I noticed that Yahoo Serious movies were conspicuously absent from your list. And no Crocidile Dundee?
I guess I’m the odd one out, I disliked the movie.
It started off promising: Charming, entertaining, and beautiful. However an hour into the movie it felt like I was watching a sappy romance novel on film. Everything was too predictable and I felt that the movie kept beating me over the head constantly with its themes (I won’t spoil them here). I could see the ending coming from a mile away and at almost three hours it was way too long. About halfway through I already knew how it was going to end and tried looking over at the people I was with and wondering if they wanted to leave and save some time, too. I thought that the movie was actually going to en an HOUR before it actually did. It seemed like everything was wrapping up well and then they decided to give it one more whirl around the block and beat me a little more for good measure. After realizing that, the remaining hour was agony.
If you go in realizing that it’s going to be like a sappy romance novel, it’s not too bad. However if you’re expecting a riveting, entertaining, hidden plot filled adventure story then you might want to pass this one up. Either way, I wouldn’t recommend spending $7 a person to see it in theaters.
I did like Hugh Jackman; he is hot as usual.
I agree with you, for the most part, but I wasn’t completely bored watching it. Too long and predictable, yes, but I still thought it was entertaining. I guess I kind of like sappy romance novels, and my sister was paying for it.
I’m sorry, but I have to join the negative crowd. The movie comes across so strongly as a homage/retread of every romantic epic made between 1935 and 1955 that I sometimes felt like I was watching the Oscar-show “in memoriam” montage. Maybe this was meant to be a “period” styling, but to me the acting seemed hokey and the characterizations cartoonish. The cinematography was highly uneven, often making the film look like a movie set or a matte painting even when I think it was not.
Mostly I was just bored, but there was one cliche that I actively hated:
during the liberation of the children from the island, when the Noble Black Man stoically sacrificed himself to let his white friend get away safely.
I looked up the original ending- right scene wrong victim from the one above.
Originally Hugh Jackman’s character dies saving Nullah when Fletcher opens fire.
I was surprised that they dropped the bromby horse/thoroughbred plotline. I thought for sure the last scene would be the colt being ridden by Jackman/Kidman’s kid (ala Tennessee Ernie Ford’s Tennessee Stud lyrics).
Exactly–he knew exactly what he was doing in making an old-fashioned movie. It was funny to sit in the theater with other people gasping and thinking it suspenseful, and thinking, “Haven’t you seen this movie before? Everything will turn out fine.” I mean, was there any doubt that Drover would show up spiffed up at the ball? Come on! But there were people gasping in excitement and a titter swept the audience I loved it.
And yeah, someone noticed, since Hugh Jackman is the Sexiest Man Alive according to People. 
Overhead two guys on the way out
How long *was *that movie?
About fifteen hours!
Yeah, just rub it in why don’t you? They passed me over again!
So was Hugh Jackman’s character named Drover or was that he was called because, well, he’s a drover (i.e. is he one of those characters with no name)?
I was thinking he should be added to the thread about characters with no name. “I’ve sent the drover” to me means it’s not his name. For a moment I was scared his real name was Emmet when Kidman refers to the visitor she thinks has come by, but that’s the military guy’s name.
Wait, didin’t this movie used to have Meryl Streep in it?
I liked it. It was long, and I did get antsy a few times but for the most part I didn’t notice. It was very stylized and homage-ish which was fine, but it made it more of a fantasy than a serious film. It might have benefitted from just going ahead and making it a musical.
The score was good. The Wizard of Oz theme made sense given “Oz” and rainbows and the dreaming. Is it just me or does the main love theme sound like “Such Great Heights”? I love that song but it felt a little anachronistic or Moulin Rougish.
It should be noted that it’s a “mythologized” Australia - for example, the nature of the cattle industry is very broad, and the Mission Island stuff wasn’t tied up in the attack on Darwin in real history.
I was confused about why Nullah’s mother couldn’t swim.
They did a decent job of dealing with aboriginal culture. It’s very easy to try and be non racist by going the opposite extreme and making another culture magical or in need of saving.
When Hugh showed up at the ball there was much oohing and ahhing in the theater and some guy shouted ‘this is what you ladies were waiting for!’. Mass giggles ensued.
Over all I’d say it was ambitious, a very good film, but not quite a great film. There was some inconsistancy of tone, and a lot of it felt like an homage to other films - the first half was like a cowboy movie and the second was Pearl Harbor. But the stylization was fun, and there were also a lot of breathtaking moments (Nullah stares down the stampede!).
good one!
I was confused by that too. At first I thought it was because of the desert conditions but then we learn later it becomes water during the wet.
I found that to be the stupidest scene in the whole movie. I mean, really, a whole herd of cattle is going to stop just because some little kid is looking at them? Overly dramatic and extremely predictable.
Just because they’re cattle doesn’t mean they’re heartless. That was a beautiful kid and an orphan!
Probably my least favorite aspect was the romanticization of the aborigones. Yes, they’re culture is absolutely fascinating and has many appealing and just “neat” aspects, but I really don’t think they’re any more mystical than your average bear.
Late to the game, as usual. I hate crowds.
Anywho, I thought it was a “B.” Very predictable in parts (Did we have any doubt that Meggie’s first husband from the Thorn Birds (Bryan Brown?) was NOT going to get his hands on Tara,; unforgivably hokey in others (Nullah the bovine whisperer. oh my.); and even a bit surprising in others (I didn’t think Nullah would go off forever).
Re the drowning: I don’t understand why Nullah and his mother didn’t just lie flat on top of the water tower instead of getting into it. I also thought that they could have solved a lot of problems by just building a priest hole, so Nullah didn’t have to keep climbing up that infernal tower every time, which seemed kind of exposed for a kid trying to hide.
I was very disappointed that in a film about Australia, there were no deadly poisonous snakes or spiders, ravenous dingoes, or salt water crocs. What kind of lame Outback was that? And where the hell were the sheep?
Anywho, it did have its redeeming qualities. It was entertaining, if not too long. And then there was Hugh Jackman, who is very charismatic. Nicole Kidman was okay, though I think she overacted in the beginning. The kid who was Nullah was really good. Had they cast a less engaging kid, the movie would have been a disaster.
Oh, and I preferred Jackman with his beard. He doesn’t have the handsomest face, IMO.
Did you have to watch it upside-down?
I don’t think the top of the water tower would’ve held both their weight; it looked pretty rusted. Remember the tower was empty until Nullah got the pump key back from that asshole. They weren’t used to it having water in it.
It opened in Bangkok last week, and we saw it at the weekend. It was good, but I would not call it the Australian Gone with the Wind, which is apparently what they were aiming at. Pretty much agree with Ebert’s three-star rating, although we didn’t feel as put out by the “magic” stuff as he did. Worth a look, but I can’t say I’d go out of my way to see it again.
Meh, nevermind