The Sun-Herald

why does everyone have to put up the bad things that have been said about australia? how bout we just support it whether its good or bad! its an aussie movie and we never get to see them anymore. i couldnt care less if it was shit house i still wanna see it just cause i want this to be a success

• by ryan on November 29, 2008 at 01:31 PM

Ryan! People seldom go to movies because they want it to be a success. They pay to see a film which has good actors and a good plausible story. Whether this qualifies I don't know because I haven't seen it, and from the reports I've read the odds of me seeing it are not good.

• by Ray on November 30, 2008 at 12:14 AM

Look -Nicole is stealing that child!
Put him back right this minute!

• by FredA on November 30, 2008 at 01:02 AM

Australia was so Baz Luhrman as was Moulin Rouge and Romeo and Juliet. I would have guessed the Director had I not known. I loved the artistry and the signature of Baz written across the fantasy and the scenery of this great movie.

• by Susan Cooper on November 30, 2008 at 01:19 AM

Saw the movie and actually thought it was just OK. Really no story line, the film would have gone just as well without the two main stars.

• by Mary Atkins on November 30, 2008 at 01:28 AM

Since time began, authors and playwrights have taken factual events and messed with them! That's what makes it a great story. We love to put reality aside for a little while and go and soak up all that lovely fiction. Even when the topics are based on fact, we want them to be larger than life, epic. If we want absolute fact, we'd go see a documentary! As for the US reviews, it hasn't been all bad at all. I've seen a bunch of really good ones, and a lot of us LOVED the movie, even us expats who know in our hearts that Baz took a couple of liberties!
It's really ok for Australia, the movie, to be better than the real thing, because that's why we go to the movies really. To escape real life for a while.

• by lola on November 30, 2008 at 01:55 AM

Yeah that's right, clap clap for a handicap eh?
It's mentality like that that breeds complacency and arrogance.
Australia as a country has shown that it is capable of making good movies regardless of budget so if a new film is crap why should anybody tolerate it just because it is the biggest film the nation has produced?
Let's not forget it's made by professionals who know what's at stake and not a bunch of amateurs. And like all films it will be judged subjectively around the world - if the audience doesn't like it then you can only say despite their best efforts, the result has limited appeal.
Ever thought about why "we never get to see them anymore"? I haven't seen Australia yet and I'm not going to write it off but if I don't end up liking the movie I am not going to give it special concessions "ooh it's Aussie so I have to lower the bar for it"

• by Carlos on November 30, 2008 at 02:48 AM

I'm an Australian living in the US. Recent Thanksgiving weekend my husband and I went to a popular beach destination. Popular during summer that is, during the colder seasons, it's pretty dead. With just about everything being closed on Thanksgiving day bar the local cinema, we decided to take in a movie. "Australia" was playing. A lot of our American friends wanted to know what we thought of it. They by the way had already seen it. We hadn't. Moulin Rouge put me off Baz Lurhman. Whilst Nicole Kidman.... well lets just say I don't rush out to see anything she's in anymore. But it was Thanksgiving and well.... I was beigining to feel somewhat foolish not seeing a film that is essentially named for my birth place. Guess what, we couldn't get a ticket! Seven other movies playing at the same time and Australia was the only one soldout. You may read about the bad reviews but that's "reviews". Over here people are seeing the movie. They are enjoying it. And if I didn't hate waiting in line so much, I might actually get around to seeing it and enjoying it also.

• by Zanni on November 30, 2008 at 03:47 AM

Good on yer ryan I am with ya all the way on that one.

• by Brian Gardner on November 30, 2008 at 04:44 AM

To ryan:
I disagree -- I want Australians to celebrate Australian things because they are good, not celebrate crap because it's Australian.
I haven't seen the movie, so I don't have an opinion on it...

• by JEQP on November 30, 2008 at 05:09 AM

It was a great film. Ordinary review. Why do all Australian movies have to tell true historical stories. Excuse me it was a work of fiction. When was the last time you saw a movie that accurately reflected every aspect of our current lifes. Movies are meant to allow us to escape. I didn't cringe once. Do yourself a favour and watch it. Ignore the review and take it for what it is. If you read too much into it looking for historical inaccuracies of course you'll be disappointed. Oh an I forgot that Independence Day (which accurately reflects US Cultre) had a space ship which we don't currently have. Baz is a genius and the only thing wrong with this Australian film is the yet again old school film reviewers.

• by Dan on November 30, 2008 at 06:13 AM

I bet this is pre-crunch private equity financed - it certainly looks about as well-though out as a sub-prime mortgage given what it costs and who is involved. The producers probably have a full-time staff plugging up the internet with "it was great, go see it" messages. Let's see if it breaks even - or makes its own contribution to crippling the world financial system.

• by greggo101 on November 30, 2008 at 06:23 AM

saw the film.. loved it. your right, its not a documentary.. its a great film.

• by D on November 30, 2008 at 06:27 AM

To the idiot David Dale who wrote this stupid article...IT IS A MOVIE not a documentary.

• by Martin on November 30, 2008 at 06:58 AM

I saw the movie yesterday in Concord, North Carolina, and I personally enjoyed it. Being Australian, there were parts that made me cringe, e.g. no aboriginals allowed in bars, the "drover's boy" where an aboriginal woman shaved her head and rode with the drover by day (as a man) and was bedded by him at night, and the half cast children removed by authorities and put into "missions" to breed them white - sadly all true. Thankfully those days are gone and I am a very proud of this movie! Its a love story, with historic elements and shows the rough and tough outback! My Dad, who fought in New Guinea in WWII, used to say every year before he died... Thank god for the Yanks otherwise Australia would be speaking fluent Japanese! Great Job!

• by Deb Snyder on November 30, 2008 at 07:04 AM

I saw the movie yesterday and thought it was terrific.
I have seen many other great Aussie films including the comedies like The Castle and The Dish and more challenging fare like Rabbit Proof Fence, Candy, Jindabyne and Australian Rules. I am not drawn to "blockbusters" as a rule but I wanted to see Australia because Baz Luhrmann is a "big ideas" director, Hugh Jackman is a first class actor and I wanted to give Nicole another chance...
Yes, I had my doubts in the first 40 minutes but when Nicole whacked David Wenham and ordered him off "her land" I sensed the beginning of a many layered movie and was not disappointed. The action scenes were brilliant (especially the mustering) and the subplot of Jackman's solitary, emotional distance and the reason for it was compelling.
Of course there was enough "formula" to allow us to ride the predictable waves (good triumphs over evil, love conquers all etc) but the whole point of the film, for me, was that in the end everyone was connected both in the land and in the blood. That last scene (no, I won't spoil it) was iconically Australian. We all identify with country and want to find ourselves by getting lost in it.
This may sound too "heady" for the blockbuster crowd, but if you are a discriminating movie goer, don't be put off by the hype. See it and think about it. There is more going on than meets the eye.

• by David on November 30, 2008 at 07:10 AM

I have to say I enjoyed it for all its flaws. What's to like: the landscape, the vista, the understated realism of the portrayal of racism and the Stolen Generations, Jack Thompson(!), and despite its length and cheesiness, some genuinely moving moments.
What's less than thrilling: the length, the simplistic dialogue, the manicured lawn and rosebushes at the homestead after the drove, the story in two parts, that it's obviously pitched at US audiences (minor quibble) and is Darwin's geography accurately represented? Never mind, we know the Japanese never actually landed either but a bit of artistic license doesn't go astray.
Somehow it worked for me. Intersestingly, after the film and in the foyer of the cinema, I chatted with an elderly Irish emigre couple who had settled here, and they were genuinely moved. Somehow out of the movie, they felt that Australia (the country) was now becoming one country bringing together the indigenous, the locally born (non-indigenous) and the immigrants.
One Australia.

• by James on November 30, 2008 at 07:22 AM

My wife, who a Sydneysider, and I saw the movie, and while it had its slow parts, we both thought the movie was fantastic. We're waiting for Oz II !!!
Denver, Colorado

• by Robert & Coori on November 30, 2008 at 07:32 AM

wont see it based on the citicism , sounds like western and pearl harbour rolled into one, Maybe Hugh was wearing his xmen side burns as well bangkok hilton is more what Australia is all about ! lets build bridges instead of reliving the yellow peril

• by john on November 30, 2008 at 07:50 AM

This film was not a documentary, it was pure escapism and I happily went along for the ride. There were enough historical coordinates in there to give a general idea of what was happening in Australia during that time. As for the criticism, yes I did cringe during Nicole's overacted "outrage" scene, at the one "crikey" too many and the excessive amount of hugging and crying, but overall there were so many quality moments (particularly the Aboriginal performances) that I was truely won over. My only real criticism is with the script which certainly was not seamless and there was a clearly felt break once they arrived in Darwin. The connection to Faraway Downs was lost in the narrative at this point and consequently it was like we had begun to watch a second film. However, I really enjoyed this film and felt the positives far outweighed the negatives.

• by Jaye on November 30, 2008 at 07:52 AM

A very long children's film. 'Gone with the Wind/Black Beauty/Wizard of Oz' laminated with cringe inducing cliches. Crikey Baz you've done the Australian Tourist Commission no favour.

• by David on November 30, 2008 at 07:56 AM

It is a bit too late to criticise a movie for not being historically accurate. That ship sailed a long long time ago. It happens all the time and is justified on the basis that movies are not documentaries.
I would suggest that there are as many versions of "Australia" as there are Australians that is there is no sterotype, no average Australia.

• by Flick on November 30, 2008 at 08:04 AM

Baz Lurhman makes melodramatic films, this is no exception. I agree entirely with Lola - if you're going in to the cinema to watch a doco, then you'll be sitting in your seat full of criticism. Cinema is an opportunity to learn and also to escape. I would watch this with an open mind. There is a lot about Australia's history that isn't touched on (tune in to the Early Settlers series to really understand our history), but baz's comical effects and melodrama are a part of his signature.
The movie was an awesome attempt, and not nearly the tourism plug I was expecting. A beautifully told film, superbly acted (Nic was almost bearable this time although her top lip was distracting)...
Many tears and cheers in our cinema in Sydney. Simply fabulous!

• by Rose on November 30, 2008 at 08:11 AM

I watched the movie yesterday. I thought the opening 40 minutes were the best parts of the movie. Sadness, laughter... etc. But in the second part, the bombing of Darwin, I was very confused. The movie became very disjointed with the 3 main characters all living separate stories. I don't think this added to the overall movie at all. My American husband watched it with me and he didn't quite understand the movie.
Having said all that... this was one of the best movies I've seen. Such a refreshing change from all the whacked out tech movies of this age.
I also appreciated the lack of sex, nudity and bad language.

• by Allison on November 30, 2008 at 08:29 AM

Why don't we just let Nicole make babies since that's what she's good at and wants to do. Leave acting to those who can actually do it. The combination of Nicole's poor acting and Baz's crazy theatricality already left its terrible mark in Mulin Rouge. So 20th Century Fox and the Australian tax payers can save some precious money for the hard-working, lowly paid people in this country.

• by lucia.liu on November 30, 2008 at 08:38 AM

I'm a Canadian who has been around your magnificent country - loved the Kimberley's and the Territories. Was disappointed that the movie did not showcase the landscape better - don't think foreigners will understand what is so compelling about the outback - what draws people like me back to it. But then have discovered lots Aussies who don't get the outback either.
But sitting in a movie theatre here in Canada this week, the viewers were enthralled. It was the fastest 3 hours I've spent in a movie theatre in years - no one got up for a toilet break or a run for fresh popcorn (and 2nds are free here). Which all leads me to believe it was very much enjoyed by all. If I decided which movie to view based on the reviewers comments I'd have missed some delicious movies for sure.

• by Carolyn Usher on November 30, 2008 at 08:46 AM

It should have been called "Nulla" - then it would have made a whole lot more sense. The title invites the sort of negativity seen in some comments here. Overall, an enjoyable movie! Wrong title.

• by Terry Gray on November 30, 2008 at 09:09 AM

I hate to state the bleeding bloody obvious but clearly, it's required. "Australia" is not a documentary. It is a scripted film - therefore, whether its director chooses to embellish real-life events, or invent a few of his own, then that's his choice.
It is not supposed to be 'factually accurate' nor is it supposed to be a historical depiction of actual events. Give the guy a break. He made a film of rather grand proportions and took creative licence with it. It's his project, not yours, and therefore he's entitled to do whatever he wants with it. Keep it in perspective and forget about historical accuracy.
If you want to watch historically accurate stories, stick to re-enactments on the History channel.

• by charley on November 30, 2008 at 09:28 AM

The directors of the film obviously spent all their time trying to glitz up the films image and spent millions doing it. However when it came to the all important "Release Date" the timing could not have been worse. Dont you think Huge films like Jurassic Park, E.T, James Bond, High School etc found the right time to release their films in order to gain maximum exposure in an environment full of competitors trying to get their hands in the pockets of movie goers.
Oh i forgot to mention hyping the movie up so people look forward to seeing it. Still to this day i have seen no trailers for this movie anywhere. Silly Marketers. The days of Mad Max marketing/advertising are over. Its a new ball game these days. Its called internet target markets guys.

• by Brad on November 30, 2008 at 10:09 AM

With time space condensed to two or three hours it must be difficult for producers to stick to hard facts, but I believe there are ethical boundaries when a story claims to incorporate history, and the culture of the time. My problem is live cattle shipments from Darwin in 1941 when the Japanese had already excercised supremacy over northern sea lanes, but shipments may well have occurred. Possibly no records have survived and almost no one now would accurately recall. However, it is very important because the plot of the story is based on this aspect of history.
The other interesting aspect for me for me as an author arises from the number of "co-indidences" from my book "Last Horse Standing" (bantam books August 06) and of course these have to be viewed as "co-incidences," as there is absolutely no way of proving anything. The thrust of "Last Horse Standing" is a planned big drive of cattle to the Derby Meat Works, before the boom prices collapsed, by a then legendary drover. The drovers team is cut to young boys and an aged Aboriginal. Everything is against them, croc infested rivers and bad men (pastoralists). Hugh Jackman comes across as Jack Camp and the aged Aboriginal stockman---Otto, is perfectly characterised in the film; but you know we will never know. The real give away for me was the two glasses and the Rum; more like lightning would strike twice in my mind.
Well it is all in good fun, I loved the film and if "Last Horse Standing" did contribute anything I would be thrilled.
Michael Keenan
www.michaelkeenan.com.au

• by michael keenan(author) on November 30, 2008 at 10:42 AM

"2. Did drovers and cattle barons habitually wear revolvers in holsters on their hips?"

Yes, and in outback WA & NT many still do

• by Andrew on November 30, 2008 at 10:47 AM

I thought I would side with many of the scathing reviews after seeing Australia but, you know what, I actually quite enjoyed it! A historically accurate film would not have been as lush or entertaining. At some point though, someone will make a film about non-caucasians being considered as sub-human by the government until 1973.

Baz Luhrmann films have always been about the visuals. Everything he's done has been a feast for the eyes and Australia is no different. If I were you, I wouldn't worry too much about our country's reputation or promotion too much. People will still think we drink Foster's here no matter what happens.

What does have me concerned is the Oprah gig where Hugh Jackman pushed Tim Tams and then Oprah saying "we're gonna be having biccies!" I cringed so much at that moment I pinched a nerve in my back.

• by Allen on November 30, 2008 at 10:57 AM

I had no probloem with the Japanese planes strafing Mission/Bathurst Island, but the Japanese troops there were over the top and unnecessary (and historically wrong). At that stage the Japanese had only just landed in Timor and were certainly not landing on islands close to darwin (and had no ships near there).

• by John Blount on November 30, 2008 at 10:59 AM

If the movie Australia sucks as much as you guys seem to think it does and a fraction as much as the US critics seem to think it does, then it does not bode well for Tourism Australia's latest international advertising campaign - crafted by Baz and based on the intrinsic values espoused in the movie.

I hope for one you are all wrong and that people - at least outside of Australia (you guys dont matter as you already live there) love the movie and it prompts them to get on a plane and head down under - spend some money and support the economy.

Perhaps the small minded critics who live on the island of 20 million or so people might pull their respective heads in - in the national interest of course, and support those who try a lot harder than you do, to make a positive contribution to the country and its people.

An Australian living in the USA ....

• by Graeme on November 30, 2008 at 11:14 AM

I saw it on Friday and thought it was amazing. Why are people so hard on Nicole? I thought she did a bloody good job.

Ignore the critics. I think the people who are posting negative comments haven't even seen the film

• by Mitch on November 30, 2008 at 11:24 AM

Yeh Nicole Kidman is a bad actress, that`s why she won a oscar. That`s like saying David Beckham is a bad footballer but, he wouldn`t be that successful and rich if he couldn`t play football! Then again this is just an opinion and opinions are the cheapest commodity on Earth because everybody has one or a thousand.

• by ben on November 30, 2008 at 11:46 AM

I definatly will watch it when I get a chance. Shame on the media for running down an Aussi movie. I suspect the Americanized Aussies would hate it and the true blue would be sceptical which is a normal reaction but then it will be accepted by the majority. Most of the yanks would still be sore having lost out to Happy Feet, so it's no surprise that this one is being knocked. Mel Gibson used to be a good guy to and now is hated because of controversial crap surrounding his old man and a certain group of Aholes have targeted him. I call it envy and greed which puts them below frogshit. Also some political factions still chewing the fact the new Sherrif is a Nigger. The last line wasn't intended racist but from a Mel Brooks movie Blazing Saddles. I applaude Obama who unfortunatly was given the job because America has lost it's popularity accross the globe and by allowing a black person in the top job the spin doctors think it might fool everyone to believing things will change. I bet it won't and anyone who believes it will has eaten the blue pill. If you had taken both you'd get my point. Be proud to have an Australian movie made in our country and has an Australian cast, stuff the knockers and let them eat Foxtel Crap if that's what tickles their fancy!

• by solawiz on November 30, 2008 at 11:57 AM

I don't particularly agree with the "support it even if it is bad" theory, but to be honest, I found it surprisingly dead on in it's portrayal of us. Sure it was dramatized and whatnot, but I feel they did quite well.

My biggest concern was that either they'd avoid statements about aboriginal culture, or they'd get it horribly wrong (sort of like Ricky Wong's interpretation of the culture in "We Can Be Heroes"). To my satisfaction, they did a good job conveying the indigenous culture in an educated way.

Overall I enjoyed the movie, cheese and all. The throwbacks to golden age hollywood was nice, and you can tell Baz approached the film with a hint of irony.

I was nervous when I sat down, but when I got up I was satisfied. I'll support this film, not just because it's important for it to succeed for our industry, but because it is a genuinely good film.

• by Jeremy Moses on November 30, 2008 at 12:45 PM

Aussies need to relax. We love The Outback and all involved. We LOVE Kidman and Jackman, and don't give a care about critics. Often times, if the critics say it is bad, it will be a blockbuster and you can bet your sweet leading men, that we Americans will LOVE it. It is coming out at the right time too. Cannot wait to see it.

• by Cookie on November 30, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Who are we? What makes us Australian? The first Australians were the Aboriginal (Koori) people and the Torres Strait Islanders. To paraphrase what King George, Nualla's grandfather, the Aboriginal Elder says in the movie, Australia, to Mrs Boss/Lady Sarah Ashley when he takes his grandson, Nualla for a walkabout to teach him life lessons and about his culture and heritage. This is my country but now this is your country. King George evokes that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were the first and original inhabitants of this land we all call Australia but we each bring something to this country of importance and to live harmonious as Australians no matter where we come from what is our background.

Australia, the movie, weaves many themes, black vs white, man vs woman, peace vs war, the importance of family - in its most broadest of definitions, customs, traditions, language, heritage, story telling and society's perceptions at that time and the lack of basic rights and choices for men, women, children and tells us the audience what happened to children of the stolen generation. It also gives us an insight into the Aboriginal culture and customs. Baz Luhrman and his team of writers clearly tell the audience in subtle and obvious ways that certain behaviours were unacceptable. It is obvious to many of the characters in the film, what is right, but they do not do the right thing and often turn around and do the wrong thing. It is the brave characters in this film, who stand up for the weak and disadvantaged to triumph over adversity.

The young priest is praying and with his faith in God, no matter what is happening around him, begs the army to give him a boat to save the Aboriginal children. The army refuse to assist him in taking the boat to the island. The authorities had evacuated all the white families, men, women and children.

The Drover appears with Mallama (his Aboriginal brother in law) and Ivan the immigrant manager of the Territory hotel to assist the priest and with no hesitation say to the priest God works in mysterious ways to help the priest and to rescue the Aboriginal children, one of which is Nualla, the little Aboriginal boy.

The Drover, Mallama, Ivan and the young catholic priest, take a boat to Mission Island and save the Aboriginal children from Mission Island and rescue them from the Japanese who have bombed and taken over the island.

King George, Nualla and Lady Sarah Ashley can also be included list of the brave ones who stand up for the good, decent and the right way in this world.

I watched this film and I had tears in my eyes. I was so moved by the story, the characters, themes and the beautiful backdrop and scenery, that is our country, in the beautiful north of Australia.

I was a generation of Australian children that was not taught about the stolen generation in the Australian public school system. I was educated in the Aboriginal customs, traditions and their beautiful dreamtime stories. When I went to school land rights and the stolen generation was a hot potato issue, politically. It was not until much later in my professional career in the health system, that I attended a two hour seminar by the Aboriginal Health Service that I found out, that I did not know a lot of things and I was willing to learn more and to assist. I have been fortunate to have met some amazing people, both Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander and non Aboriginal and non Torrest Islander who have been willing to give me their time to explain things to me. I continue to be inspired by these people.

I loved the way the song "Somewhere over the Rainbow" was weaved in with the theme of storytelling and the mention of the story of the Rainbow Serpent. It is my favourite from the Aboriginal dreamtime. It is where all people are equal no matter what they look like, what language they speak and where they come from.

I walked away yesterday, thinking that I don't know anything and there is much for me to learn.

Seriously, little Brandon, the little boy who plays Nuala steals the film in Australia from Hugh Jackman (The Drover) and Nicole Kidman (Lady Sarah Ashley/Mrs Boss). He so pivotal in how this tale is unfolded. To the actors (all of you) you did a fantastic job with this film.

To Baz, Catherine and to your extensive teams in all stages of the film making, film production and staging process you truly made a beautiful film and told wonderful tale about this country, we all love, Australia.

• by travelling_max on November 30, 2008 at 12:57 PM

Saw "Australia" today with my US wife. I am a Kiwi living in Kidman's resident US city, Nashville. Enjoyed it thoroughly. An emotional roller-coaster. Great! Too many of you are being overly-sensitive and almost paranoid in your negative comments. During the movie you could hear people sniffling and there were many sets of wet eyes as the credits rolled. My surprise was that so many US people were unaware of the history of WWII with the bombing of Darwin by the Japanese and the era of the lost children.

• by John on November 30, 2008 at 12:58 PM

I saw it here in Laurieton NSW last Wednesday and thought it was great!
All the 'knockers' and critics must just love to criticise movies for the sake of it, gives them something to do I suppose! For goodness sake, get a life!!! There may have been some poetic license taken in spots and of course the absence of flies was a wee bit strange but, on the whole, it's a very watchable movie. Nicole was great and Hugh Jackman is a dish and also very watchable!
I can't recall or recognize the name 'creamy' given to the half-caste kids - don't know where that comes from. He was a great little actor wasn't he?
All you folks who haven't seen the movie - go and see it - you may be surprised!!!

• by Judy on November 30, 2008 at 01:11 PM

I'm a Yank who's lived off-and-on for the last 5 years on the NSW mid-north coast, and now back in Florida working . . . and find myself missing Australia quite often, now that I'm back to "reality" and full-on in the American rat-race again, dealing with the crime, rudeness, pollution, crowds, and general Wal-Mart mentality that was so refreshingly absent during my wonderful time in Oz . . .
So I went to see this new magnum opus "Australia" last night at the Sarasota theatre (packed, it was), and I found it a beautiful movie (yes, let my guard down and rolled with the punches and the dramatic liberties that producers inevitably take in all movies) but found it a great film that Americans leaving the theatre thoroughly enjoyed, and a sympathetic perspective on the Aboriginal plight at the hands of white australia, not dissimilar in many ways of America's ugly past . . . wonderful and long overdue for the Aussie government to make that formal apology, good on Rudd for doing so. Great movie, I think Australians should accept how much they are universally loved by Americans . . . I really liked the movie, dramatic liberties and all.

• by steve on November 30, 2008 at 01:23 PM

There is a picture in Fitzroy Crossing Lodge of the owner of Fossil Downs Station in the 1950s armed with a revolver in a holster. It was relatively common as protection against rogue bulls.

• by Remington on November 30, 2008 at 01:35 PM

I thought I would hate it -
I really don't like Nicole Kidman at all. I went only because friends were going. I must say, I was presently surprised. As noted, the first 40 mins was clunky - Nicole annoyed the everything out of me (she's got a weird scar on her nose that distracted me no end at that magnification on the super screen.) Her pom accent was atrocious and she was fake and the characted flimsy. However, and this is a huge one - SUDDENLY it just worked - the whole lot pulled togeher and I was truly entranced. When it ended I was left speechless. It is one of the best movies I have seen in years - even that clunky beginning suddenly makes sense after a while. I thought it was great. Don't pan it until you've seen it- like me, you jusy may be pleasantly surprised

• by Juliet on November 30, 2008 at 02:03 PM

I thought it was great. Incredibly corny in parts but who cares - so was The Man from Snowy River. I think it is sad that people are so quick to cut it down - we are really living up to the Tall Poppy mentality!

• by Katy on November 30, 2008 at 02:16 PM

WARNING: "AUSTRALIA" IS NOT A DOCUMENTARY!!!
Saw the movie yesterday and loved it. When the movie finished, the audience clapped. The last time that happened at a movie I attended was when Crocodile Dundee came out. (And I've been to the movies about 500 times since then without hearing any audience applause.)
Yes, it is a bit corny, cliched and melodramatic - but this was done deliberately. And the audience laughed out loud more often than I hear during most movies that are advertised as "comedies".
I'll bet that the majority of people who have criticised the movie in this blog haven't even seen it. If they had, and were honest, they would have at least made comments like "I didn't like it but the rest of the audience seemed to enjoy it".
David Dale is right when he states that there are "plenty of moments when you cringe in embarrassment", but these are not caused by the script or acting, but rather by some aspects of our social history. We have come a long way since then, and whilst we shouldn't too harshly judge society of the 1940s against today's standards, we should at least acknowledge our social history which is what the movie does.
Well done Baz!

• by Craig on November 30, 2008 at 02:44 PM

Baz,
You should be ashamed of yourself!
Nicole is an embarassment.
Hugh - how much did they pay you to do this? Not enough is my guess...

• by P2Labs on November 30, 2008 at 02:46 PM

Dear oh deary me, this is really sad. "Lurham has shamed Australians" - C'mon you idiots!!! He's telling a story, doesnt have to make sense - as alot of them dont, thats was film is all about!
It's a movie, not everything is meant to be "spot on", people go the movies to escape.
I thought Australia was wonderful. A lovely story and great scenery. As much as I dont like Nicole - she was good in it too. Typical Baz film .... romantic, surreal. If you're not into that kind of stuff dont go see it.
I think everyone should try to get behind this film and support it, support "Australia".
M.

• by MReeksB on November 30, 2008 at 04:07 PM

australians are full of ..it and this dross captures that quite nicely

• by Brian on November 30, 2008 at 04:30 PM

What I think is grossly unfair is how the Sydney Morning Herald ran a story on yesterday's website saying the movie had flopped in the US.
The reality is they were going off the film's first day figures - it opened on a Wednesday there like here, and for a film like Australia which will appeal to an older audience, the key days over the Thanksgiving holiday break are Fri-Sat-Sun.
So come on you blokes, give the film a chance! Don't be so eager to condemn it immediately. The figures for Friday jumped 95% off the previous day. Did the smh report that? No. The total now from Wed-Friday is US$11m.
But let's wait until the figures come in for the entire Thanksgiving weekend then put it into a proper perspective.
All that said, this is a film which cost a reported US$130m. And with a marketing budget again reported to be US$100m separate to the $40m spent by Tourism Australia, that's a total cost of US$230m which the studio will have to recoup. For it to break even, it will have to make between US$500m-$600m taking out distribution, exhibition and marketing costs.
Given that Baz's films in the past have done better outside the US than within, it will have to make at least US$100m in the US to have a chance of getting into the black world wide. And if it's opening weekend figures are say US$20m, then Fox will hope that it has good "word-of-mouth" so that it stays in the cinemas a long time.

• by toby on November 30, 2008 at 04:42 PM

I have recently seen an animation film from the 80s called "Water ship Down" which is a modern English tale about rabbits.
I have never seen a film like this before (I migrated from Argentina, where we cannot see quality movies very often) but it was a fantastic feature that reminded me of so many interesting Aboriginal legends I heard of.
I haven't seen "Australia" yet, but I suspect that it would have been much more original and exciting to make a movie about one of these Aboriginal tales instead. After all, the history of this Country doesn't start in 1790, and anyway what's the point in seeing this little rosy, unreal and artificial "princess" Kidman against a Japanese Zero, in an epic film like "Gone with the Wind", trying to emulate Vivien Leigh, especially when Vivien Leigh was unique and she cannot possibly be emulated at all?
If you want to watch real episodes of the Australian history, I would suggest the following:
1) Gallipoli
2) Blood Oath
3) Breaker Morant
4) Kokoda
Among others

• by Marcos on November 30, 2008 at 04:58 PM

Why is it suddenly unfashionable to be a classically Aussie cynic? Or is Baz's genius such that he evokes the primal Australian response.

• by dean on November 30, 2008 at 05:08 PM

ok ok, i saw this movie yesterday and i think it was pretty good.. I do admit it should have been much shorter and to the point, but i do not understand the people whoare severly criticising the film. Why cant we admit the truth about our history of the stolen generations. Cut the crap excuses about misinterpreting Australia for example:
1. Was there ever a beer called Kangaroo Bitter or a rum called Poor Fella?
2. Did drovers and cattle barons habitually wear revolvers in holsters on their hips?.
Seriously who gives a shit. It a movie for gods sake. Not everything will be accurate.
I think all who is moaning about this movie should get over themsleves and wish they could ever be in a movie.

• by Salma on November 30, 2008 at 06:04 PM

Not to be a dick, but what about Nicole's face? It's almost expressionless from all the botox and the digital removal of her wrinkles. She looks more like a mannequin that a human. Sorry, Australia, but this film just didn't work. I wanted to love it, but after two and a half hours I was itching to get the hell out of there. Only the young kid is worth seeing. He has a future if wanted to pursue acting.

• by PeterF. on November 30, 2008 at 06:10 PM

I haven't seen it but after watching the ads Baz-Boy produced for Australia Tourism I don't want to either. Talk about wrapped in Coon. With copy like "She arrived as Mrs Mathieson, Executive VP of Sales, and she departed as Kate". More likely "She arrived as Mrs Mathieson, Executive VP of Sales, and she departed as "that bloody stupid Yank".

• by lambe, paris on November 30, 2008 at 06:20 PM

In reading all these comments I note the trend is that those who have seen it have enjoyed it, whilst those who are filled with negativity have not seen it. Reminds me of an advertising campaign in the 70s by a famous Irish beer - "I've never tried it because I don't like it".
To the naysayers - may I suggest adding your critique AFTER you have actually seen the movie. The film is superb.

• by Chris on November 30, 2008 at 06:27 PM

This film communicates on lots of different levels, and most of what Lurhmann has done with it seems to be aimed at each of those levels at once. There are the moments that people have been calling "cheesy", which they are, but which are also direct references to the romantic films of the era the film is set in. There are cross references to Australian cultural products of the same era which dealt with similar subject matter, such as the name of Lady Sarah Ashley's horse being "Capricornia" (Xavier Herbert's 1930's novel/biting social commentary of race relations and mixed race children's plight written and set in the same area), the Aboriginal "Protector's" line about "breeding the black out" of mixed race children, which was official govt. propaganda of the era, etc.
To me, these different levels recall a similar approach used by Katherine S. Pritchard in her novel of the late 1920's, "Coonardoo". That book, like this film, had a "broad brush" surface story, with characters at first glance so simplistic that the novel seemed lacking. However, there was an undercurrent of enormous depth and power once readers realise the metaphors at play. My own take on "Australia" is that Lurhmann has attempted a similar work, whether consciously or not (I'd love to know which). People are calling some of the film's moments cliches, and they are, but there are also subtler references. For me both work. The film is rather unwieldy (so was "Capricornia") and not every part works as well as others, but overall Lurmann has not failed. I think the film is a sort of intellectual pop-culture cross-over (one of my favourite genres), and that it will probably be greater valued over the years than at its first release. This is quite common with Australian cultural products; it may not be much immediate comfort for Lurhmann financially, but should leave him feeling reasonably satisfied artictically.
Michele

• by Michele Clayton on November 30, 2008 at 07:14 PM

After what I thought was bad press, I was a little wary of going to see Australia. I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. I was captured by the prologue (pre title), and although there were a few clunky or cheesy moments, I really enjoyed the story, the acting and the settings. I am going to recommend this to all my mates. I'm only in it for entertainment, and this entertained me.

• by Phil of Bondi on November 30, 2008 at 08:10 PM

The film left me confused, especially artistically, in which it was so inconsistent. I cringed a lot, at acting, editing, story, but it's the Australian characters that make me cringe the most. So overdone and cliched. We see this so often in Aus movies. I got what expected. But in a positive note, I like the idea that Baz is trying to show the world a bit about our sorry treatment of Aboriginals since 1788, however polished. The only moment I cried was at the end, when the credits explained the Rudd Gov had finally said SORRY!

• by libby on November 30, 2008 at 08:22 PM

The scenes of the outback are stunning and the Aboriginal dreamtime permeates the entire film. This is the first film I've seen that shows the bombing of Darwin during WWII. I think Baz has created a film all Australians should see...

• by Jane on November 30, 2008 at 08:28 PM

Before Drover leads the team out into the desert he starts his address to the troops with "Now listen up..." Sorry script people, that is not 1940 Australian dialogue (or 1950, 1960, 70, 80, or 90). Just another Bazpander to the hockey moms (& dads) who would not understand the instruction "Now listen..."

• by Martinm on November 30, 2008 at 08:34 PM

Wot is this endless BS aboit 'Hoo we are'? If you don't know, call the Police...they may be able to help you find out.
I *KNOW* hoo I am, and wot I am...and I am Australian.

• by Pete on November 30, 2008 at 08:42 PM

I loved it. I was anticipating that I would hate it after all the bad press, however I found the story engaging and the acting in the main, was excellent. Australia is worth seeing for many reasons.
Brandon Walters was superb - for the acting of this young newcomer alone Australia is a must from my point of view. Hugh Jackman was great as the drover - the perfect role for him. Nicole got into it although perhaps not at first.
Jack Thompson was very good as was David Wenham and David Gulpilil. Bryan Brown was Bryan Brown.
The shots of the scenery and the cattle mustering were outstanding.
Enjoy it. Leave the criticising to the overseas critics.

• by Linny on November 30, 2008 at 08:49 PM

It's a movie, or are you describing someone's biography? We wouldn't be Australian if we didn't pick something to pieces - are we aussies or are we poms, stop your whinging, relax and enjoy.

• by Helen on November 30, 2008 at 09:24 PM

Doesn't worry me. I already call Australia not home. Just reading this crap to see how the other half live. When is Australia going to encourage the Aussie's that have left to come back home?

• by Glenn Wilson on November 30, 2008 at 09:32 PM

Saw the film today in Melbourne. Some of the audience were in tears and there was a lot of laughter on a few occasions, and at the end most peole showed how much they enjoyed the film with their applause. A rare event at films these days. Is it a great film, probably not, but like most people I go to the cinema to suspend all disbelief. I did and came out having enjoyed the experience. I don't care about David Dale's 5 potential inaccuracies. Anyone can pick holes in a film, perhaps when he has made one himself he will be worth listening to.
If the reaction of the audience at one suburbian cinema is a judge, then the film is a success.

• by David on November 30, 2008 at 09:58 PM

Saw it at the premiere last Tuesday. For a more authentic feel, with less bombast and more subtlety, I thought Lucky Miles from last year would've made a better advert, a better statement for who we are and what the land is about.
The film Australia had very little substance, zero subtlety, wooden acting, a very thin story, and some pretty awful writing. Don't care about the historic accuracy- don't think Baz either, I was half expecting him to do a Michael Bay and have Drover emerge as king of the universe for no apparent reason after the bombing.
History has history books and real people's accounts. The film- it just wasn't very good. Production was slick, yes. A turd sandwich that was put together is still a turd sandwich.
A poor film in itself isn't such a bad thing- there's plenty of those. The problem with this is the way government has put so much behind this as a tourism vehicle. Could've pumped the money into other more deserving projects instead.

• by Hinn on November 30, 2008 at 10:10 PM

If you want to see a great Australian western, see The Proposition, great script, great acting, great scenery. I'll be seeing James Bond!

• by Leigh on November 30, 2008 at 10:21 PM

What do you expect from a director who turned KISS and Nirvana songs into musical pieces?

• by Mardy on November 30, 2008 at 11:41 PM

My wife and I saw the film in Idaho Falls with extended family. The audience (I haven't been in a theatre as full since the first of the 'Ring' films) was engaged by the movie (even if the first 40 minutes or so seemed slow). There were tears there was laughter and there was complete and appropriate silence. The comments by the rest of the audience (which even stayed for the extremely long credits how about that) were positive. Maybe they went to see a movie for its entertainment value. David Wenham sure ain't Diver Dan in this movie.

• by Ian Warlters on December 01, 2008 at 08:35 AM

142 plus posts on a movie made in Australia! Am thinking this is a success already. Saw the movie and loved everything about it and especially love the passion of the debate that is surrounding it.

• by Suze on December 01, 2008 at 08:33 PM

Went and saw the film on Thursday 27th Dec.
My wife and I were thoroughly entertained.
Loved the young aboriginal and his narrating. The scenery was brilliant.

• by martin kahl on December 02, 2008 at 09:31 AM

Ben said "Yeh Nicole Kidman is a bad actress, that`s why she won a oscar"
Oh dear poor sweet naive Ben. The Oscars fairly rarely reflect good acting performances these days... Nowadays it largely depends on the marketing strategies of the movie studios... Nicole's Oscar was largely acknowleged as a fluke and a sympathy vote, do you really think it was a coincidence that news of her miscarriage was made public just as the Academy members were voting?
The Hours was largely an ensemble cast, but Julianne Moore was already nominated for another movie so they moved her nomination to supporting actress, trying to spread the nominations around & reduce competition to increase chances of winning... Helps marketing to say film won two Oscars rather than have two actresses in same film compete for one
Cynical, why yes but that is the Oscars these days, cynical to the core. One of the reasons that people tend to look more at the Golden Globes, SAG and the Foreign Press Awards as having more meaning re actual quality of film... sometimes the Oscars do surprise... and reward the good ones but mostly performances like Gwyneth's will be Cate's when Gwynnie won for Shakespeare in Love & Cate lost for Elizabeth. Sorry, slightly off the track of Ostraya...
Levendis: Re Tall Poppy Sydnrome... The Brits are equally capable of Tall Poppy Syndrome as are the Yanks.... And why does any criticism equate to Tall Poppy Syndrome. Criticism is healthy for debate, or should we all be " yes" men and women. We are also entitled to critique this film as through tax rebates, we have helped fund this private venture so as we pay we have a say....

• by Kate on December 02, 2008 at 12:19 PM

If millions of people can go along and watch unadulterated garbage like Titanic and it ends up winning Oscars, anything can happen! It's just entertainment.

• by blakey on December 02, 2008 at 08:59 PM

Watching Australia on Saturday which I should like, as I did like Moulin Rouge, Pearl Harbour etc and Australia appears to be in a similar vein.
Responding to J Bar: I think Four Christmases is being rebadged throughout the Asia-Pacific (may stand corrected) as Four Holidays. Suggest that the reason is nowhere in the Asia-Pacific apart from Aust/NZ is Christmas celebrated as a public holiday i.e. given much significance, hence the more 'understandable' term Four Holidays. The distributors probably thought it was efficient to lump us in with the rest of the Asia-Pacific on this point.

• by arthur on December 05, 2008 at 08:16 AM

I have been reading all this Hoo- haa about Baz's film "Australia". No doubt it is uncomfortable for some, to listen to what they regard as hackneyed phrases ( so called clich�s) and then there are the facts that many knew nothing about. I certainly never learned much about the bombing of Darwin ( whose fault was that? Certainly not Baz's.
Also it apparently bothers some, that, we have the audacity to take wide lens shots, as in, "Out of Africa", or even God forbid, have the nerve, to promote our own country so brazenly, openly and with pride and humour, or tell a few local stories, as Americans have done for years or rammed down our throats every valley, canyon, cactus, and untidy cowboy they could locate. We wouldn't know if Americans were using their own hackneyed phrases anyway who cares! They certainly would never apologies for it, in the way that unfortunately, we seem to find so necessary.
Instead of embracing the much used words and accept them for their part in our past, we condemn them as somehow criminal to use. We cringe and are embarrassed by them?
Well let me say that as the daughter of a dairy farmer,who was lucky enough to have an aboriginal lady Ida, to be my companion as a small child, (to learn about talking to rocks, or old man tree) among other things, I can tell you about words they used.
. YES it is true. UM was added
If I stumbled into a rabbit hole while walking "You fall um right down big hole Barbie girl" Um was added to most things somewhere along the line.
I think I am prompted to write because most country people certainly have no inferiority complex about comfort language (clich�s)
Back in the earlier days people spoke less and indeed used comfortable familiar phrases that said so much more than the words they spoke.
I think it hurts, to know that young Australians don't take pride in our earlier common language, and what it stood for,embrace the words used, and recognize the uniqueness of our culture through this keyhole, into our past, and cherish it, instead of rubbishing.
"She'll be right mate" really meant much more than the few words said.
How many times were these words said, during a war to save us all?
Many of these words are a part of my soul, and I am so grateful, that I identify with them.
There was always an elegance to common Aussie words, a few conveyed so much.
I particularly remember one that I think is appropriate for all who can't celebrate with Baz and enjoy his film as I hope to do.
"Go and stick your head in a tussock"
Or as my Grandfather would say if he was still alive
"By Jove Barbie, he has given it his best shot" and that is all you can ask of any man.
All my best

• by Barbara Adams on December 06, 2008 at 08:22 PM

I saw Australia yesterday in a very packed cinema in Randwick - like others have said good but not great - and some of the lines were decidedly twee - a couple in particular which were almost direct quotes from the Wizard of Oz come to mind.
Overall the scenery was brilliant, and as everyone has said Brandon Walters who plays Nullah is captivating - the camera loves him - a find for sure if he wants to go that way. Would recommend it to others but reminding them it is long and a bit twee, but the scenery (including Hugh) is worth it.

• by Cathy on December 08, 2008 at 08:00 AM

this is sort of related to the movie but why did the japanese not proceed to land in Darwin and cause havoc in the east coast of Australia? Why did they want to conquer the asia pacific, was it because of oil?
The battle of the coral sea and midway was the turning point in the war because the yanks sunk the japanese aircraft carriers.

• by henry on December 14, 2008 at 10:09 AM

Quite interesting that the politically correct titled 'Four Holidays' is only at no.6 on the Australian Box Office while the original titled 'Four Christmases' topped the American Box Office for the first two weeks of release and remains at no.2 this week. Take that politically correct distributors. Suffer in yer jocks.

• by Random on December 18, 2008 at 05:27 PM

I finally had the chance to see 'Australia' this week and I thought it was great. After seeing and hearing so much bad publicity for the movie I was expecting it to be bad, so I was more than pleasantly surprised. I liked the adventure and quirky humour of the first half of the film but I also liked the drama and emotion of the second half. I thought all the actors were cast well but I was most impressed by the performance of young Brandon Walters. The scenery is breathtaking. I think it's a movie you need to see on the big screen at the cinema.

• by J Bar on December 22, 2008 at 07:45 AM

Saw it last night and just wish they had not invented stories and and suggested that these were historical facts.
One most especially was the Priest on Bathurst Island radioing a warning to the mainland, whilst the japanese were still 50 miles away. The officer in charge at Darwin apparently, just like Pearl Harbour 3 months earlier, thought that he had seen some US or RAAF aircraft that had recently taken off, and dismissed the early warning. The Priest was not killed and no Japanese soldiers ever set foot on Australian soil. Apart from that thought it was spectacular and enjoyed it.

• by Terry Barnett on January 01, 2009 at 06:33 AM

i needed the cash...

Tribal Mind asks: But how come your English accent was convincing in The Others, and ridiculous in Australia?

• by nicole k on March 12, 2009 at 07:35 AM