the boxes.
You don't make great movies by following a formula, and I think their approach will be very obvious to most viewers.
Just piling on the things that feature in great movies won't make a film great. I think this is going to be an expensive mess.

by ant on November 03, 2008 at 12:53 PM

Watching the trailers to this film, it seems like a film that you hope is good, but have grave doubts as to the levels of cliche and stereotype in the storyline and characters. Based on the fact that The Dark Knight made $45.5m and everyone was talking about it, whereas hardly anyone I know is talking about Australia, I'd say it will make about $38.5m here. America, having fairly limited interest in other countries, probably wont flock to this movie, so $120m. Curiosity will help it here for the opening week, but cultural cringe could kill it off in the following weeks.

by Alex on November 03, 2008 at 02:05 PM

Am I the only one looking forward to seeing this film? Sure it's going to be schmaltzy, but what's wrong with schmaltz every now and again? I can't wait to see our country up on the big screen 'Gone with the Wind' style, it looks beautiful. The only part I'm not looking forward to is Nicole Kidman. They should have chosen an actress who a) can act, and b) whose celebrity status doesn't override the character. I hope all the doubters are proved wrong and the film is a success.

by Georgie on November 03, 2008 at 02:52 PM

I really dont know what to expect of this movie other than to observe that the trailers are uninspiring rubbish and it has to be the most over-hyped movie of all time so much so we are already sick of hearing about it - it's like the orgasm that never comes. All I can say is that with all this over-hype, it really had better live up to it or Baz should sue the pants off his promotional advisers for incompetence.

by Ryan Murphy on November 03, 2008 at 02:57 PM

It is somehow fitting that the film 'Australia' *already* represents a perfect summation of precisely everything gone wrong with Australian films in the last decade and the narrow patronising cultural banality so prevalent during the Howard years.
'Australia' is a suspiciously over-marketed (much of it already during production), romanticised hyperbole set in war time (feeding directly on recent populist Anzac patrotism) and which seems aimed squarely at the dumbed-down audience of sappy musicals and stage productions performed in casinos. Add the ingredients of the over-rated and precious public image of 'Our Nic' and Lurmann's own stupendously silly record with the vacuous Moulin Rouge (an incredible triumph of News Ltd marketing dollars over quality if ever there was..the IMDB rating alone is a miracle!) and not forgetting the title which is in itself is both hideously cynical (foreign audiences) and pompous...
This is the precise inverse of the kind of challenging genre films our country SHOULD be producing.
Dumbed-down blokey comedies and floppy historical pieces are are tired cliche of the past..any overseas success for this film could only be attributed
It will probably be very successful but we'll look back on it in shame.

by Cap'n Pugwash on November 03, 2008 at 03:08 PM

I started despising this movie the moment i heard it was called "Australia" and baz was directing with Kidman as leading lady. i hate his films, i hate her films, i hate the way the film is being used by the likes of Qantas to sell stuff - snippets of it run on planes ad bl@@dy naseum. it's self indulgent pap and to me it seems more likebaz et al are trying to cash in on it as much as possible through selling tourism etc. what happened to art? baz's films are crap. watch GWTW. he could not possibly channel that super movie with real characters, real plot, great photography and no digital effects. Jackman looks like he's been taking HGH and Nicole looked her best in dead calm when she had freckles - she has blown it. i will not watch this movie and i look forward to it receiving really crap reviews and good reviews from people on baz'spayroll.

by Neglinho on November 03, 2008 at 04:49 PM

I hope it is a great success and I think Australians will go and see it out of curiosity. However my gut feeling is that the title is so incredibly boring and unimaginative that it may put people off. I even have concerns about the casting. I saw Hugh Jackman for the first time in a film recently and wondered what the hype was about as I thought he had a lot less charisma than the actor who played Carl Williams in underbelly. Unfortunately I also think Nicole Kidman lacks charisma, lacks real emotional depth in her acting and unfortunatly does not have much sex appeal either to carry off smouldering chemistry on screen. Sorry, hope I am proved wrong.....

by Sandra on November 03, 2008 at 04:58 PM

As an Australian I have no interest in the film (except for the fact that it has a $60 million plus tax rebate courtesy of you and me, more than all funding for all other Oz films combined). But remember, it's not meant for me - it's aimed fair and square at 15-year-old midwestern girls. Hence the insufferable Wizard Of Oz references dotted through it. I think it'll do $20 million here and $140 million internationally.

by Simon on November 03, 2008 at 06:59 PM

"australia" will not better "crocodile dundee" in australia for several reasons. people don't like it already. people don't want it to succeed. no matter how good it might be, it'll struggle to overcome that negative perception and sell itself to mr and mrs average. to break records, it'll need to drag people into the cinema who don't often go. this is how croc dundee succeeded. it will however entice enough people out of hype and curiosity to make A$35m.
i think it will do quite well in the usa. the yanks aren't nearly half as negative towards nicole and baz as we are. hugh jackman is bankable and i think they'll go for the outback epic "gone with the wind" context.
i don't believe the name "australia" will be a hindrance to selling the film in the usa at all. quite the opposite, i think it will help. again, it's only us who seem to be offended or think it's in some way arrogant of baz to use it. i think it'll make US$120m over there.
croc dundee's success was based on hogan's huge like-ability and feel-good factor. the buzz and word of mouth guaranteed it's success. "australia" will not be able to match that buzz no matter how good. the difference again will be in the target audience. your average working class aussie - the ones who don't think about going to the movies - went happily to croc dundee. they're not likely to want to see "australia".

by grant on November 03, 2008 at 08:35 PM

Australia: $12m, US: $25m - after a good opening week in Australia, primed by the massive promotion, it will sink like a stone due to bad word of mouth; In the US it is unlikely to get much traction at all; People were sniggering during the trailer last weekend - not a good sign

by Colin on November 03, 2008 at 10:02 PM

It will never top Titanic (which I hated), in global takings, no matter how good it is: the Japanese, depicted as the enemy as they are, won't flock to see it. The trailer wasn't great, but neither are the trailers of some of my very favourite films. To me, it looks like a movie version of the books of 70's novelist Xavier Herbert. Who knows what will do well: some movies we cant bear because of the fast flying cliches, but others we enjoy in spite of them. Hugh Jackman sells my ticket, and I thought he was great in the Prestige. Nicole Kidman I can take or leave, but bad acting never hurt 90% of box office smash hits, nor did bad dialogue or blatant cliches (Spiderman 3 anyone?). Box Office takings? In Australia $21.5m, the same as King Kong (2005), a much anticipated, heavily marketed extravagant epic that was only so so. In America? Approx $45m, potentially much less, looking at the results of a few period movies recently, particularly the western 3:10 to Yuma and Atonement. Possibly its biggest obstacle to overcome in this country is the awful title. Australia. Really.
Can we expect a series of romantic, stirring Baz Lurhman period dramas named after the country in which they are set? For example: Kyrgyzstan; a story of high altitude love and loss under soviet rule, or Karakelong; a romance on an island so remote that the wikipedia entry consists of only one and a half lines.

by Zoe on November 04, 2008 at 09:25 PM

I'm an Aussie working in the UK and I'm glad that I'm away from the hard sell marketing campaign. Quite a few of my friends back home are fed up of it already. Not much buzz over here, in London about this movie. My girlfriend, who's a Brit, says that Nicole Kidman's British accent is a joke - really bad, and she hates the trailers. Could be embarressing...
Aus: $20m US: $25m

by Dennis on November 05, 2008 at 06:19 AM

Why do so many of the Optimists think that the Pessimists MUST be suffering from 'Tall Poppy Syndrome'?? ( meaning Australian Tall Poppy Syndrome, i.e we can't stand the success of our own home grown stars).No logic in that thinking at all. 99% would be over the moon if this was the next big Aussie film hit ... it's been a long time. More like Severe Disappointment Sydrome with what 's been revealed so far (if that was supposed to entice us , BAz is dreamin'), if not even Severe Anger Syndrome at THAT title. Defies belief that Baz can't see that such a pretentious and manipulative title is totally UNaustralian and will alienate a huge number of people - going by the comments on that alone ,even without the other actING, (and for a few, actOR) problems and contrived story, the film is on the back foot from the start. Nothing to do with any imaginary tall poppies .Given how down-to-earth the two main actors are, they themselves are probably beside themselves with embarrassment about it.

by Sally on November 07, 2008 at 09:48 AM

If you happen to be a city dweller and only live in Cronulla or Camden, and your surname is Hanson, are over 50 and frequent the rsl or tab, then i'm sure it's the perfect matinee movie.

by MickA on November 10, 2008 at 12:11 AM

this is going to be the Titanic of 2008-2009-what a blockbuster-the trailers are outstanding-cant wait!!!

Tribal Mind remarks: "The Titanic of 2008" could be taken two ways.

by foxie on November 10, 2008 at 05:46 AM

Sorry foxie I think it's going to be more like the Titanic of 1912 and sink like a rock taking Kidman's career with it.

by Debbie on November 10, 2008 at 06:47 AM

I'm estimating 15 million at home and around 10 million in the US. In other words I think it will bomb in the US and do about as well as any movie called Australia and with that amount of hype would in Australia. My reasons for thinking it will crash are i) Hugh Jackman (ie. hammy actor); ii) is not representative of Australia (it's set in the NT which is atypical of Australian experience); iii) Nicole Kidman is getting too familiar to Australians to convincingly play the female romantic lead; iv) what I've seen of it already (for example, the art-deco Title graphic looks like something my 11 yo daughter would knock up on Powerpoint presentation).

by Jim on November 10, 2008 at 12:34 PM

A$21mil here, US$54 mil over there. Kidman will sink it...blokes are a bit over her. Jackman however will have the girls flocking in.

by Butugly on November 10, 2008 at 06:23 PM

I am becoming more & more convinced that Australia is going to be like WaterWorld, so expensive so much hype and so little box office. It seems that Baz originally had one ending planned (won't spoil it for you) but test audiences proved disasterous so ending was changed, that does not give me great confidence in the film. The final version still has not been delivered and it opens in 12 days, this does not give me confidence in the film. Nicole & Hugh went on Oprah today and despite earlier saying she would not provide a baby photo to the media as she wanted to keep privacy, Nicole cheerfully when spruiking the movie, arranges for her purse to be brought out so she can show a photo. Not only does it speak volumes re credibility of convictions re privacy but it screams volumes about the movie itself as it seems such a desperate stunt

by kate on November 11, 2008 at 02:58 PM

I think the film will resonate with cinema-goers in light of the global financial crisis. The film communicates basic themes that are relevant - in times of hardship, it is your loved ones that matter the most. This is a universal theme, and thus will bring in more than pessimists expect. I think it will make $25 - $30 million here and up to $125 million in the US. Australia has all the makings of an epic - and will attract criticism that accompanies films that take on an epic scope. Baz has approached the narrative in a smart way - telling a big story through a narrow perspective. What pessimists seem to be forgetting is that a most (if not all) of the $120 m budget was spent HERE in Australia - using Australian cast, crew, locations and resources. I want to like it based on these factors alone. Australia as a country doesn't have a great reputation for exporting quality local product, and if Baz's film is a success, it could open the floodgates for the expansion of the local industry via foreign funding. The production values are clearly very high and the story looks evocative. It remains to be seen if the plot can hold up under pressure, however. I eagerly await it's release - as a Luhrmann fan, I hope it exceeds expectations in both the box office and critically. In terms of casting, Nicole has the ability to pull of elegance very well, and she seems to accomplish this well enough in the trailers. Hugh Jackman looks the convincing picture, and hopefully these two will bring a screen chemistry to the film. I hope this film exceeds expectations.

by Emma on November 11, 2008 at 07:02 PM

$15m in Australia due to first weekend curiosity. $60m in the US due to star power. Reputations diminished all round.

by Wendell on November 12, 2008 at 01:36 PM

Apparently Oprah has given the film a huge endorsement... might need to revise my US Box Office estimate! Everything she endorses turns to gold!

Tribal Mind replies: I was afraid something like that would happen - either a celeb endorsement or a damningly bad review. That's why I wanted all predictions in by Nov 15. But has she actually seen it?

by Rob on November 12, 2008 at 01:38 PM

Rob - Agree an endorsement from Oprah gets you huge publicity but not such if she has the infalliable Midas touch she once had... especially after the James frey & the Margaret Seltzer flare ups... Although books, not a movie, her endorsement of those came back to bite her... Oprah also endorsed Tom Cruise big time and it hasn't helped his recent box office receipts.
Tribal Mind asked "But has she actually seen it?"
Apparently so, when Nicole and Hugh appeared on Oprah on the 10th November, apparently Oprah and her audience had a preview screening of the movie...

by kate on November 12, 2008 at 02:42 PM

I endured both previews, that in itself must be worth a prize of some sort. Let me say firstly that spending $120 million on any film is obscene. No story is of such value or importance that it be told where that sort of money could be justified. Will I see it at the cinema, no. Will I see it on DVD, no. Will I see it on TV, unlikely. While I don't mind wolverine as wolverine, I can't imagine the character fitting in to anything to do with Australia so I guess that whoever plays that character will be playing another character (a drover maybe, possibly riding horseback naked in the Kimberley with his dangly bits obscured, riding with a sticky tape faced woman, the tape there to keep the face together, not a crack in sight, frontal and rear shots included, scary stuff this). My predictions as far as this film is concerned;
This film will lose big money. Just as well various government film agencies contributed big time. Your and my tax dollars keeping certain people in a life style we would all like to become accustomed to, sadly not too many of us succeed.
It will make $8 to $9 million in Australia. The comments I hear about it is that people are already sick of it and it hasn't even been released yet. Repetitive promos have bored enough people in the country to ensure its local failure (thankfully my PVR's allow me to watch TV without commercials).
How much will it make in the US. $20 to $21 millions from predominantly a gay audience. A story line which is of no consequence to any US audience playing off in some foreign country in Europe where they speak Germain, starring a female has been and a camp cowboy, well, what self respecting Christian American family member would want to bother?

by Zjonn on November 12, 2008 at 04:14 PM

The Sun-Herald

Who We Are

The Tribal Mind: In advance of Australia

COMMENTS

POST A COMMENT

Comments Terms & Conditions

RECENT ENTRIES

ARCHIVES