The Age’s Jim Schembri thinks it lovely but a bit too long, writing:
IN WHAT has to be the most hyped and self-consciously local film since 1984’s The Man From Snowy River, the anxiously anticipated Australia is not a bad film. But it’s far from a great one, and certainly not one destined to be a classic.
That’s not to say it won’t be popular, possibly wildly so. The film has broad appeal, particularly to the chick-flick market, with its sweeping, overlong melodramatic saga about cattle drives, the stolen generations, the bombing of Darwin and Hugh Jackman’s abs. The story involves a prissy English woman (Nicole Kidman) who, with the help of a stockman known enigmatically as “The Drover” (Jackman), tries saving her troubled cattle station from a greedy cattleman (Bryan Brown) and his evil relative (David Wenham).
Blended into the tale is the touching story of a little boy of mixed blood, who serves as a symbol for the stolen generations and racism.
The film is fine, and never boring but, boy, is it overlong. At a mammoth 165 minutes it feels too much like a work-in-progress. There is a lot of narrative flab and longueurs in the first two hours and the film often has the pace of a steamroller with engine trouble.
Meanwhile, this review is the flipside, suggesting a winner waiting to spring, “HE SET himself an enormous challenge, but Baz Luhrmann has pulled off an incredible film in Australia.”
30 Responses for "Australia Reviews Begin to Trickle in"
Why do people always complain about the lenght? The lenght doesn’t matter as long as the movie is good and it keeps you entertained and he said it was never boring, so why complain about the freaking lenght.
For movies I love the longer the better.
If people complain about length, it usually means the movie was too long for them. Simple as that.
“steamroller with engine trouble”- nice way to put it
I loved NCfOM (my fav of last year) even more for its length. I am not put off by length of a film if its truly great. But, lots of good movies can use a little trimming.
I don’t care if a movie is 3 hours long, it’s the PACING that has to be good.
I’ve seen less-than-entertaining movies clocking in at 85 minutes that i just couldn’t take anymore.
And I’ve seen 3 hour long entertaining films that I had no problem with because they WERE entertaining, and the pacing/editing was just right.
A good review and a great review. Yay! Off to a fine start.
I don’t mind long movies but can audiences stand sitting there without going to the loo? It’s bad for health!
“For movies I love the longer the better.”
Cheers to that. The new expanded cut of The New World is sublime. The lavish longer cut of Kingdom of Heaven is like a totally different movie, it’s so much more cohesive. The Last Emperor director’s cut adds a full hour to the intimate spectacle. I’d have been happy if it added another two.
This is why I like miniseries and the idea of trilogies is appealing (the idea, if not always the reality of the execution.)
Mmm… Berlin Alexanderplatz (15 hours)
Mmm… The Best of Youth (7 hours)
Mmm… 1900 or Fanny and Alexander (5 hours each)
3 hours of Baz going fucking nuts? Bring it. Can’t wait for DVD with the version he had to trim down.
Real Life, now that’s what I wish could be doled out in 2-hour segments. 2 hours of Real Life is about all I can handle without intermission.
“The film has broad appeal, particularly to the chick-flick market, with its sweeping, overlong melodramatic saga about cattle drives, the stolen generations, the bombing of Darwin and Hugh Jackman’s abs.”
yeah, the chicks love them some melodramatic cattle drives* and bombings of the Darwins.
(melodramatic cattle and their moo-ooood swings.)
For me Luhrmann has always been more about spectacle/style than substance. That is my only concern about what this might turn out to be, it’s length and potential appeal as a chick flick are fine so long as the story engages.
40 longest movies ever made.
Almost all of them are multiple Oscar winners,
and a good third of them won Best Picture.
Ryan, I like your style!
Keep the faith.
So Ryan, you’re arguing that length definitely matters
John@5, I agree.
The length doesn’t matter to me. If the film is great, then I am sure there will be quite a gathering in restrooms after the film credits roll. So far there have been 1 rave review and two good reviews. I see this at going over 70 percent on rotten-tomatoes and doing well on metacritic. The Globes will love this film though it may not do any better than Cold Mountain come Oscar nomination morning. Not sure if it will garner any acting nods like the two CM did. Baz may get a directing nod with the movie missing the five. We will from major North American critics within the week.
I dunno, I’m ready for a long, sweeping romance for the holidays.
If anything, it sounds like Australia may win the Oscar for Best Cinematography.
Oscar traditionally loves long, sweeping epics, a point Ryan makes with his statistics.
well for all this talk about length, 165 minutes really isn’t that long.
TDK is 152. TWBB was 158. Ben Button will probably be suitably epic.
I’m from Melbourne – the hometown of Jim Schembri who’s review in The Age newspaper is quoted by Sasha above. I read his reviews each week with trepidation – he is a contrary goose who will hate something just cause it is popular. I would take his reviews with a huge pinch of salt. He has a problem with the movie’s length only because his attention span is so limited! Make your own judgements or base it on others, I ask that you don’t base your judgements on Jim Schembri’s.
Have a look at what David Stratton and Margaret Pomeranz have to say on the At The Movies website (www.abc.net.au/atthemovies/). They have been reviewing movies on Australian television for 20 or more years and I respect their opinions enormously – though they may differ – and they do it with style, grace and humour.
Jeez, why do some of you get so defensive? His isn’t the only review I’ve read that isn’t glowing. From what I’ve read on other reviews, the bombing footage leaves alot to be desired and another reviewer, a female, said the chemistry between Jackman & Kidman wasn’t all that great. I’ll be curious to hear the non-Australian reviews. Reviewers that aren’t under the thumb of Rupert Murdoch.
Richard from Melb David Stratton didn’t much care for it either:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24671640-15803,00.html
No one has raved except those paid to do so.
Will never watch anything thing with that Hawaii born crap actress Kidman in it, sorry Hugh.
What does her being born in Hawaii have to do with anything?
She a faux-Australian. The US should bear the stench that emanates from her acting output
She’s lived in Australia almost her entire life, so I think it’s not a stretch for her to identify as Australian. Guy Pearce was born in England and Russell Crowe in New Zealand, but I don’t see anyone kicking up a fuss about them.
How do you know she’s a crap actress if you’ve never seen any of her movies? I’m not a superfan either, but this seems a bit petty.
Naomi Watts is also English born.
At least Russell and Guy actually live here most of the time and pay taxes like responsible Australians in our country, not like those blowins Kidman, Watts. And Paul Hogan for that matter….
Its time we stopped giving free Australian identity to people who massage the tax system to their benefit, or even worse still only are seen here when they need to round up money for a picture (Hogan)
And while talking about Australia the movie, every Australian should be incensed about the reported overuse of the word crikey. Now im not embarrassed about the word or its use, but i object to it being overused to further foster a stereotype held overseas (by the way, thats the audience for this film, australians be damned) that we’re all crocodile hunter clones.
Baz Lurhman has treated the Australian public with complete contempt, for his own benefit.
And i still love Hugh, despite this.
Haha, get off your high horse and RELAX. BTW, I say “crikie!” a lot, but I’m not ocker.
And, seriously, two hours and 45 minutes is not long. Maybe for people who have awfully weak bladders.
cj, 3.5/5 from David Stratton is actually quite good.
Kiss my American term- ” ass” . Have you seen the film? Don’t judge till you have seen it. No one can judge till they have seen it. Nuf said. From what I have heard -it is a pretty damn good 2.5 hours
[...] http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=3983 [...]
Leave a reply
All comments should respect the Awards Daily House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please let us know, quoting the comment in question.