Australia

Director: Baz Luhrmann
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Nicole Kidman, Bryan Brown, Brandon Walters, David Wenham
Running Time: 165 minutes
Rating: PG-13

***1/2 (out of ****)

Poor Baz Luhrmann. He had to know even before Australia was released into theaters critics and the mainstream media would have their knives sharpened, ready to attack. But someone has to make a movie like this and I don’t see any other filmmaker with enough guts to try. In 2001 Luhrman reintroduced us to the movie musical with Moulin Rouge! and Hollywood is still riding the wave of its success.Now, seven years later, he’s resurrecting another endangered genre, the old-fashioned studio epic, aiming to recapture the magic of such golden age classics as Gone With The Wind, Giant and The African Queen with their sweeping vistas and gargantuan stories. There’s even a mustache-twirling villain. You have to give him credit. The Oscar season wouldn’t feel complete without a big movie and this is BIG in every sense of the word. From its scope, to its story, to its ambition, and yes, even to its seemingly never-ending running time.

Of course the big question coming out of this is just how "EPIC" it is. The answer to that is a little tricky and it’s there where the one glaring flaw with the film comes into view. In terms of length and scope its definitely epic but there were many points where I felt it was trying very hard to evoke memories of those aforementioned classic films without ever actually becoming the real thing. Baz’s intentions are blatantly obvious, but that’s probably what he wanted and why he’s respected and even adored as a filmmaker by many. He wears his heart on his sleeve and for this to become the real thing he’d have to hold back and we all know this isn’t a director capable of subtlety. To his credit, he knows exactly the kind of movie he’s trying to make, offers no apologies for it and takes it as far over the top as it can possibly go. In the final act he manages to take it even further than that with a series of false endings that may test even the most patient of filmgoers.

As the movie entered its home stretch (one of many) I found almost laughing at the audacity of the picture, but I do mean that in a good way. Not just because the events that occur at the end were hysterically entertaining, but because I simply couldn’t believe he went all out like this. Is it too long? Well, I didn’t remember what year I entered the theater and was pretty sure I didn’t have a full beard when it started. But I was never bored. The whole thing is a sprawling, self-indulgent mess that should win an Oscar for LEAST Editing, yet I kind of loved it and the approach was definitely appropriate for the daunting material.

The year is 1939 and stuck-up English aristocrat Lady Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman) has arrived in Australia to take ownership of her late husband’s cattle station, Faraway Downs, where a half-caste Aboriginal boy named Nullah (Brandon Walters) is hiding out from authorities. He learns the way of the land from his grandfather, King George (David Gulpilil), who looks over him and the events in the film from the sidelines, acting as a sort of a Greek chorus for the viewer. Lady Sarah’s first order of business is dismissing the ranch’s abusive manager Neil Fletcher (David Wenham), unaware she must also soon contend with beef baron King Carney (Bryan Brown) who wants to corner all of the cattle market and add the land to his growing collection.

With the help of a rugged, quick-tempered man known only as the “Drover” (Hugh Jackman), she embarks on a journey to drive the cattle across the land to the town of Darwin where soldiers are stationed. Joining them is Nullah and the ranch’s drunk Teddy Roosevelt look alike, Kipling Flynn (Jack Thompson). This adventure comprises the old-school Western portion of the film, arguably the most exciting and visually impressive (especially a scene where they steer the cattle from the edge of a cliff). Despite complaints to the contrary I thought the CGI looked just fine.

From there it moves into romance territory as the class clash between prissy Lady Sarah and the Drover evolves into what we expect it to and the film makes social statements about The Stolen Generation, a shameful period in the country’s history where mixed-race aboriginal children were removed from their families and forcibly placed into white society. If I had to pick a section of the film that could have used some tightening or a trim this probably would have been it. The film then turns into a war epic with the bombing of Dover by Japanese forces and this section is so brief that if you blink you’ll miss it. Don’t blink though because it’s an incredible sequence that's already drawn mostly unfair comparisons to Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor. There’s a visual similarity but unlike that atrocity this is actually well directed and performed.

The heart and soul of Australia lies in newcomer Brandon Walters' performance as the young Aboriginal boy Nullah. Besides his energetic and engaging narration of the story, Walters just commands attention every time he’s onscreen and basically steals the movie from his more seasoned co-stars. It’s nearly impossible to believe this kid has never acted a day in his life and was just plucked from obscurity. If the film manages to get any nominations outside the obvious and deserving ones for Mandy Walker’s awe inspiring cinematography and Catherine Martin's impressive costume design it will belong to him.

As for Kidman, she might be the only actress working today that when I see her name on a film I’m instantly willing to pay up. I have to wonder how many more great performances she can give before everyone stops giving her a hard time and finally admits she’s one of the best we have. No one takes risks like she does. Ironically though the only Oscar she owns is for her role as Virginia Woolf in The Hours, easily one of her least interesting performances. She should have already earned hardware for her daring turns in Dogville and Birth, the latter of which was one of the best performances I’ve seen in a bad movie. Her turn as Lady Sarah does not rank among those mainly because the character isn’t as fully formed and more meant to stand in as a Scarlett O’ Hara type. But boy does she play it well. Naysayers who claim she’s incapable of facial expressions may want to pay attention to the first half hour of this film where she delivers a bunch of hysterical ones.

By casting Kidman as an uptight ice queen Baz cleverly plays on her celebrity reputation and as Lady Sarah’s guard starts to drop her performance loosens, kicking into high gear. Of course, as expected, everyone is blaming the film’s box office performance and critical reception on her as if no one else was involved at all in the making of it. What nonsense. The media was foaming at the mouth, waiting to bash this if only for the reason she was headlining it. You’d think by now the public would have finally gotten over the fact she was married to Tom Cruise, especially since he has a new wife for us to pick on. I think down the line people will eventually see how silly the Kidman hate is and she’ll eventually be remembered as one of the greats. As good as she is, however, it's actually Jackman who carries most of the film, bringing a lot of substance to what could have been a shallow, one-dimensional role. Well, it kind of still is a shallow, one-dimensional role but he manages to hide that really well. The performance is almost invisible in its effectiveness.
The supporting actors also turn in fine work and their characters were treated with more respect than I expected. Bryan Brown is pitch-perfect in an underwritten role as King Carney while David Wenham chews the scenery appropriately as the main stock villain, Fletcher. When his character starts to really fly off the rails in the final act he’s up for it and the results are a lot of fun. I appreciated the attention given to the Drover’s helper Magarri (well played by David Ngoombujarra) and the comedy involving the Thompson’s Kipling. Even Fletcher’s wife (Essie Davis) is brush stroked with a human dimension I found surprising. I could see the argument these characters are broad stereotypes but would that make them all that different from those in the films this is paying homage to? Some will have problems with the ending but when I like and care about the characters the last thing I want is for them to needlessly suffer for the sake of dark realism, especially in a fun Hollywood throwback like this.

It’s easy to understand why critics and audiences haven’t responded that favorably to the film, outside of a preconceived bias against the director and star. When this much time and effort is put into something there’s the tendency to expect a masterpiece and anything less is deemed unacceptable. Baz leaves it all up on the screen and drenches this irony-free outing in pure, unapologetic emotion, something we’re definitely not used to seeing these days.

Under normal circumstances a film as big as this would seem to be a shoo-in for a Best Picture nomination, which was probably a primary motivation behind behind making it. It won’t get one though. There are just too many issues with it and politics aren’t on its side, but I’ll admit it would be funny if the Academy just decided to go ahead and nominate it anyway in spite of the poor reviews because it has that "Oscar feel” to it. They did it last year with Atonement and ended up being right.
When the film ended I was more exhausted than elated and still not sure whether it was long because it needed to be or long just for the sake of being long. The Dark Knight was only 15 minutes shorter than this but it sure didn’t feel like it. Outside of that it’s difficult to name many specific things it did wrong. Baz is smart like that. He covered himself. He knows that overindulgence is never a criminal offense and, as a result, he gets away with an awful lot. I left with a feeling that I had seen something of importance and substance, not a frequent event in what’s been a considerably weak movie going year. The more I think back the more I realize how much I liked it, a small miracle considering my general distaste for period films.

An argument will be made that a movie as big as this can only be only be experienced on the big screen and to an extent that’s true but I’d like to offer up a case for DVD viewing. It can be grueling in a theater for that long and I think I would have enjoyed this more if I saw it in the comfort of my own home, but that’s just me. There’s no denying the theater atmosphere does add to the experience though and cinephiles will likely prefer it in that context. It’s definitely a movie for movie lovers. We need big films like this because without them the smaller ones would mean less. And I’m glad someone is out there still trying to make them. There may have been better films than Australia this year, but few had as much guts.

Which 5 Films Will Be Nominated For Best Picture?

Doesn’t it seem like just yesterday that we were making jokes about milkshakes and pregnant teenagers? Here we go again. You may have noticed those pesky “FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION” banner ads popping up all over the place. As tough as it is to believe the announcements of this year’s Academy Award nominations are just over 2 months away (January 22nd to be exact), which means we’re just now entering the prime time for some HUGE releases vying for the top prize. This will continue non-stop until that date so it’s best to get used to the titles you see below because you're sure to be hearing a lot about them everywhere.

Last year’s Oscar telecast was one of the lowest rated in the Academy’s history and while the show was stacked with critical favorites, the films failed to resonate with the casual moviegoing public. The result: a painfully boring show. Thankfully, this year’s show looks more promising with big stars like Pitt, Jolie, DiCaprio and Eastwood (Clooney’s sitting this one out) and big movies that people may actually go out and see. The quality may or may not be there like it was in 2007 but anyone who expected families to gather around the TV last year to see the Academy honor dark art house films featuring priests being bludgeoned to death with bowling pins and high-pressure air gun murders were out of their minds. Fantastic films, but I understand why many didn’t tune in. That doesn’t look like it will be an issue this year and if a certain suspected win occurs in the Supporting Actor category we’re guaranteed at least one of the more emotional moments in recent Oscar memory.

Even better news for fans of The Dark Knight is that many of the potential contenders released in the fall (like Blindness, Burn After Reading, Changeling and Miracle At St. Anna) fell by the wayside and lost any buzz they may have had. Additionally, a few films with “Oscar” written all over them (like The Soloist and The Road) were surprisingly pushed to early next year. That clears the path a little but as you can see below it’s still going to be very, very tough for that film to hold on and make it to January. And that’s not even taking into account the Academy’s prejudices against the genre, the fact it’s a sequel, the film’s flaws and its summer release date. That’s a lot to overcome. But if just a few of the top contenders fail to register Christopher Nolan may be able to pick out a tux. Actually, he will anyway since the movie is pretty much guaranteed a bunch of technical nominations.

In breaking news, one sure thing The Dark Knight isn't being nominated for is Best Original Score. According to this article in Variety it's been disqualified. I can't comment as to whether the score is actually deserving since everyone in the theater was talking and I couldn't hear it, but I can state the reason for its exclusion (much like that of Jonny Greenwood's There Will Be Blood score last year) is completely insane.

All of this is a little silly to speculate on since most of these films haven’t been released yet. Below I list the top contenders and their chances based on the Academy’s preferences and other factors. This isn’t a discussion about which films are “the best five” since I haven’t seen most of them yet but an educated prediction on which way the Best Picture race will go based on the info we have and the Academy members’ voting history. And if you don’t see a film down there (hello, Twilight) it’s because I don’t think it has a snowball’s chance in hell of being nominated. Interestingly, in all the years I’ve picked my personal choice for best film of the year it wasn’t a Best Picture nominee, which either speaks poorly for my taste or theirs. My prediction for the five nominees is at the end.

WALL-E (opened June 27)-It’s encouraging news that the folks at Disney recently announced that they plan on pushing it for Best Picture, despite the existence of a separate Best Animated Film category. But sadly, this has no chance, despite the film containing the timeless themes voters love. It will hurt voters’ brains enough reaching back into the summer to consider The Dark Knight so this figuring into the Best Picture hunt is unlikely, especially since there's already another category honoring its contribution.

Wall-E's fate was sealed in 2001 when the Academy created the animated award, not to honor the genre, but blacklist those films from intruding in the "real" races. They’ll see its inevitable win in that joke of a category (which only features 2 other nominees) as good enough. What a shame. This deserves to compete for the big one.

The Dark Knight (opened July 18)- While I didn’t think it was the greatest film ever anointed on the human race like everyone else seemed to there’s no way I can name five movies better than it…at least so far. In fact, naming one would probably be a stretch. And it would be tough for me to tell anyone with a straight face that I thought it was worse than Juno or Michael Clayton (especially Juno). One of the more ridiculous complaints I’ve heard against nominating it is that it’s a “comic book movie.” Sorry, but this is in no way, shape or form a comic book movie. More reasonable is making a case that the film is too flawed. Strangely though, no one seems to be doing that.

Warner Brothers is pushing it hard and have set up a "For Your Consideration" site. I couldn’t help but laugh at some of it though. Pushing Maggie Gyllenhaal as Best Supporting Actress is funny but suggesting Christian Bale be nominated for Best Actor is flat-out hysterical. Sorry, but that was NOT an Oscar-worthy performance. While I wouldn’t go so far as to say the movie succeeded in spite of him, it was Ledger’s show all the way. Plus, do you really want Bale giving an acceptance speech in his deep, gravely “Batman voice?” What isn’t a joke is pushing Eckhart and Oldman in the supporting race. They were amazing and deserve serious consideration.

In about a month's time we’ll have a better idea where this stands but that it’s still being discussed is probably encouraging. The tragic circumstances involving Ledger and its box office take should keep it in the forefront of voters’ minds and it does contain the hefty themes they tend to like. In any event, I’d love to see how the Academy could justify not nominating what’s not just the second highest grossing film of all-time, but the best reviewed movie of the year. Desperate for ratings for the telecast they’ll likely cave in. Maybe not the best reason, but you can't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Milk (Nov. 26)- No, this isn’t a film exploring corruption in the dairy industry, but rather the story of Harvey Milk (Sean Penn), San Francisco’s first openly gay city supervisor assassinated in 1977. The Academy loves Penn, or at least I thought so until his Into the Wild was criminally snubbed in nearly every major category last year. But voters always preferred his acting to his directing and he’s a lock for a Best Actor nod here. How much further the film can go is questionable since they tend to overlook biopics for Best Picture unless it’s an exceptionally weak year (remember Ray), and it sure looks like it could be.

Working against the film could be that it lacks the warm, mainstream audience-friendly vibe of director Gus Vant’s only previous Best Picture nominee, Good Will Hunting and there's always the possibility its November release could cause it to peak early and fizzle, even if Penn’s performance doesn’t. Still, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if a timely film about a politician overcoming the odds slides in. It has a great chance. But there’s a better chance Josh Brolin will finally be recognized with a supporting actor nod after 2 straight years of tireless hard work in a wide variety of films. He might be our best un-nominated actor right now.

Australia (Nov. 26)- Since this is a Baz Luhrmann film people will either love it or hate it. There’s no in between. And since it stars Nicole Kidman critics and the media will try to cut its legs off before it even gets close to the Best Picture race. It could be terrible, but if it isn't would anyone have the guts to admit it? While the Academy loves big, sweeping epics l see this turning into more of a Romeo + Juliet than a Moulin Rouge! in that it has an enthusiastic cultish following, but doesn’t make a huge dent in the major award categories. Look for it to clean up in costume and production design.

Slumdog Millionaire (Nov. 27)-Truthfully, despite the strong buzz, I thought this was going to shape up to be just another little critical favorite that didn’t stand a chance until I read this synopsis on imdb:

“The story of Jamal Malik (Patel), an 18 year-old orphan from the slums of Mumbai, who is about to experience the biggest day of his life. With the whole nation watching, he is just one question away from winning a staggering 20 million rupees on India's "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" But when the show breaks for the night, police arrest him on suspicion of cheating; how could a street kid know so much? Desperate to prove his innocence, Jamal tells the story of his life in the slum where he and his brother grew up, of their adventures together on the road, of vicious encounters with local gangs, and of Latika (Pinto), the girl he loved and lost. Each chapter of his story reveals the key to the answer to one of the game show's questions.”

And they say there are no original ideas left in Hollywood. If it ends up being even half as good as that synopsis implies then watch out. Combine that with a director (Trainspotting’s Danny Boyle) long overdue to the Oscar party and we have a very serious contender. Voters always seem to find room for an indie, or even films just pretending to be one. And if that’s not enough it’s being distributed by Fox Searchlight (Little Miss Sunshine, Juno). This checks every box. In limited release now, but when it opens wider expect it to pick up massive momentum heading into December and January.

Frost/Nixon (Dec. 5)- In an election year the Academy will feel they have to nominate a political film and since Oliver Stone’s W. is too polarizing and controversial for them this fictionalized account of David Frost’s (Michael Sheen) TV interviews with Richard Nixon (Frank Langella) may be the perfect antidote. Still fuming after being passed over for his supporting turn as Skeletor in The Masters of the Universe, Langella aims to become the first actor to win an Oscar and a Tony for the same role.

I saw the trailer for this before W. and thought Langella’s take on the disgraced President looked goofy and cringe-inducing but I’m not about to judge a film based on a 2-minute clip. Or an unintentionally hilarious poster that misrepresents it as a campy 80's horror outing. Voters love Ron Howard and usually eat pseudo-historical stuff like this up, just as long as it’s directed by someone other than Stone.

The Reader (Dec. 10)- This is that OTHER Kate Winslet movie. Kate’s looking to pull a Cate from last year and pick up two nominations in two different acting categories with her supporting turn here as a Nazi war criminal hiding a scandalous secret. Given the dearth of contenders in that category every year it’s certainly possible, but Revolutionary Road is the Winslet movie to watch, not this one. All it does is clear the path for the more prestigious release because there won’t be enough room for both. If this film is even mildly successful all it will do is boost the prospects for her more anticipated project and put that in a better position come January. Winslet benefits, The Reader does not.

Doubt (Dec. 12)-Let’s just call this what it is: a vehicle for Meryl Streep to land her 500th Oscar nomination and nothing more. If she can be nominated for playing essentially a cartoon in The Devil Wears Prada voters will drool all of themselves with her turn as a nun. Oh, and Philip Seymour Hoffman will be losing to Heath…I mean nominated for Best Supporting Actor as well. But that’s it. This is an actor’s film, not a Best Picture nominee.

Gran Torino (Dec. 17)- Spike Lee may hate the 78-year-old Clint Eastwood but the Academy LOVES him. He could direct an episode of Sesame Street and they’d find a place for him on their ballots. Here he plays, an old, cranky Korean War vet who very reluctantly bonds with the Asian immigrant who tries to steal his ’72 Gran Torino.

If there’s one thing the Academy loves more than a film directed by or starring Eastwood, it’s a film directed by AND starring him. I predict he’ll win Best Actor for this because the Academy realizes the window is closing to honor him for his acting. He may get a director nod as well, but I just don’t get the impression it will be competing on the biggest stage. On paper it just doesn’t seem like it has that “big event feel” voters go for. So Eastwood will just have to settle, as if that’s settling. But it wins for most bad-ass poster. I love it. This is almost guaranteed to be nominated for SOMETHING.

The Wrestler (Dec. 17)-Oh, this is interesting. A low budget film without a distributor as recently as a couple of months ago has suddenly shot to the top of everyone’s Oscar prediction list. Hollywood still hates Mickey Rourke but they love a comeback story more. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, the inside track is on him being nominated but I just can’t see the stuffy Academy rewarding any film having to do with professional wrestling with a Best Picture nod, no matter how good it is. Then again, I suppose the same could be said about boxing…and that won. If any filmmaker can overcome the seemingly insurmountable odds it’s Darren Aronofsky so I’m curious how this turns out.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Dec. 25)- YES! Could it be? Could a David Fincher’s film FINALLY be nominated for Best Picture? Could he finally get that long overdue Best Director nod? Based on F. Scott Fitzgerald’s short story of a man who ages backwards and starring likely lead actor nominee Brad Pitt, this is by far his best shot yet. Of all the movies on this list, this is the one I must want to see and it’s also the closest thing on here we have to a lock. It finds itself in the same comfy position as There Will Be Blood and Juno in that it’s being released in late December and hits wide in January. The studio didn’t just carelessly dump this in an Oscar dead zone like they did Fincher’s Zodiac last year. The Academy owes him a statue for that, The Game and Fight Club so it may be time to pay up. My expectations are through the roof for this.

Valkyrie (Dec. 26)-Don’t underestimate this Cruise guy. If anyone can make a story about a one-eyed Nazi plotting to assassinate Hitler work it’s him. This was actually pushed to early ’09 due to rumored production difficulties but was moved up again to capitalize on the goodwill surrounding Cruise’s performance in Tropic Thunder. Matt Lauer may have forgiven him for his loony antics but the Academy hasn’t… yet. This will do better than people think it will but no way will it be nominated for the top prize, or anything else for that matter. That it's directed by Bryan "Superman Returns" Singer doesn't help.

Revolutionary Road (Dec. 26)- Leonardo Dicaprio and Kate Winslet, the two stars of one of the most inexplicably reviled Best Picture winners in history are together again, this time as an unhappily married 1950’s couple who….um, honestly, I have no idea. I’ve read the synopsis of the film and I still couldn’t tell you what it’s actually ABOUT. It sounds like nothing happens at all. But that does that even matter to voters? They’ll see those two names and that of an Academy-Award winning director (Sam Mendes) not even bother watching the screener (it’s probably too long for them anyway) and vote for it. It’s about as safe a pick as there is and they can go to their cocktail parties telling everyone what a masterpiece it was. You have to give Kate and Leo though. They could have quickly sold out and reunited onscreen years ago but they waited over 10 years for the right project to come along. That makes me think it’s very good. And it could be the movie that finally nabs Winslet the gold.

Defiance (Dec. 31)-Here’s a case where having Daniel Craig in your movie really hurts and you pay the price during Oscar season. Coming a month after Quantum of Solace everyone will have Bond hangovers. And even though it covers dark, historical territory the Academy often rewards (anti-semitism), the field is just too crowded for this to make any kind of splash. It’s also directed by Edward Zwick (Blood Diamond) who has a gift for somehow turning deadly serious topics into mainstream, popcorn fare. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it never plays well with voters. The Zwick we have today is not the same one who directed Glory.
Don’t expect much.

My Prediction:
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Milk
Revolutionary Road
Slumdog Millionaire