The Aussies have naturally seen Baz Luhrmann’s “Australia” before the rest of the world and it seems, much like “Revolutionary Road,” that the opinions on the film are semi-divided (keep in mind it is two reviews, albeit from major papers). However, no one seems to be taking it to task how the Hollywood Reporter did with Sam Mendes’ latest. The Aussies seem to be defensive about the director fucking up a historical story about their country for the rest of the world, but skepticism aside it seems like he mostly achieved this.

The good:

“Baz Luhrmann’s long-awaited and over-budget Australia manages, against the odds, to avoid turning into one big sunburnt stereotype about Godzone country,” Anne Barrowlcough writes for the Times Online. “Instead, in what turns out to be a multi-layered story, it describes an Australia of the 1940s that is at once compellingly beautiful and breathtakingly cruel.”

“Described as a cross between Gone with the Wind and Out of Africa it bears, in fact, little resemblance to either movie – apart from a similarly spectacular landscape as Out of Africa and a plot line that loosely resembles that of Gone with the Wind. If it sounds shallow and predictable, Australia is, in fact, anything but. The cliches are saved by little jokes and asides, as if Luhrmann is saying ‘Yes, I know, but what can you do?’”

The Herald Son, “Australia features some of the most beautiful photography ever seen in an Australian film, from the Bungle Bungles in the Kimberley to the Northern Territory in the midst of the wet season. A love letter to the Australian landscape and our history, Australia has international blockbuster written all over it.”

The semi-positive to critical:

The film is “not without flaws, it’s not the masterpiece that we were hoping for, but I think you could say that it’s a very good film in many ways,” writes David Stratton of The Australian, though it’s probably safe to say that the Oz take on the film is probably much more harshly judged than the American view will probably be. “[But] while it will be very popular with many people I think there’s a slight air of disappointment after it all.”

Luhrmann’s films tend to be fantastical and fanciful, something Stratton’s not really into this time.

“It’s all very well to be artificial when you’re dealing with a theatrical concept like Moulin Rouge or even Strictly Ballroom, but it doesn’t really work so well when you’re doing the same sort of thing here, so there’s something that’s just a little bit off key about these scenes. Then once the cattle drive gets under way either you get used to it or that aspect of it is played down because the remainder of the film is much stronger in a rather conventional way.”
Aussies don’t like when you pander to Americans either.

“I have to say, there’s a lot of clichés in the script, a lot of familiar elements from other films of the past – The Wizard of Oz and the song Over the Rainbow are heavily referenced – and it’s as though the film is aimed at not so much an Australian audience but an international audience, and especially an American audience.”

Aussie Age, who suck by the way, ”At a mammoth 165 minutes it feels too much like a work-in-progress. There is a lot of narrative flab and longueurs in the first two hours and the film often has the pace of a steamroller with engine trouble.”

It’s interesting to note that all the heavy-hitters of the year are being hit with mixed reviews. It’s tentatively starting to look like a weak year for (big studio) film, but it’s still way too early to call it. [Courtesy of The Playlist]

UPDATE: A positive collection of thoughts, The Playlist gets me more jazzed to see the film.