Australia

This film struggled throughout its epic length to stay upright. Unfortunately at the end it stumbled and fell like a pile of bricks.

It tried to juggle so much but in the end, it all turned out to be too little. The film starts like a corny slapstick comedy, turns into a romantic fantasy, then into an outback adventure, then into a war movie, a heartfelt drama, a comment on the stolen generation, a comment on racism... etc, etc. It's just too much. Yes, it's supposed to be an epic, but things like this need to be handled with finesse. Unfortunately, it isn't in this case. The themes were too muddled, the script too stretched - it's a mess. The characters are cardboard cutouts, the acting is over the top and cheesy, the pacing is off, the bizarre use of Somewhere Over the Rainbow... It's just a broken film.

Being an Australian, I did hope that this movie would be alright, but it turned out to be almost 3 hours of wankery that disgracefully cost our taxpayers over $40m.

On a more positive note, on the whole it wasn't BORING, and it was aesthetically and aurally pleasing - even though it made use of countless, shameless green screen shots which were simply unnecessary.

There was ONE great scene in the film, and that's when Hugh Jackman and his Aboriginal friend enter the ruined pub. That was absolutely excellent. Too bad the rest of the film couldn't live up to that in the slightest.

"In a way Australia is like Catholicism. The company is sometimes questionable and the landscape is grotesque. But you always come back." Thomas Keneally

It's a shame old-fashioned epics are out of fashion because Baz Luhrmann's Australia is one of the best ever, a down under Gone with the Wind and Giant. The identification with a time and place is effective as the film highlights the grandeur of an untamable land and the despair of World War II. The romance of history and adventure, so much a part of the Australian character, is present in every frame.

In 1939 Lady Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman) voyages from London to meet her husband and sell their large ranch in northern Australia. His death and the competition with the largest land owner, King Carney (Bryan Brown), over supplying cattle for the Australian Army's war effort propel the plot into the epic struggle of driving 2000 head of cattle to Darwin. But more than that very American Western cinematic motif, right to the chase to stop the cattle from being driven over a cliff, is the struggle to save the Aborigines from cultural extinction.

Drover (Hugh Jackman) is the embodiment of the competent and romantic Aussie, who also is driven to save the Aborigines symbolized in the form of young Nullah (Brandon Walters). Nullah frames the film's story without sentimentality but with the wisdom of one who has learned mightily from his experiences. (The idea of having one's "story" is as aboriginal as an American having an automobile.) Luhrmann neatly dovetails the parallel stories of family and survival through Sarah and Nullah. The real prize for this film must go to the cinematography with its full-screen sweep and robust movement. As he did in Moulin Rouge, Luhrmann creates visuals that draw the audience in and thrill them with innovation and vitality.

Comparisons will be made with GWTW, unfairly because the latter is the original and grandest of the screen epics. Australia lacks the ample characters (although it is great to see a seedy Jack Thompson again) and the awful grandeur of the Civil War (WWII does not play that powerful role in Australia), but it has its style and humor (the opening Coen Bros. Oh-Brother-style sequence is exciting and funny).

Australia is a majestic holiday feast best seen on the biggest screen you can find.

Australia came out between Christmas and New Year in the UK and this was quite befitting it as this is the time when the television usually has those fluffy but expensive specials and epic productions clogging it up, all with the excuse of being perfect "doze in front of the telly" stuff for the wake of eating too much. I say this fits Australia because in truth much of Baz Luhrmann's film could be accused of being just that – bloated, silly, sweeping, moving, engaging but ultimately quite light in the substance department. Our story is an traditional "epic" romance in the mould of many old films where the rough hero and the cut-glass woman fall for one another against a backdrop of cattle drives and war. If alarm bells are ringing for you then they were for me as well, since this concept reminded me a bit of Pearl Harbour – that terribly wooden affair that dragged on far too long to be able to cover the problems with big explosions.

The good news is that Australia is better than Pearl Harbour. The bad news is that it still isn't a fantastic film so much as it is the type of film that one likes despite it all, not because of it. The film wears its epic feel like a big coat and it covers it completely to the point that there is no denying the ambition of Luhrmann. We get massive spectacle, sweeping emotion, ethnic mysticism and constant unreal cinematography that makes the whole thing look gorgeous to the point of being unreal. In this regard the film works because there is a lot going on and, despite one's reservations, it feels like we are watching this epic film that is important and emotional and creative. The truth is perhaps a little less impressive because the mix of the epic and the fanciful doesn't come off for Luhrmann as well as it has in other films. Here one rather affects the other and the "big real story" sits uncomfortably with "unlikely sweeping narrative gestures" and "mystical power of the Aborigine". To some this will be just part of the magic of the film but for me it got a bit tiresome and felt like too much had been thrown into the pot.

That said, it somehow does work and generally I got caught up in the sweep and majesty of the whole thing – caring about the characters, touched by the slight magic in the story and the delivery. Although they don't mix that well, the camp style is woven into some aspects to prevent it becoming dry, unlikely and wooden in the way that it did in Pearl Harbour. The direction and cinematography drive this but the cast help. Jackman is not "great" in traditional terms but his beefy, chiselled frame plays well to the broad matinée idol type that he must deliver as. By contrast Kidman doesn't quite pull it off. Sure she is convincingly dry and uptight at the start but she doesn't loosen in a way that works that well. Walters is a bit too sickly cute for my liking but within the context of Luhrmann's world, he just about works even if he was a bit too front and centre within the film. Brown is a nice find in support and generally everyone is OK for what is required.

It is too long and it does have far too much in there for its own good but it just about works. I can understand why some hate it and some love it because it is that type of film but, for all its flaws (and it does have them), the big colourful, emotional sweep of it all is hard to resist. I'll admit that I would be unlikely to watch it again until it comes to TV for free in about 5 years but it has its charm and although it is not perfect I did think it was quite a good film and one that is typically Luhrmann in creation.

Baz creates another super enjoyable, visual spectacular! Although maybe not as good as "Romeo + Juliet" or "Moulin Rouge!" it certainly isn't much worse. "Australia" is a hugely enjoyable epic romantic adventure with plenty of exciting set pieces to keep you watching. I don't quite understand why nobody enjoys this? If Australia was made around the same time as "Gone With the Wind" I know that everybody would be drooling over it saying, "Oh it's the best film of all time!" Or whatever you call "Gone With the Wind" (I haven't seen it) because Baz has created a love-letter to those old epics and it's a welcome breath of fresh air to our screens.

At a hefty 3 hours long, I was expecting to find myself getting a bit bored along the way like parts in "Titanic" and even Peter Jackson's "King Kong" seemed to drag a wee bit at the start. However not once did I feel bored or restless during "Australia". This film isn't slow! It paces along beautifully, don't expect a high octane shoot-out because it's a romantic drama for God's sakes mammy! The screenplay (like all good epics) manages to make you laugh, manages to make you cry (no I didn't cry, but you might!) And it also manages to transport you on the journey with the characters. I found "Australia" absorbing and captivating.

The best part for me was the gorgeous cinematography. The whole film is magnificently shot, with some awe-inspiring scenery. Baz also shows off his incredible directing once again, one of the highlights being the exciting cattle herding across the desert. Baz injects that wonderful life into the film once again, as well as projecting a great story about a boy and his love for Nicole Kidman (no don't be silly!) And Hugh Jackman who sort of act as his surrogate parents. It's also about the love between Nicole And Hugh, although I think I would've liked to have seen better chemistry between them. It seemed like the hated each other at times when they were supposed to be madly in love! "Australia" also boasts a really evil villain! Almost on the same lines as Christoph Waltz in "Inglorious Basterds".

So with some great characters who we can care about, and also with some really exciting and beautifully shot scenes. "Australia" is another Baz masterpiece. It has all the ingredients for a superb epic romantic adventure. So why am I the only one who likes it?

It starts in a choppy, aggressive, rather goofy style, and then removes its brittle shell to reveal something far more deep and emotional underneath. This extremely long (165 minutes) and astoundingly expensive ($130 million) film found few takers in 2008, but if you get past those early passages (which do contain a very misguided brief moment of kangaroo poaching), you end up with something that feels floridly rich, like a Golden Age Hollywood melodrama.

The episodic story finds Nicole Kidman as an English woman who comes to Australia in 1939 on reports that her estranged husband, who lives there, has been stepping out on her. She arrives to find out that he has been murdered, and that she now owns his ramshackle property much coveted by her husband's powerful killer. Needing someone to tend the property, she reluctantly turns to a man she can't stand (Hugh Jackman), and she also temporarily takes in a half-Aboriginal boy left with no guardian after his grandfather was falsely imprisoned.

Of course, as time passes, opposites attract and Kidman and Jackman, both widowed, fall for each other. But their happiness is not only threatened by the aforementioned villain but also because of the trevails of WWII.... If you are looking for something subtle, look elsewhere. But the film is visually stunning, rather endearing, and emotionally satisfying. I enjoyed it a lot more than some much more praised titles of the era.