Review: Australia (2008)
By Luke Buckmaster on Nov 27, 2008 in Reviews
There is only one rational explanation capable of explaining the existence of Baz Luhrmann’s obese outback epic Australia: it’s an elaborate joke. A ruse. A jape. A gag. A sick $150 million dollar punch line made at the expense of every Australian. In case you weren’t aware, some drunken nut challenged Luhrmann to break box office records by making the most astonishingly bad Australian film of all time. Some deranged gambler sought to test the intelligence of cinemagoers the country wide by juxtaposing, alongside a solid year of thoughtful, intelligent and cheaply produced local features, a bumbling big budget behemoth just to see which one we were dumb enough to pick. There are no other level-headed explanations. Struth! Bugger me! Stone the crows! This movie stinks.
Of all the over-hyped, over-budgeted, over-blown, over-the-top productions in the history of Australian cinema, this one takes the cake. The media saturation for Luhrmann’s King Kong clunker has been incredible. It feels like the film’s promotion began during the dawn of man; stare very closely at the monolith in the opening scene of 2001: A Space Odyssey and you’ll see small type advertising Baz Luhrmann’s Australia. That’s why the apes were so excited.
In all seriousness, my media-saturated memory suggests it’s been ten years since we first heard that the maestro behind Moulin Rouge! and Strictly Ballroom was making an epic film entrusted with the name of our beloved country. Incidentally, ten years is about the same time this obscenely protracted film seems to go on for. As the movie slowly puttered towards completion, after manoeuvring past two or three fake endings that presented the tantalising prospect that the curtain was finally being drawn, it is no exaggeration to say I could feel myself that much nearer to death, compelled to inch closer and closer towards the light. Then I realised the light was green and it illuminated a sign that read EXIT.
It’s as if Australia – that’s the movie, not the country, dummy - was built with one under riding intention: to amalgamate as many national clichés and stereotypes as is humanly, cinematically, possible. They pour out of every scene; they drip from every frame. Luhrmann mines the sort of cultural cringe factor Paul Hogan exploited back in the 80’s in Crocodile Dundee, and this time around, outside the auspices of comedy, veering dangerously close to ‘historical’ epic, the ramifications are dire. I fear it will take years for us to live this film down. A message to international audiences, for which Australia was undoubtedly intended: just in case you didn’t realise, this film isn’t social realism. Luhrmann presents a time that never happened, in a place that never existed, with a people light years away from embodying, or even suggesting, what it means to be an Australian.
The screenplay has obviously been passed through many many hands – so much so that it’s totally bereft of any distinctive or individual style. Imagine a 600 page Mills and Boon novel titled ‘Crikey!’ and you’ve got a pretty good idea of what to expect.
Bad narration anchors the film. “This story begin far away in a land called Eng-a-land,” says Nullah (Brendon Walters), a young ‘half-caste’ child who meets the stiff and prudish Lady Sarah (Nicole Kidman) when she moves to Australia to supervise her property, a postcard homestead called Faraway Downs. Lady Sarah has a falling out with Neil Fletcher (David Wenham) and needs to move her cattle to Darwin, seeking the assistance of a beefy, built-like-a-brick-shit-house alpha male known only as The Drover (Hugh Jackman). Cattle are herded, love is in the air (somebody press the bullshit buzzer please), WWII breaks out, a yada yada. David Gulpilil plays Nullah’s grandfather, ‘King George’, and hovers around the characters as a kind of mythical, enigmatic figure, often relegated (in the film’s first half) to the top of a mountain. Legend though he is, Gulpilil’s character is eerily close in charisma to the baboon from The Lion King.
In one scene audiences are treated to the outrageous spectacle of watching hundreds of bulls running towards a cliff face. The inimitable Jack Thompson, playing a portly, larrikin drunkard – in other words not too much of a stretch of the imagination – falls off his horse and is horribly trampled. Watching him attempt to speak after being pulverized by cattle, spurts of incomprehensive gibberish emanating from his torn lips, his face cragged, blotted and red, is, frankly one of the funniest things you’ll see at the cinema this year. Certainly the film scores some points for that. I was hoping Thompson would simply ride his horse defiantly into thin air, that terrific boulder of a man majestically flying over the edge after taking one final swig of rum and hurling the bottle into the blur of speeding bodies and horns behind him.
Humour, for a little while, is Australia’s only redeeming feature. The opening act is a baffling mix of slapstick and melodrama, set to a bizarrely fast and quirky rhythm, and before things slow down it’s difficult – and weirdly stimulating - to get a handle on where Luhrmann is going and what he’s trying to achieve. The audience are invited in on the joke but the quirkiness soon subsides, leaving in its wake caricature, wishy-washy drama and cliché upon cliché. In retrospect, the tonal fluctuations of the story seem jolting and disorientating, but it pans out over such a long running time that moment-by-moment it is not obviously noticeable. By the time the first WWII planes jetted across the horizon, I well and truly had had enough. That was the beginning of the third act.
The script is appallingly handled: the dialogue is cringe worthy; the narration written by Hallmark; the characters are inflated caricatures. The cast are flamboyant and over-the-top, but none of the film’s problems are their fault. Jackman and Kidman are two capable performers but their chemistry here is hopelessly schmaltzy. I was not at all surprised to see Jackman slowly emerge from a smoke machine generated mist and walk into the arms of Kidman after a large-scale WWII recreation; clichés like this – visual, story-based or otherwise – carry Australia.
The supporting cast are a veritable who’s who of Australian acting legends: with varying degrees of screen time minor roles are dished out to Bryan Brown, Ray Barrett, Bruce Spence, John Jarratt, Bill Hunter, Barry Otto and others, though their presence in the film seems more like a certificate of recognition than actual performances. The drama is so inflated the characters often seem to be holding back from bursting into song. The film should have been a musical; we all know Hugh Boy-From-Oz Jackman would have preferred it that way.
I could go on and on about why you should think again before forking out cash to see Australia (not to mention the time outlay) and how sad it is that every decent Australian film this year, combined, cost less than a tenth of Luhrmann’s budget. I could go on and on about how discouraging it must be for cash-strapped local filmmakers who go into personal debt to make good films that nobody sees, and break even if they are lucky, only to be overshadowed by an ignoramus production like this, hovering over every production like a dark grey cloud.
Life is too short to watch dross like Australia, and if it weren’t, the average life expectancy for a human being would be about 100,000 years. Yes, I could go on and on, but I won’t. Instead, for your reading pleasure, I have compiled a basic extrapolation of the notes – both mental and written – that I took while watching this film. You will notice that on a few occasions my attention drifts away from the movie. If you’ve seen it, this should come as no surprise.
Without further ado, here are my notes:
- Opening few minutes and Nullah is in creek. Hops on horse. Rides out of water. This looks like a scene from Never Ending Story. Where is Falkor?
- Money can buy beautiful compositions and a state-of-the-art lens. Can’t buy a good script.
- Kidman’s character says: “it’s all very outback adventure isn’t it?” A moment later: “definitely not for everyone.” I assume she’s talking about the film.
- Half hour in, the idea that this mumbo jumbo will continue for another two hours is near incomprehensible.
- Beyond contrived, beyond unreal, beyond hyper real. This is cartoon.
- Jack Thompson, what a man, what a man, what a molly good man.
- Ridiculous dialogue. One of David Wenham’s henchmen says: “maybe that creamy fella has got the black magic.” The sort of guy K-Rudd apologised for.
- Kidman’s property, Faraway Downs, reminds me of the house from the ‘Somewhere That’s Green’ segment in Little Shop of Horrors.
- Tantalisingly short glimpse of Bill Hunter. More Bill Hunter needed. Cough up Bill Hunter.
- Hugh Jackman’s eyebrows are scene stealers. Should have been billed third on the credits.
- Characters watch Wizard of Oz. “The dreams that we dare to dream really do come true.” If that line was true this movie would have ended an hour ago.
- Wishy washy melodrama, inflated emotions: I will never leave you, I will find you, blah blah blah.
- Jackman gets a good line of dialogue. “Shut your damper hole will ya!” I challenge myself to slip that into everyday vernacular.
- Three or four fake endings. These tease audiences with the appealing prospect that this movie might be finishing.
- The little half-Aboriginal kid’s narration annoys me. He is starting to shit me. I am not a racist.
- There was no more Bill Hunter.
- Soooo many Australian motifs. I can’t believe I haven’t seen a didgeridoo or a meat pie. Or a pavlova. Mmm, pavlova. I like pavlova.
- At least there won’t be a sequel. What would they call it? Australia 2? Australia Too? Australia, Too Far Away? O Drover, Where Are Thou?
- Hugh Jackman’s teeth are eerily perfect. Should I have teeth like that? Probably. But I don’t like going to the dentist.
- Hope international audiences are smart enough to understand this is not what Australia is like, or was ever like. How embarrassing.
- Cringe factor: astronomical.
- Bazz Laurman – public execution justified?
- Previous note maybe went too far. Cancellation of Laurman’s visa definitely warranted. And kick him onto the plane with iron boot. Maybe poke his eyes out too.
- End credits: PM’s apology to stolen generation gets a mention. On ya Kevin. Now please apologise to the nation for allowing this film to happen.
Review by Luke Buckmaster
Director: Baz Luhrmann
Screenwriter: Baz Luhrmann, Stuart Beattie, Ronald Harwood, Richard Flanagan (story by Baz Luhrmann)
Cast: Hugh Jackman, Nicole Kidman, Brandon Walters, David Wenham, David Ngoombujarra, Bryan Brown, Jack Thompson, Jacek Koman, David Gulpilil, Ben Mendelsohn, Bruce Spence, John Jarratt, Bill Hunter, Essie Davis, Barry Otto, Arthur Dignam, Max Cullen, Sandy Gore, Crusoe Kurddal, Kerry Walker, Angus Pilakui, Lillian Crombie, Yuen Wah
Australian theatrical release: November 26, 2008
Bookmark and Share:
Wow. Quite a scathing review to say the least, and being a Baz fan, had I not seen the film I would rush to his defence. But I’ve seen Australia, and let me say that you’ve hit the nail on the head, repeatedly.
The film was so bizarre! So comedic in unintended ways! The cast so brilliant but the performances so hyper-real! I spent a great deal of the film shifting in my seat and amusing myself by digging through my cup of mixed lollies in search of the ever-elusive strawberry and cream.
I don’t know what pissed me off more: the plot holes (please explain the drowning scene someone, or the car full of fuel they miraculously found in the war ruins)or the CGI. The film looked like it was shot entirely in a studio, and then called Daryl Sommers, asked for a copy of his NT TVCs ‘See the never-never now!’ and just slapped the cast on top of the pretty shots of big rocks and open skies.
What a f*cking piece of sh*t. Bad joke? It’s a killer - here’s hoping the Australian film industry still has a pulse.
Rhona | Nov 28, 2008 | Reply
So Luke, are you trying to tell us you didn’t like it? (har har)
lynden barber | Nov 28, 2008 | Reply
Luke you have failed to enter into the spirit of this beautiful film. Your sad loss my friend.
grunge | Nov 28, 2008 | Reply
http://empireonline.com.au/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=134817
Your review is mean spirited and lacking in any appreciation or mention of the elements that make Australia a terrific movie experience. I loved it, and I don’t consider myself a walkover. You have decimated it for your own self gratification if you ask me, tall poppy syndrome at work Luke. Shame!
Go see it everyone, keep an open heart and mind, have fun with Australia enter into the spirit of it, shed a tear and take away some glorious vistas and sweet memories.
margi | Nov 28, 2008 | Reply
Margi – that review from Empire reads like it was written by a salivating publicist and makes so many bogus claims it’s hard to know where to start. Incredibly, the reviewer makes a point (twice) that he thought Baz Luhrmann was “restrained.” Restrained! Critics with any cred – even the ones who liked Australia – would never have the gall to call it restrained. If you’ve seen this $150 million dollar WWII epic, which attempts of all things to encapsulate the character of an entire nation, the word restrained wouldn’t exactly be the first word that comes to mind, now would it?
Thanks for your comments grunge and margi, but ‘enter into the spirit’ sounds like a true-blue cop out to me. Did you like Battlefield Earth or Speed 2: Cruise Control or any other unequivocally terrible movie? If not, perhaps you should ‘enter into the spirit’ of then. Gimme a break. And, while you’re there, a slice of pavlova. I do like pavlova.
Luke Buckmaster | Nov 28, 2008 | Reply
This is the worst review I have ever read. Why is the reviewer defending himself in the comments?
Damo | Nov 29, 2008 | Reply
It was a love story contain with lot of action. For me it was a new experience the strength shown by the actors was out standing. It is slowing down from the start but when it comes to world war I like it so much. Nicole done a tremendous job in the movie. To make it this big sensitive, http://www.80millionmoviesfree.com is where I seen this different love story. Can recommend it because I saw it right now. Truly comprehensive achievement it is this movie.
rimsalia | Nov 29, 2008 | Reply
And to think Kevin Rudd would have just signed a cheque for around $100m for Fox Corp. from us, the Australian Taxpayer (via the producer’s rebate) to help pay for the overindulgence that is so obvious in every minute of the 165 minute running time. Outrageous.
AnnieM | Nov 29, 2008 | Reply
Damo - if you can imagine how much more fun the zoo would be if you were allowed to interact with the animals, then you’ve got your answer.
Luke Buckmaster | Nov 29, 2008 | Reply
You hated it Luke but you are a reviewer, not a slammer. Your review is not a critique, it is a self indulgent heartless bashing full of hate and destruction and thus irresponsible. Having nothing at all good to say about Australia borders on pathological because there is SO MUCH here that is enjoyable, tongue in cheek, gloriously lavish, well intentioned, lovely, loving, heartfelt and fun.
You immersed yourself in determining to have a literal experience NO MATTER WHAT - and a nitpicky narrow angry sounding man seems to ahve resulted. You didn’t get it on any level but your real sin is you do not have the imagination or wit to be able to enter into what others might, and be able to speak to them as well. You have done this film a grave disservice for your own self aggrandisement.
I agree with grunge - your loss.
margi | Nov 29, 2008 | Reply
Margi - admit it, you’re on the payroll.
Luke Buckmaster | Nov 29, 2008 | Reply
Hey Bucky!
I went to see this last night with my folks (which meant I didn’t fork over one cent for my efforts), and it is one of the few things that leaves me comforted by the experience. I agree that the thing was shot relatively well, and was surprised to see a Luhrman film that wasn’t completely saturated in colour (a la Strictly Ballroom, Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge), but really, I didn’t know the writer’s strike was as far reaching as “Orstrahleah”.
My favourite part of your unabashedly scathing and hilariously articulate review was:
“In one scene audiences are treated to the outrageous spectacle of watching hundreds of bulls running towards a cliff face.”
Yeah, this was my big Lion King throwback. I was convinced Mufasa was about to die, but then I remembered that was in America oops I mean Africa.
You’ll also be pleased to know I used “Shut yer damperhole!” last night in a white-wine-fuelled sentence. Good on me.
In closing, the only thing I find more hilarious than the overwhelmingly lacklustre scipt is the outright garbage you’re copping for your ’self aggrandisement’. Because as a reviewer, you should DEFINITELY NOT be offering your educated opinion on your chosen subject. Don’t be ridiculous. By jingoes, that’s Un-Australian.
Haylee | Nov 29, 2008 | Reply
Here here.
I think this review is good. But what would I know, one of my sisters actually lives in Darwin (can you begin to imagine how they feel about this moving picture?), my two other sisters like Superbad, my Mum likes crime drama’s and my dad thinks Dudley Moore is one of the funniest people to ever walk the earth (perhaps he is).
I’m not going to see this movie, maybe i’ll wait for my parents to get it on DVD. Thanks for an honest from the heart review. I prefer pavlova.
Damo - have you ever read a review before this one?
Margi - have you ever been to Australia?
Dave | Nov 29, 2008 | Reply
Dave - it is not supposed to BE a literal representation of Australia. I can’t believe Luke sat through 165 mintues and did not get that.
margi | Nov 29, 2008 | Reply
Oh and Dave? Duh. If you have not actually seen a film you CANNOT judge if a review is “good”. You just like the aggressive force this rant represents.
Luke - what a pity you weren’t able to put your pedestrian preoccupations aside, grab some popcorn and a coke and “go to the pictures” & allow yourself to go where you were meant to with this, away from 21st century cynicism and beyond the literal to the unashamedly and indulgent kitsch fantasy that Australia the movie is & feel the magic of a spectacularly beautiful film which does not seek to provide the type of experience you unsuccessfully (understandably so) tried to extract from it.
Take a couple of Valium mate, and give it another go. And leave your ego at home under your pillow.
But maybe your jaundiced critique won’t matter. Hopefully. I went to the opera today and there was a group of half a dozen people near us who said they’d been to Australia last night and loved it - they laughed about poor reviews saying “oh you don’t take any notice of the critics, they dunno what day it is.”
Word.
margi | Nov 29, 2008 | Reply
My case rests. Pearl Harbour (with our mate Ben) drowns in the same pond…
No more from me. I have better things to do…
Dave | Nov 29, 2008 | Reply
Well, I’m with Margi - I loved it, and found it engaging on so many levels. From the gorgeously expressive Nullah to the funny-bone- tickling,over-the-top performance by Kidman, to the physical comedy in the bar-room brawl to the starlit, lyrical beauty of that campfire scene on the drove, to the music score with its pastoral theme (that’s Baroque pastoral,not bovine pastoral Luke) to the touching conclusion which was so … right. Unlike Luke, who tore into the movie with a mean-spirited, bull-headed refusal to acknowledge any merit, I, who loved it, can acknowledge the clunky bits but they ended up being part of its appeal. I mean, whether CGI is brilliant or less so, we always pick the computerised bits don’t we?? And weren’t we introduced to Lurhmann’s use of caricature in Strictly Ballroom, so why the un-Australian verbal attacks on its use in this movie? And don’t give me that whine about it being cliche driven, I saw Quantum of Solace two days earlier and that was so formulaic I pre-empted the storyline throughout. After all, a real Oz cliche would have had a deadly snake or spider in scene one or two and some laughs at Lady Sarah’s expense as well.
I saw Australia as a theatrical performance vastly different from many Big Yawns on the Big Screen. It was so much more than entertaining though, and it’s just too bad that so many of you had your sensibilities offended at the start when you made up your minds that Lurhmann was foisting a poshie meets bushie romance on you and you missed a few other layers!
I grant you it wasn’t realism but I can’t remember the last time I had my social conscience tweaked while enjoying a bit of escapist goodie vs baddie, love conquers all type entertainment.
caroline | Nov 29, 2008 | Reply
Great review, absolutely on the mark. My husband and I saw Australia last night, and about a half an hour through, we were able to start predicting the next two hours’ action, including Jackman’s appearance in the good suit at the ball and Nicole recognizing Nullah through the song. An amazing accumulation of cliche and coincidence.
A couple of questions: How did Lady Sarah spend at least a week crossing arid land on horseback without getting the slightest tan or sunburn? Is our memory correct that the stampede began in the middle of the night but the chase was in broad daylight? And how come the missionaries bent on conformity never gave little Nullah a haircut in two months? Details do count in a period film.
Eileen | Nov 30, 2008 | Reply
Luke,
I agree with Margi, in that you are putting your personal a**hole opinions WAY too much in this review. Sure, it may be a bit long, and there are a few moments that could’ve been left out, but overall, it’s a very good movie. I went to see it long before you did, even, before it was completed, and I thought it was excellent. Your review is terrible, and nothing but your own opinions, which really has nothing to do with the movie itself. As Margi says, maybe you should go see it again, but this time, leave your egotistical, a**hole opinionated mind at home. And instead of leaving it under your pillow, you should toss it in the trash where it really belongs, along with your review.
Oh, and just in case you’re convinced I might also be on the payroll, as you are with Margi, I am NOT. I have nothing to do with this movie whatsoever, except that I got to see the preview in the theater months ago.
Chris | Nov 30, 2008 | Reply
Its just a review. Everyone has their own opinions.
jason | Nov 30, 2008 | Reply
I agree with margi too the movie doesn’t try to be serious (but it is full of real feeling) or “literal” and I think it was poorly marketed. people thought they were getting something different to what Australia is. Therefore, there is a feeling for some more serious minded folk of WTF is this?
It isn’t anything at all presented as the same sort of work as Pearl Harbour which was a straight up and down drama and fairly ordinary. People looking to Australia along those lines will find it easy to brill work of a maximiser = Baz L.
I really enjoyed it.
mish | Nov 30, 2008 | Reply
that should read,
“will find it easy to knock it for “cliche” etc which is silly it is beyond that, I enjoyed very much it is the brill work of a maximiser - Baz L and I hope enough people will see it in that light.”
mish | Nov 30, 2008 | Reply
Eileen there are lots questions you could ask like that. It is like an alternate universe and I didn’t need things to add up etc.
mish | Nov 30, 2008 | Reply
One of the great things about reading your review is that it’s a welcome contrast to the parochial, sucky, over nationalistic dribble that has surrounded the build up to and release of this film.
Beaut reading. It is one of the most hilarious and cleverly written reviews I’ve read. Thanks for the laughs
pynch | Dec 1, 2008 | Reply
I hate to say you just “didn’t get it”, but that sounds like the case. Yes, it’s full of cliches and stereotypes but that is exactly the point. It’s an embrace of everything our country is ashamed of and saying we don’t have to be. You said it yourself, “cultural cringe” and that’s the biggest problem with this country. We’re not all abuse victims and drug addicts, like our film industry seems to repeatedly try and tell us.
Eileen, it’s a movie. If you’re worrying about sunburn then you’re clearly not focusing on the right thing. If the movie was trying to be realistic then sure, but it’s not. It’s a fantasy. People don’t get sunburned in fantasies.
Glenn | Dec 1, 2008 | Reply
The point of this movie was to fill it with cliches and sterotypes, and somehow that’s a good thing? Boy, some of the reactions to Australia have been…weird. To say the least. I hope the same writers who trumpet the amalgamation of cliches and stereotypes in this film as a virtue are the same people who don’t criticise them in generic action movies and Hollywood rom-coms (otherwise it seems suspiciously like a double standard). I hope that these writers won’t suddenly switch the term cliche from being a positive (i.e. a celebration!) to a negative (i.e. lazy screenwriting).
I can see what you’re getting at Glen but we’re back at the ‘didn’t enter into the spirit of it’ line of thought, which can be applied to any movie, can it not? It’s a bit rich to suggest I ‘didn’t get it.’ Again this can be applied to any movie: I didn’t get 300; I didn’t get Catwoman; I didn’t get Police Academy 7: Mission to Moscow. Sometimes - especially in big, loud and dumb blockbusters - there just isn’t much to get.
In these sorts of love and hate dicussions I think that generally one of the most pertinent arguments for loving something others might hate can be linked to escapism and fantasy. But I get uneasy when history and fiction interate in careless ways, ala Australia. If what you’re saying is right - that the movie isn’t history, it’s fantasy, sheer folly and shits and giggles, then why would they incorporate the WWII elements? The flaw in this argument is that the film goes directly down the line of historic revisionism, sadly something I didn’t get around to discussing in my review, thus in my opinion clearly seperating itself from sheer folly. Baz obviously has a chip on his shoulder about the stolen generation, and that’s fair enough, but to tell such spectacular big fibs is not so honourable. There is the one scene when Australians, definied as ruthless racists, intentionally pack ‘half caste’ people onto a boat and send them to Darwin, knowing it will be attacked first by the Japanese. Say wha? That’s not fantasy - that’s just a big fat lie.
Luke Buckmaster | Dec 1, 2008 | Reply
So much carry on over the internet, in the paper, on the radio etc. If nothing else, people are talking. That says something I think. I loved the movie, but I loved all Baz’s other films. You either love them or you hate them. You probably knew which it would be before you sat down to watch. If you hate the cliches and the ‘crikeys’, please refer to any American movie for the last couple of decades and subject yourself to the ‘god damns’, and the formulaic scripts. Doesn’t seem to bother the American public - or their box office results. I mean look at the mentality of what’s topping their box office of late - yet another vampire flick (yawn), a couple of animated kids flicks, and yet another typical romantic comedy (with the current American sweetheart Meg Ryan…. oh excuse me Reese Witherspoon). I’ll leave Bond out of it, because kinda agree with that one. Perhaps we should all stop cringing at the over the top content of Australia and wish our movie the best, even if you personally didn’t like it. A clever review can be funny, but it’s just one opinion like anyone else’s. I’ve talked to so many people who adored it, warts and all. And remember kids, it’s not real life, it’s a movie!!!
Gypsy | Dec 1, 2008 | Reply
Well I lived and worked in the NT for decades and worked with Aboriginal mob and worried about how Baz would handle it all. My hope was that Gulpilil
would knock him into shape and I heard that the mob up Broome way worked on him.
I went with a thermos a year’s supply of rations and trepidation in my heart.
I loved every minute of it. There were Indigenous people in the audience and they roared laughing at the culture shock, gasped loudly at various points, and howled aloud at the stolen gens stuff. They also went ‘yes’ and ‘right’ when the great man Gulpilil graced the screen.
I had no idea it was so funny, it takes off Disney, Operetta, Westerns, War movies and more. It’s a joke as Australian as all of us and mostly informed by black humour. My take is that if we don’t get the joke while adoring the landscape and its impact on us all, and getting that our country is Indigenous, like it or not, we have missed out and become as boring and literal as the yanks, who probably won’t get it.
Critics how could you be so boringly serious about your reviews of it. The kangaroo shooting scene alone gave it away, thanks to Howard we are now staid, dull and couldn’t get the joke.
I am going back to see it again.
What a wonderful bunch of actors. Who cares this was not about characterisation or plot, it was experiencing something much more than such trivia.
Kaz | Dec 1, 2008 | Reply
Wow, these people are crazier than Jonathan Ogilvie.
syms covington | Dec 2, 2008 | Reply
You really cut loose with that one, but I got a lot of laughs out of it, well done, Mumma
Brenda | Dec 3, 2008 | Reply
Geez this review has done the rounds - even my mother’s commenting on it. Thanks mum. See you for dinner on Friday.
Luke Buckmaster | Dec 3, 2008 | Reply
You hit the nail on the head Mr. B. You said everything I was feeling.
Blog Princess G | Dec 4, 2008 | Reply
I want to type a series of expletives in response to this review, but I will restrain myself.
Simply as a piece of published writing, this is one of the worst things I have ever read. Your use of grammar and punctuation is appalling! As for humour, can someone please point it out to me? This reads like an angry blog entry, not a critical review. You give us vague reasons for your discontent: “schmaltzy,” “cringe-worthy;” however, you fail to break down any specific moments. Even when you outline certain scenes for us you fail to mention why they are bad, instead writing a brief summary and expecting everyone to be up in arms about it. Every scene has the potential to be great, it simply depends on how it is handled. Plot summary does nothing.
As for the ‘notes’ section, was that really necessary? It was the most bitter, narcissistic rant that I have read in a long time. Humour is an art, poorly imitated.
Finally, to reiterate another commenter’s point, if feel the need to defend yourself in the comments section of your article then you have failed to write an adequate review. The zoo analogy is ridiculous (please, please explain to me how that is supposed to make sense).
Amy | Dec 5, 2008 | Reply
Isn’t it funny how quickly people jump to defend a seductive blockbuster like Australia. I notice the comments section for other reviews on this site are empty or have one or two comments. Aren’t these the films that really need people talking about them? Every year we see proof that the thing thats really wrong with the Australian film industry is not the films but the audiences.
Taylor M | Dec 5, 2008 | Reply
Hilarious review Luke! However, surely you are mistaken when you suggests that “it’s as if Australia…was built with one under riding intention: to amalgamate as many national clichés and stereotypes as is humanly, cinematically, possible.” Not “as if” - it clearly is deliberately made with that intention. Why is another question.
eyeswiredopen | Dec 7, 2008 | Reply
Wow! A film set in the 1940s and using 1940s style cliches and film techniques. That hasn’t been seen since the 1940s. Except maybe for several Indiana Jones movies and the like. It’s all a bit of fun and, unlike some of the comments here, it doesn’t set out out to put down anyone’s intelligence. Yes it has cliches - ever watched a 1940s movie? Yes, some of the sets are pretty plasticky - ever watched a 1940s movie? Yes the acting is somewhat over the top, like much of the production - ever watched a 1940s movie? Did Bogey and Hepburn accurately represent the people of their place and time in the African Queen? No. Baz (whose work I dislike intensely) has made a film the same way they were made way back then and uses the same cliches. Didn’t anyone notice the cliches in his previous films? They seemed to work then (well, not for me but then I like other things). Take the film for what it is - a bit of a homage to the 1940s epics. No more.
Les | Dec 9, 2008 | Reply
Luke is clearly passionate about the way his culture is represented – and so am I. You could say Australia is “just” a movie, but in saying so you underestimate the power a movie and the media have for reflecting, constructing and shaping national identity. Sure, it is “just” a movie, but is also “just” another piece of information fed into our consciousness about what it means to be Australian. It is “just” another representation of Australian race relations, gender relations, history and politics, and perhaps in the context of millions of representations of Australia/Australians you could say Australia is JUST a movie, or JUST a representation. HOWEVER; in a lot of cases Australia will not be seen as “just” another representation; it will be seen as one of FEW or one of the KEY representations of Australian identity. For some audiences, it may be “the only” representation of certain Australian issues, such as the stolen generations, that they will have EVER seen.
Just a movie? Or a very important historical and political artifact?
Personally, my greatest issue with the film is the way in which it depicts Indigenous Australians and their relations with those of European descent. Many of the Indigenous characters are portrayed as the “victims” of a cruel, malicious and ignorant “white” regime who steal children and force Aboriginal women into prostitution. I am white, and I don’t have a problem with being cast as the “villain” in this situation, however, it annoys me to no end that the “white villain crew” (the cops, Neil Fletcher, the Publican) are supplemented in the story by their binary opposite “the white savior crew” (Lady Sarah Ashley and the Drover) defenders, protectors and guardians of Indigenous rights. In BOTH representations the whites essentially still hold power OVER the Indigenous characters; be it in a socially acceptable way, or not, and the message which looms over white consciousness is that Indigenous people are under white people’s control. To be trampled, or to be pitied, but still, essentially, under white control.
The character of King George is probably the only representation of Indigenous culture that I feel does justice to, and upholds Indigenous cultural dignity. He is portrayed as an aloof observer, godlike and unseen, intimidating and the decider of destinies: both black and white. The character of King George portrays Aboriginality as POWERFUL and dignified, his character does not elicit feelings of sympathy or pity in a predominantly white audience and in such a way I believe Indigenous audiences may feel empowered and proud of such a representation. But then again, I’m not indigenous so I cannot really say.
To sum up ona bit of a tangent: I took a trip to Gallipolli on Anzac Day in 1999, where a bunch of loud mouthed bogan redneck Australians decided to sing drinking songs in the pre-dawn, pre-service Anzac Cove, to the utter distress, dismay and abhorrence of the local Turkish soldiers .I was completely appalled and wanted to shout to anybody listening that these people were not an “accurate” representation of my culture, and that I did not “identify” with them, and that MOST of us, most of us wouldn’t dream of behaving in such a way. Such is the nature of nationalism; it provokes strong opinions about how a culture “should” be represented to its own people and those abroad.
KC | Dec 12, 2008 | Reply
The reviewer missed the boat…a very contemporary ad sophisticated film - a love story about film making, about australia….the reviewer sounds like he is on some authenticity kick…what exactly would a film about the ‘real’ Australia be like!!! The reuse and ‘overuse’ of cliche was brilliant - best film i’ve seen in ages. well done BL -
JANE | Dec 14, 2008 | Reply
Luke, this is hilarious stuff. However, I am now presented with a dilemma. Up to now I have had zero interest in seeing what I have assumed would be an epic piece of jingoistic tosh. I am now vaguely considering seeing it in order to add value to your very funny revue.
Luke
Luke from Canberra | Dec 15, 2008 | Reply
I’m guessing you’ve seen it, but Germaine Greer has quoted this review today in the age:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/strictly-fanciful-20081216-6zs0.html?page=-1
At one point she calls you courageous! Crikey Bucky! No one can shut your damper-hole!
SP | Dec 17, 2008 | Reply
Bravo!
I can’t believe Greer quoted you. You lucky bastard.
Haven’t seen the film but didn’t intend to after hearing about how it misrepresented indigenous Australians.
Just like almost everything else, it was made by, and for, ignorant Americans.
Melburnian | Dec 17, 2008 | Reply
Luke, you poor little thing. I think you’ve made quite a sad spectacle with your “courageous” review. Perhaps Germaine Greer (oh, lovely picture of her on your home page, you must be so proud to have greatness thrust upon you by the “look at me! look at me!” queen of expat bitter Aussies) doesn’t realize you are just a small time reviewer trying to make a name for yourself.
You are entitled to your opinion, but the complete lack of insight in your so-called review draws much more attention to your own failings than that of the movie. I’ve been reading reviews for “Australia”, some good, some bad (for the full spectrum you can go to http://www.metacritic.com and look for the film) and what I observe is that the same things you, Luke, hate about the film are the same things that reviewers from other publications (like the New York Times, Hollywood Reporter, Time and Newsweek) loved about the film. It’s just that the people writing for these publications, and I include the reviews that pan the movie like Premiere and Entertainment Weekly, are written by reviewers who are interested in conveying more about the film than about the themselves and therefore succeed at the task where you have fallen down.
Perhaps you should get back to your screenwriting for a while. I’m sure the world is trembling with anticipation at the work of unbridled genius you are preparing to thrust upon it. Perhaps Germaine will want to come and lend a hand.
DBC | Dec 18, 2008 | Reply
My nemesis returns! Welcome back. I’ll pop the champagne.
Luke Buckmaster | Dec 18, 2008 | Reply
Loud dumb people defending loud dumb movies. Who would have thought?
Congrats on the Greer thing Luke. Whether people agree with your review or not, it is definitely brave.
Taylor M | Dec 18, 2008 | Reply
Props to you, Luke, for telling it like it is. This inept faux epic has less substance than the steam wafting off my decaf soy latte. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been duped by the Bazmark hype machine.
Dino Delaurentis must feel like he dodged a bullet.
Da Wong | Dec 18, 2008 | Reply
I think Hugh Jackman would’ve been considerably more comforatable if his character, rather than being referred to as ‘The Drover’, would’ve more suitably named ‘The Cabaret Artiste’.
Brian Dusting | Dec 22, 2008 | Reply
I cant understand how anyone is defending this turd-pile movie. I feel dumber for having seen it and reading your fluffy comments.
Keep telling it how it is Luke!
c-man | Dec 22, 2008 | Reply
Oh Luke, how I wish I had found you yesterday !
What was Baz thinking !
The grand epic we have been waiting months for, has finally hit our big screens here across the Tasman, and my loyal Kiwi friends thought we should go together for this great occassion, to see a movie more memorable than ‘Gone with the Wind’, made in my old homeland, Australia !
Baz !!!!!! it’s like reliving the whole ‘underarm bowl’ thing all over again !!!!!! Do you not realise what I will have to live with till the ‘end of time’. You have just fed 4 million Kiwi’s enough fodder for jokes for another century . But don’t feel too bad Baz - there is probably one old Ozzie cricketer, with a limp arm, who will now slide into oblivion, and be left to rest in peace, as you take over his crown for the “Plonker’ of the next century.
We were so mesmerized and speechless, we watched the credits ! - almost as long as the film - but we were impressed at what Baz had done for employment in Oz - who wasn’t involved in the making of this monumental movie?
Sandy Whitehead | Dec 28, 2008 | Reply
A strong contender for the worst film ever made. Couldn’t the UK authorities have imposed an import ban? Inside ten minutes, I hated it and I’ve spent a more enjoyable three hours in the dentist’s chair. As The Guardian said, “Surely the fattest turkey you’ll see this Christmas” http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/video/2008/dec/25/baz-luhrmann-nicole-kidman
Mike B | Dec 29, 2008 | Reply
Good review. I keep asking myself how could a guy who made a great film like Strictly Ballroom, a minor classic and the respectable and innovative Romeo and Juliet make such a hopeless movie? I find it unbelievable. Moulin Rouge was a huge disappointment, the gorgeous sets and spectacle couldn’t rescue the cliched story and cartoon charaters - exactly the problems with Australia. This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen I would have happily walked out, the ridiculous hackneyed war movie cliches made me laugh out loud. Baz what were you thinking? Why didn’t somebody say something?
Jonathan | Jan 15, 2009 | Reply
Crikey! Great review, and dead on from this Canuck’s point of view. I’d heard it was really bad, but went to see it because my daughter is visiting your fair land and I wanted to get a look.
It is one of the worst films I have ever seen, especially when you consider that its eponymous title does great damage to your solid rep as one of the great film making countries.
My favourite dialogue was when Drover tells Lady Sarah (Nicole is even worse than usual here, sorry) that he’s more “dingo than duchess” and can’t go to the ball, the ball that happens to be set for the very night they arrive in Darwin with their 1500 cattle. I could go on, but why encourage them? As you, I also kept thinking about the vast amount of money and cinematic talent that was blown in this wankfest.
In the end, I hope that somewhere, over the rainbow, you Ozzies will learn to leave the making of bad ersatz American films to the vastly more experienced Canadians.
Pablo | Feb 4, 2009 | Reply
I have just seen the movie in Baraloche, Argentine for 15 pesos, about six aussie dollars, which is about 12 pesos over the odds.
I took along some Dutch, German and an Argentinian (all backpackers), and I just cringed…They all enjoyed the kangaroo being shot tho.
A disgraceful movie….will Baz please send me my 12 Pesos please
The best review I have ever read, it was truthful, which is a change
Rob
Rob Bell | Feb 22, 2009 | Reply
In case anyone has missed it, Baz has been making the same movie over and over and over again, with still no new moves allowed.
Anyone know if a hetro version will be avialable on the DVD release?
Jeff Ritchie | Feb 24, 2009 | Reply
Bravo. This is an excellent review -refreshing, funny and spot on. It articulated all that we felt and is cathartic. You are one of few critics with the “affront”, courage or basic honesty to say what was obvious - this film stinks - and it’s not the actors fault. How is it that a good actor like David Wenham be reduced to a poor man’s version of a pantomime villain after his excellent track record?
How anyone could defend this dogs breakfast is beyond me.
I saw this film in the USA and was embarrassed.
It is contrived beyond belief, and seemes to desperately seek out and trial genre styles throughout the film to find structure and track. Its truly unglued. How can such incompetence in filmaking get so much money?
SeriousCoffee | Apr 15, 2009 | Reply
I don’t know what cabbage or city in Australia that you and Luke Buckmaster were born under and in, but I was reared in outback Australia in the era that the film Australia portrayed. Frankly I and other friends of that era thought it was an accurate reflection of life in Australia in those times. Just because you have not experienced those times DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY DID NOT HAPPEN.
ivien | Jun 15, 2009 | Reply
Many thanks to Mr Buckmaster for his articulate and passionate review.
As an Aussie living in Europe, I am so embarrassed that this is what is hitting the international market. This is a poor representation of our film industry and a poor representation of our culture.
We have a wealth of fantastic local talent and quality films, but this is the kind of drivel that is being seen - and judged - Abroad.
MZA | Jun 17, 2009 | Reply
He missed the biggest insult of all - “The Wizard of Oz” opened in Australia in April 1940, six months AFTER the characters in this film see it in a Darwin theatre!
Tom | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply
What Film Industry, At least Baz makes a film and has it go into profit. Unlike that crap the government funding bodies approve of. It was a great film which was a tribute to all things which have gone together to make Australia what it is today. There are also many tributes to the history of Australian film. Maybe one should study what it is to be a film maker before one tries to comment on it. Beside Luke, what films have you made? can we please comment on that one?
Steve Guttormsen | Dec 7, 2009 | Reply
If you think that was the worst Australian movie, there was an earlier turkey made by Stephen Elliot of Pricilla Queen of the Desert fame, called Welcome to Woop Woop or something like that. It died a quick embarrassing death and shoved under the carpet and no-one speaks its name until- Welcome to Woop Woop Two AKA Australia. I’m so humilitated and angry as an Australian that some people actually like this movie and cannot see the catastrophe that it is. Swept up in the cornball Mills & Boon romance did you? Notice there hasn’t been any significant Australian movie since, because Baz bled the coffers dry. PS I used to personally know Baz, so no favouritism here.
viola | Apr 2, 2010 | Reply
Surely if you’re such a good film critic you’d know how to spell the directors name correctly.
Just a thought.
Nobody | May 31, 2010 | Reply