Teh Movie that Shouldn't be Mentioned by Name

On New Year's Eve, Mr. Benny and I went to see the latest Baz Luhrmann film that takes place Down Under. Roger Ebert thought it was a decent movie with romance and sweeping cinematography, even with its flaws. Most of the time I agree with Ebert's opinion and Mr. Benny likes movies, so we thought we'd give it shot since it was New Year's Eve and didn't have other plans. But this is one of the few times we went to see a movie, and walked away wishing we hadn't paid the $8.75 pp. I'm very picky about what movies to pay to see, and I felt as though we got ripped off. My hand expressions throughout the movie told the story: waiting for Godot yet seeing something so predictable with the worst looking computer-generated war scenes in it.

I wish I had read Tom Long's review first. He nailed it by calling the movie a big turkey. And that's what the name of it should have been, A Big Turkey instead of Australia. It was like going to someone's house for Thanksgiving dinner, the meal simply awful because the turkey and dressing either under-or- overcooked and the company was miserable as a result.

Mr. Benny and I went to a restaurant/bar after the movie for a light dinner and we spent the entire time trying to find anything good about it. It was a challenge, but at least at times we were able to laugh about it.

To review, Long's synopsis is this:

"Australia" is a film about the call of the wild, about pioneering spirit, about clashing cultures, the strain between nature and civilization, class systems, racism and, oh yes, it's a love story in which a noblewoman falls for a rough-hewn wrangler.

What's interesting is that the problems of the movie are a cross fertilization of the criticisms lobbed by Ebert and Long. Ebert says that the movie is "a cross between "GWTW" and "Red River," with an infusion of "Rabbit-Proof Fence" (2002) and World War II. Along this same vein, Long says the film was trying to accomplish too much by trying to pack so many themes in. He wrote, "Ultimately, it's about so much that none of it really matters."

Ebert's says that the premise of aborignals possessing powers may have been one of the flaws when he penned,

"The film is filled with problems caused by its acceptance of mystical powers. If Nullah is all-seeing and prescient at times, then why does he turn into a scared little boy who needs rescuing? The climactic events require action sequences as thrilling as they are formulaic, as is the love story. Scarlett and Rhett were products of the same society. Lady Sarah and Drover meet across a divide that separates not only social class but lifestyle, education and geography. Such a gap can be crossed, but not during anything so simple as a moonlit night with "Over the Rainbow" being played on a harmonica."

I'll take this a step further. First, the little boy is the narrator in the film, but often the lens is not through his eyes. It's more through Nicole Kidman's character, which was a big mistake. It's as though they are trying to blur the lenses of Nullah's and Karen Blixen from "Out of Africa", a movie that I think the director was trying to closely emulate rather than GWTW (Gone with the Wind). There is no explanation about aborginal life or why Australians accepted that they did have powers, unless the direction team assumes that one has seen Crocodile Dundee, which actually does a much better job, even for a movie which is supposed to be more comedic. No, readers, the narrative should have come from Drover (Hugh Jackman) who is a widower of an aborginal woman and could have explained the connections, and also point to the boy's grandfather as being wise instead of being the accused murderer of Lady Ashley's husband. Instead, we have bits and pieces, and Jackman is too busy trying to be Denys Hatton. Yes, he's handsome like Redford, but Drover's character is too superficial to believe him. As a result, we cannot find the thread--too many disconnected themes--as a result of a misplaced narrative.

In addition, some technical problems. The diction is terrible thus the film is difficult to hear as well as understand. Sound quality is mediocre. The costumes don't fit the period either because the director is still trying to make a western. While Australia as a continent is probably the last frontier, I still think women would have dressed more like the 30's and 40's. I also disliked that a perfectly wonderful song, "Somewhere over the Rainbow" is repeated and it conflicts with the aboriginal music. An American songbook standard trying to be used as a metaphor of magic or wizards to symbolize the powers of King George or Nullah doesn't work.

I did like Nullah and the aboriginals in the movie, but I have a fondness for them and their culture because I visited Australia in 1987; hence one can see what I am so disappointed in the film.

My title post includes that shouldn't be mentioned by name comes from a line in the movie whereby someone dies, her/her name shouldn't be mentioned again. That's how Mr. Benny and I felt about Australia--it died early on. The romance between characters portrayed by Jackman and Kidman, nor the little boy Brandon Walters (who plays Nullah) whom they sort of adopt, could not save this movie.

OK, I've Seen all of the Best Picture Nominees for 2007

And I do not agree that "No Country for Old Men" deserved the Oscar.

In order, here's what I thought were the best of the line-up:

There Will Be Blood
Juno
Michael Clayton
No Country for Old Men
Atonement (and at that, that shouldn't have been in the top 5)

There Will Be Blood: Daniel Day-Lewis Wins Oscar

No denyin' he was going to win. Even after the nominees were announced for Best Actor, there was no moment of opening the envelope, no sound: it was announced he was the recipient of the Oscar. They forced him to make a short speech, which probably suited him in character (or not) well.

Congrats, Daniel Day-Lewis. Despite what critics say, I think the character loved his adopted son, but felt betrayed for some reason, maybe because Plainview began to hate himself more and thus, others. I appreciate that picture very much for its symbolism, and best character study, although nearly all of the nominated films had them.

DDL gives thanks here.

27 Dresses: Great Chick Flick

Yesterday, my DH had a birthday--his mid-century--and we were trying to get tickets for a 7:15p showing for Atonement, a Golden Globe award winner. However, the wait lines were too long and we knew we couldn't get in and be able to sit together. So instead, we decided we would go to a movie today while everyone was watching the AFL and NFL football championship games.

About mid-morning when we were finalizing plans, we opted to go see something with levity and go to 27 Dresses instead. The movie turned out to be a good choice for us, albeit it really was more of a chick flick. I think the female to male audience ratio was about 25 to 1 and we almost didn't get to sit together either as the movie theater was full.

Disclaimer: holiday weekend + cold weather (14 degrees) + free parking = more movie goers

The trailer is uploaded here, to give you a sense of the movie.

Link to video trailer

After seeing the movie, I would concur these were good teasers. But in case you cannot pull up wthe trailer, here is the synopsis, which I scarfed from Rottentomatoes.com:

Jane is idealistic, romantic and completely selfless – a perennial bridesmaid whose own happy ending is nowhere in sight. But when younger sister Tess captures the heart of Jane’s boss -- with whom she is secretly in love – Jane begins to reexamine her “always-a-bridesmaid….” lifestyle.

To us, the movie is a cross of several successful formula romantic comedies, among them, Four Weddings & a Funeral, Love Actually, and My Best Friend's Wedding. The latter is most recognizable. Rotten Tomatoes reviewers felt it was too predictable and full of cliches', but I disagree. While it is predictable, most romantic comedies have been for 2o years or more. Thus, I think if the characters and the setting had been in Britain, the reviews would be higher. I love British comedies, but I do think based on the audience's reactions here, the reviewers were too critical for a romantic comedy and expected more because of Edward Burns' presence in the film. (I still loved him in The Brothers McMullen and who can forget Sarah McLauchlan's ending tune, "I Will Remember You".)



Most of the audience, including my DH, laughed at most of the good lines (I cackle when something really cracks me up--and sometimes it is a very subtle line), and by far the best scene that draws the audience in simpatico takes place in a blue collar bar. The chemistry is superb between the actors, and only a few times, did the script lag and was a bit trite (a woman who tries to take care of sisters or brothers either forced or unforced), but overall, my DH and I came to care about all of the major characters.

There are plenty of ironies, but very subtle. One thinks of them later.

The credits section is the most creative I've seen in awhile, worth staying to see.

For a couple of hours of laughter, I heartily recommend this movie for matinee or DVD.