Analyzing Australia

For quite some time I've been frantic of seeing another Baz Luhrman film to hit the screens and when the news of Australia surfaced on the net, I was on total lookout.

Equalling my own expectations, the trailer was able to draw my attention to become more attentive, if it is allowed in english grammar. While the other critics said the trailer was lacking with substance, as to really catch the viewers mind and drive them to see the movie, I defended, why make trailer that makes the story so obvious? Trailers should be trailers, and in that case, should not spoil the movie's premises and twists, if not in it's entirety.

As the buzz of awards progresses, Austrailia was left behind, not really far, but quiet disappointing, considering its a Luhrman, and its the 20th Century Foxs' obvious shot to Oscar. Then the movie opened in theaters, and the critics were hesitant to give it a zero or have it in a perfect 10, so it sits in the middle. Rottentomatoes gave it a rotten status, but it was close to being fresh, if you know what I mean.

So how did a multi-million film with a director and main casts to boast, and a very-cool-trailer (personal note) ended up like this? I take a thing or two, or more for this matter, and I hope I was able to site the reasons, closely if not perfectly.

First, the film was too long. Sitting at nearly three hours is a pain in the ass, and in the eyes. Well, some succesfull films have long duration, Return of the King per se, but in the case of Australia, there was no action scenes of CGI extravagance or an intense sequences of huge creatures battling in too-cool-to-be-real (I was trying to do away with eye popping) realms, all that the Australia offered is a very classic, almost like a painting backdrops of the Land Down Under, a serene narration, and a cute hopping kangaroos to compensate the long sitting hours. It should be noted, cause that case is at its rarety, but they failed to interests the common viewers, and its such a shame.

Second, the concept of developing a back story in the Land Down Under set in the pre and during World War I (?) to develop a love story and a cultural issue, is genious. But, they lost the focus because they put too much elements and root theme, is it about the love story, or the aborigins? Or the cultural indifferences? Politics? War? Popcorn anyone?.

Baz Luhrman, is still a fine director as he was able to weave a romantic setting in vast dry lands, and create a fine tune of humor, romance in between sequences. Plus, some scenes and dialogues are reminiscent of his last outing "Moulin Rouge", too good I was always waiting for them to start singin'.

Lastly, the movie hangs up right in the middle, you really expected it to end like that, and your waiting for the narrator to utter "..and they lived happily ever after" but to your shock he said "..one day".

The movie in its own right, is not a total mess. Though you may argue, I would firmly say it wasnt. I was not at all disappointed. I was, wanting. And I tried to reason above why.

I didnt have the enough reasons to hate it, or enough amazement to somehow really like it. I was also in the middle, of liking and hating it, and today, that case is unusual. Movies today are most likely to be plain smart or stupid, and australia stood up, amidst the strenous downpull.

Luhrman choregraphed the wonderful "The Musical Is Back" number in the Oscars, and that'd be enough for me to still look out for another Luhrman film.