Review of Australia (2008) by Smijatov — 09 Jan 2012

I had very high expectations from Luhrmann, being that "Australia" came as his next project after "Moulin Rouge," which is my favourite film of all times. However, "Australia" is far from deserving that honour.

The critics got right the fact that the film is epic. Yes, it clearly is. Almost 3 hours of glorification of Australia - how could it not be? But grandeur alone does not make for a great film. Don't get me wrong - I did enjoy the film, and thought it was good.

However, it had a bunch of things wrong with it. First of, it is not one story, it is a dozen of stories mixed into one overly-long film. Seriously, this could have been his next trilogy or something, since Luhrmann squeezed so much material into the film, that it's bursting out of its seems.

Technically, though, "Australia" is amazing. With breathtaking cinematography, the usually spectacular art & production design, as well as costumes, and a good soundtrack, technically the film is superb.

Acting is pretty good, too. Kidman is very good in comedic moments, but her lips indeed are too distracting from her acting. Jackman is his usual action-her self, so good, but nothing spectacular. The outstanding performances came from David Wenham as the arch-nemesis and the boy Brandon Walters, who stole the show.

The screenplay is the weakest link of the film, along with its editing. Overall, "Australia" is a good film, but the story is too long, too stretched out, improbable and just not credible. At the end of the film you are visually amazed and in awe, but you are annoyed with the story.

A nice try from Luhrmann, but he should have definitely cut at least 20-30 minutes from the film and worked more on the screenplay.