Thinkin' of goin' to a movie. Anyone seen "Australia"? nt

[Critters2]

[Shine]

1. My SIL just saw it in LA and said it was much better than she expected.

She did say it was too long, though.

I hear Hugh Jackman looks amazing in it, too. I think he's gorgeous.

:hi: Enjoy!

[Critters2]

2. Thanks! nt

[RevolutionaryActs]

3. I saw it on Friday with my mom.

We loved it! The cinematography is breathtaking, and IMO it's almost worth the price of admission. It's like a big old fashioned hollywood epic. :hi:

[jxnmsdemguy65]

4. very disappointing...

did not like this movie much at all... acting was flat, lots of too obviously computer-generated effects, dialogue is irritating and hard to follow. Plus it is two hours and 45 minutes long.... better to get this one on DVD so you can take breaks.

[edbermac]

5. Only pulling 52% at Rotten Tomatoes.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/australia/

[RFKHumphreyObama]

6. As an Australian, I haven't seen it

That's not because I have anything against it but just because I don't go to the cinema that often.

I think any movie that seeks to explore our nation's chequered history of race relations and and the history of our indigenous people is worthwhile seeing. Baz Luhrman seemed to devote much time and effort into seeking to tell the story of our indigenous people and having them tell their own stories and contribute to the making of this film and I greatly respect that.

I've heard positive and negative reviews. I know Nicole Kidman has a reputation for being overrated s an actress (not totally undeserved) but Hugh Jackman has generally been considered quite good as an actor.

[Richardo]

7. If you like the idea of a 3-hour romance novel, you might like it

I did not: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=8287314&mesg_id=8287314 x(

[Critters2]

8. I saw it, and agree with much of what's been said here.

It was really two films spliced together. Either one might have been a good movie, with some tinkering, but as one film it was too long and just too much. The acting could've been better, but it's clear most of the cast wasn't chosen for acting skills, but for looks.

And nothing irritates me more than over-drawn evil characters who are just too evil to be believed without adequate motivation. He was going to shoot his (secret) son because his wife died? That seemed logical to someone? Really? This was what I most hated about "Titanic"--the uber-evil bad guy doing completely illogical evil things. I think even evil guys have brains. So, that was a problem.

Still, the cinematography and effects were great. The landscapes were amazing. The info about the plight of Australia's native people was well presented and important to learn. And that little boy was so cute I just wanted to scoop him up take him home!!

So, didn't love it. Didn't hate it. Not a completely wasted evening....unlike "Mamma Mia".

[Lautremont]

9. No, but I'll tell you what I saw the other night: Synecdoche, New York.

It was flawed, but altogether pretty awesome, as much for the mere fact that it exists as for any actual quality it has beyond that.

[mentalsolstice]

10. Worth the price of a cheaper matinee ticket.

It's a long movie, so make sure you go to the restroom before...Brandon Walter, the Aboriginal child, steals every scene he's in. He totally chews up the screen, and with no previous acting experience (he was spotted swimming at a public pool with his dad by the director, and offered a chance to audition). The movie did highlight the "Stolen Generations", which I had never heard of before, so that part of the story was interesting.