I was just disturbed to see Faramir playing a bad guy. That’s just not right.
You should rent the 1998 Aussie film The Boys. I haven’t seen Australia, but i’ll bet David Wenham’s a more convincing bad guy in The Boys.
They apparently switched out the film, 'cause I saw a different movie than the one that Equipose saw. 
I was extremely disappointed in Australia, given how much I loved Moulin Rouge! and Romeo and Juliet. Like MR!, the story was nothing new, however the reworking of this material fell completely flat and, at times, had me openly guffawing in the theater…
… before I walked out, that is.
OK, let’s start with Nicole: She was absolutely beautiful in this movie, and that was about the only saving grace her character had. In addition to an entirely implausible “firing” of the main cowherder (Fisher) because he was (gasp!) mean to the aboriginals, her character arc followed every damn cliche in the book:
… Takes a bunch of clothes to a place where dirt predominates (check!)
… Takes Up for Natives at possible cost to her life and home (check!)
… Decides to Lead the Cattle Drive (check!)
… All clothes get destroyed (check!)
… Falls in Love with Man with Mysterious Past Who Is Below Her in Status™ (check!)
… First Romantic moment with above MWMPWIBHIS is interrupted by Cute Kid™ (check!)
… Beats the Bad Guy! (check!)
Then, of course, Baz decided to throw in the Man with Mysterious Past… and what a stupid past it was. Is there ANYBODY in the audience who looked at Hugh Jackman and said, “Yes, I can see the 50% of his heritage that is Aboriginal/African”.
Sure, I would’ve bought “I spent some time in jail on a murder I didn’t commit” or “I’m AWOL from the army and am hiding in the hinterlands” or even “I’m recovering from the death of My Perfect First Love”… but, no: we’re asked to buy into the idea that Hugh Jackman is 50% negro/aboriginal/black. WTF?
Then, in a surprising (not!) turn of events, Luhrmann throws in the Mystical Native Child Who Commands Nature (Unlike Whitey Who Just Wants To Own It™). I’m gonna stop the stampede by entering some pseudo martial arts pose and sing to the onrushing cattle! Why didn’t you then have him sing later in the movie, like in the final race (“Hey, kid, why don’t you use some of that mojo to stop Fletcher’s cows from entering the ship?”)
Then there was the Wizard of Oz thing. A movie released in late August, 1939, a month before war begins, somehow makes its way to the Australian outback? Really? MGM made that many prints, was that sensitive the international market in 1939?
Ugh. I finally walked when Hugh refused to go to the big soiree with her (which I predicted) - I had better things to do.
Kind words: the movie looked great.
Oh! I couldn’t stand how Bach’s Sheep May Safely Graze was used during the cattle drive sequences! Another WTF!?!?!?
She fired Fisher because he was lying to her about the well being dry. As for the Drover being half-Aboriginal that’s not the case at all. He was married to an Aboriginal woman who dies because he couldn’t find a hospital willing to treat her. The Aboriginal man he was with was this brother-in-law.
Gotcha. Tells you how much this (un)compelling movie grabbed me.
I finally caught it on the flight over to Europe. I was able to fast forward through the boring bits and just concentrate on the scenes for which we recorded the music. I watched bits here and there. As others have said, it’s not terribly impressive.
:rolleyes:
I saw it on the flight to Perth today. I am not sure I have seen a movie so unimpressive- every cliche, every heart tugging moment. Distortion of wwhat happened (okay not a documentary) but the mystical aboriginal appearing everywhere as in Star Wars- meh. (Obi Ben Konobi)
Yes, I agree. Some of it was pretty cringe worthy. It felt as though there had been a directive that every word in the dictionary of Australian slang had to be used at least once.
I guess Baz Luhrmann can’t make a Moulin Rouge-style hit every time. This one’s worth A look, but true, it’s nothing to write home about.
Does not compute. Unless by “seeing the ending”, you just mean that they get each other and the bad one dies.
Sorry. We’ve all really crapped all over your thread, haven’t we? :o
I meant to go back and explain that but never got around to it. Someone who watches bits and pieces of a movie, fast forwarding through stretches, watching on a tiny screen of the back of a seat on an airplane, is in no way reliable enough to say that the movie was “not terribly impressive.” Watch the whole thing on a big screen, then tell me it’s not terribly impressive. I might disagree, but at least you gave it a chance and I respect that.
It’s not the great movie I was hoping for and it hasn’t risen in stature in my mind since I wrote the OP. I always meant to go back and see it again, but, well, never got around to it. There were too many other movies to see. So, I’m not going to defend this movie to the death. Maybe it doesn’t deserve it and I don’t feel like it anyway, but geez, this is what he said:
And I really can’t think of anything more to say than, :rolleyes:.
I watched it in an aeroplane and it still stinks. It is cultural snobbery to suggest only those who see it on a big screen are qualified to comment on it. I can get a thousand yobbos to watch Debbie Does Dallas on a large screen and they will all say it was a great movie. Conversely, people who may not like distorted, cliched plotlines can indeed watch a movie on a smaller screen and have valid opinions.