Australia: The Truth Behind Truths

The truth? Australia is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

I went into the theater cheerful and easy-going and left grouchy, suicidal, and 13 wasted dollars poorer. What's more, I entered expecting a film that would be somewhat dark; somber. A gritty look at relationships, living on the land and making a living from it out there in the harsh settlements of a brave new continent. A decent movie, if not a little inappropriate to see with a large group of your action-loving beer-swilling mates. Well, only one of them really swills beer, and he's a charming young lad, so he's excused, but that's besides the point.

However, my hopes were dashed when the opening words introduced the movie, setting the scene and describing Australia as a land where, and I quote "adventure and romance was a way of life". Jesus fucking Christ. So it's a romanticized movie about love and lust in the outback. Not quite what I was expecting... But it still might be alright, right?

Wrong.

This film couldn't decide whether it was a romance, a slapstick comedy, an action film or a boar-racing simulator. What's more, it had just under three hours to flounder around while it tried to decide. It felt like it could've ended with quite a good wrap-up at least four times throughout the thing, and to make matters worse, there were really only four events in it anyway; They successfully drove, the woman and The Drover marry, the kid is taken away and then the Japanese bomb Darwin. Sure, sure, you could essentially break down a lot of movies into a few key moments, but with this film, there is pretty much nothing else. It's otherwise filled with uninteresting minutiae like house parties, cups of tea, steamy love-making, etc, and offensive use of the force. That's right, the force.


This man, just like every other Aboriginal in the film, possessed force powers such as push and pull, and were able to telepathically communicate. And to add insult to injury, they didn't just have these powers, they had the same body poses as the Jedi from whom the powers were usurped!

They also treated Aboriginal heritage like a disease or something. At one point, the child that Nicole "Hitler" Kidman adopts, requests to go "walk-about", which is a rite of passage that has been in his family for generations. His grandfather (pictured above) plans to lead him on this journey of self-discovery and help his grandson become a man. Hitler, however, refuses him this right, much to the dismay of her husband, referred to even by her as The Drover. It played out something like this:

"But honey, it's an important part of his family history and culture; it's important to him even though it isn't part of our own!"

"No Drover, you just don't want to commit yourself to this relationship! You feel like if the boy isn't here with us then you aren't tied down to this family, thus continuing your lifestyle free of responsibility that was established in our first scene together that you have a preference for."

"... I'm going to go drove for the Australian army for 6 months with my Aboriginal mate."

"If you do you aren't welcome here when you come back, Drover."

"... w/e. c u l8r bitch"

Then, on the drove, his companion gives him the same fucking speech. No, he isn't trying to avoid his responsibilities, you're just trying to make your adopted child white. Strangely, in the end she decides to let him go anyway, so the whole dirge was inconsistent to boot.

I'll cut this short now, but if anyone's vaguely interested in anything like Japanese landing crews, poorly conceived foreshadowing and predictable and contrived plot twists, feel free to ask.

you should make your own internet videos (eg Yahtzee) or at least work on 'at the movies' you could spice up the dialog (or even just be the next David(but with purple pants )
i never had any desire to see this movie, but any hope of it being remotely entertaining was just cut to pieces by this testimonial.
i can see how you would be offend by 'force powers' hell i am and i have not seen it....

i really, really had no intension of watching this movie and like fox, i definately wont now. good write up bobbin.

****WARNING THIS WILL BE BORING TO THOSE WHO HAVE NOT YET SEEN THE FILM*****

Bobbin wrote:

The truth? Australia is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

Must not have seen many movies.

Bobbin wrote:

I went into the theater cheerful and easy-going and left grouchy, suicidal, and 13 wasted dollars poorer. What's more, I entered expecting a film that would be somewhat dark; somber. A gritty look at relationships, living on the land and making a living from it out there in the harsh settlements of a brave new continent. A decent movie, if not a little inappropriate to see with a large group of your action-loving beer-swilling mates.

You went to a Baz Lurman Film with action-loving beer-swilling mates, and expected to see an Action film.

ROFL

No idea where you got that idea from, it certainly has not been advertised as an Action film.

Pardon me but ROFL again.

Bobbin wrote:

However, my hopes were dashed when the opening words introduced the movie, setting the scene and describing Australia as a land where, and I quote "adventure and romance was a way of life". Jesus fucking Christ. So it's a romanticized movie about love and lust in the outback. Not quite what I was expecting... But it still might be alright, right?

Have you ever heard/seen a Buz Lurman film? He is the Campest person on the planet. Seriously, look at his previous films, Romeo and Julet, Moulin Rouge, Strickly Ballroom....

Bobbin wrote:

This film couldn't decide whether it was a romance, a slapstick comedy, an action film or a boar-racing simulator. What's more, it had just under three hours to flounder around while it tried to decide.

Since when do films have to stick to 1 genre? Hollywood is notorious for doing films this way and going "lets make a comedy for the Christmas season, now lets work backwards, can we get Reese Witherspoon and Vince Vaughn?..."

Some of my favourite films contain splicing of lots of genres (Coen brothers anyone?), I thought the slapstick part of the film was great. Although Baz Usually starts his films with slapstick.. R&J had that cool scene at the Gas Station.

Bobbin wrote:

It felt like it could've ended with quite a good wrap-up at least four times throughout the thing, and to make matters worse, there were really only four events in it anyway; They successfully drove, the woman and The Drover marry, the kid is taken away and then the Japanese bomb Darwin. Sure, sure, you could essentially break down a lot of movies into a few key moments, but with this film, there is pretty much nothing else.

As you said, Every film can be broken down into small key elements. Titanic = Ship Sails > Ship Sinks. Its a really REALLY bad way to look at film, because you can over simplify anything.

Bobbin wrote:

This man, just like every other Aboriginal in the film, possessed force powers such as push and pull, and were able to telepathically communicate. And to add insult to injury, they didn't just have these powers, they had the same body poses as the Jedi from whom the powers were usurped!

JEDI?>! wtf? no they had no jedi powers at all? When did they use the force? I saw no force push/pull or flying ships with eyes closed to destroy the death star..? Also, the only Aborinals that had "powers" which basically was no powers just chants/songs/using the bush to become invisible (see hiding), was the Gallipa (magic man) which is the aborinal version of the Shaman/Witch Doctor/Wizard/magician yet you are happy to go along with their powers in other films, and the GAllipa (king George) and his Protege Nallah (his grandson) had barely any real powers at best, except the ability to communicate via chant/song. (note: this happens in thousands of films).

Side note: no other Aboriginals in the film possessed this "power" (even though it was barely a power) in the film.

Bobbin wrote:

They also treated Aboriginal heritage like a disease or something. At one point, the child that Nicole "Hitler" Kidman adopts, requests to go "walk-about", which is a rite of passage that has been in his family for generations. His grandfather (pictured above) plans to lead him on this journey of self-discovery and help his grandson become a man. Hitler, however, refuses him this right, much to the dismay of her husband, referred to even by her as The Drover. It played out something like this:

Its borderline offensive what you have written here..

Seriously man, Wtf? Comparing the way they portrayed the Aboriginal Heritage/Culture as a Disease/Hitler ? I think they did quite the oppisite and idolised the aboriginal culture abit too much, came off very tacky to me, But I do not in the slightest agree with your statement.

Side note: They were not married / never got married in the film..

Bobbin wrote:

Then, on the drove, his companion gives him the same fucking speech. No, he isn't trying to avoid his responsibilities, you're just trying to make your adopted child white. Strangely, in the end she decides to let him go anyway, so the whole dirge was inconsistent to boot.

She was worried as the cops were after him, Fletcher was after him, and obviously her maternal instincts had kicked in and she didn't want him to leave her. He actually ran away in the end and got caught by the cops and sent to mission island, or did you miss that part of the film?

She did let him go walkabout in the end of the film but obviously finally understood its implications and how important it was.. so what your saying is that if a character cheanges heart/mind/grows by the end of the film its considered inconsistent?

Bobbin wrote:

I'll cut this short now, but if anyone's vaguely interested in anything like Japanese landing crews, poorly conceived foreshadowing and predictable and contrived plot twists, feel free to ask.

I totally agree with this point.


Now, I worked on this film, and had tagged it as a terrible film from day one... I had to watch small parts of this film all day, and this lasted 6 months. Everyone I worked with though it was going to be utter shit. I saw it on Sat and I was surprised.. It certainly wasn't a great film... but it was no where near as bad as I'd expected it to be.


I hope to god that your review of this film has been written this way as you think its cool to write a scathing review, or maybe its just because you were so bored (expecting an action film) that you missed 80% of what was going on..

There was so many things wrong with this film, barely any of which you have mentioned and I would have thought a scholar such as your self would have appreciated a story based movie more than an action based movie. But it looks like you missed even the simplest of details. I hope it was due to your beer-swilling before hand maybe?

Either way, its not a terrible film, but only see it if your interested in film as a medium for telling a story, not for blowing things up.

5.5 stars out of 10 for me.

Oh and by the way, its doing pretty good in reviews and on imdb.

OUCH, that was almost as scathing as bobbins original post.
i think soad you sort expect exaggeration when it comes to any kind of review, but one that intends to be humors you KNOW that it is going to be, LOLOLOLOL 'beer swelling' ----Oliy?
but ok fair call
if bobbin is the next David then SoAD is the next Margret.

theredfox wrote:

OUCH, that was almost as scathing as bobbins original post.
i think soad you sort expect exaggeration when it comes to any kind of review, but one that intends to be humors you KNOW that it is going to be, LOLOLOLOL 'beer swelling' ----Oliy?
but ok fair call

Oh don't get me wrong I agree with exaggeration, but most of the points were BS, if they were real points but exaggerated, then I'd take it as humour.

theredfox wrote:

if bobbin is the next David then SoAD is the next Margret.

LOL, true that.

SOaDaholic wrote:

Must not have seen many movies.

Heheh, you're right in saying that, I've really seen very few films. But even still, I didn't at all like this, and I'll happily discuss it with you.

Bobbin wrote:

I entered expecting a film that would be somewhat dark; somber. A gritty look at relationships, living on the land and making a living from it out there in the harsh settlements of a brave new continent.

That was what I said, and if you re-read it you'll note I never said anything that implied an action movie. Quite the contrary, I said it was an innappropriate movie to see with your action-loving mates. I mean, it's a small point that's barely worth mentioning, but you've suggested I wasn't paying enough attention to the movie to catch on to the finer points of the storyline; well, you ought to practice what you preach and pay a bit more attention yourself.

SOaDaholic wrote:

Have you ever heard/seen a Buz Lurman film? He is the Campest person on the planet. Seriously, look at his previous films, Romeo and Julet, Moulin Rouge, Strickly Ballroom....

I've seen Romeo and Juliet, and yes, he did do a pretty camped up version of what originally was a tragedy, but it felt like that original aspect of it was still intact; I was still getting the sad, serious undertones of what was a pretty flamboyantly cast film. I really liked that movie though. More on this with next point.

SOaDaholic wrote:

Since when do films have to stick to 1 genre? Hollywood is notorious for doing films this way and going "lets make a comedy for the Christmas season, now lets work backwards, can we get Reese Witherspoon and Vince Vaughn?..."

Some of my favourite films contain splicing of lots of genres (Coen brothers anyone?), I thought the slapstick part of the film was great. Although Baz Usually starts his films with slapstick.. R&J had that cool scene at the Gas Station.

This is very true; an action movie that's never-relenting action can never keep it's pace, and a depressing suicide-note of a movie couldn't just be doom and gloom without a break or you'd be too depressed to buy it on DVD. Variation keeps a movie interesting and can keep the flow up, but with Australia...

It seemed like a bad choice to have made use of some of the devices at the times that they were. I feel like I'm copping out really hard here because I can't remember enough of the movie to come up with decent examples, but I'll give it my best shot. Shoot these down if they don't make any sense, it'll be totally justified.

The entire brawl sequence when the woman first arrived left me wondering why it escalated to the point that it did. Again, I wasn't expecting anything quite so energetic and silly as this, so it felt like a bit of a slap in the face. Now I can see that my expectations were pretty unjustified, I know pretty much nothing about movie directors and their histories, but it looked to me from a preview I saw that something about the bombing of Darwin, the stolen generation... I dunno. I thought it'd be a serious epic whose variations of genre wouldn't accommodate something like that.

Same thing with the part when they were loading the boars onto the boat. She reared up on her horse and cracked her whip in the guy's face? I stared blankly at the big screen at this point, utterly perplexed by the sequence. Ugh, I'm harping on the point about my not expecting anything so campy, but these are just the scenes that stuck in my head.

SOaDaholic wrote:

As you said, Every film can be broken down into small key elements. Titanic = Ship Sails > Ship Sinks. Its a really REALLY bad way to look at film, because you can over simplify anything.

That was just me venting my frustration at how long it was. Nothing meant by it really.

SOaDaholic wrote:

JEDI?>! wtf? no they had no jedi powers at all? When did they use the force? I saw no force push/pull or flying ships with eyes closed to destroy the death star..? Also, the only Aborinals that had "powers" which basically was no powers just chants/songs/using the bush to become invisible (see hiding), was the Gallipa (magic man) which is the aborinal version of the Shaman/Witch Doctor/Wizard/magician yet you are happy to go along with their powers in other films, and the GAllipa (king George) and his Protege Nallah (his grandson) had barely any real powers at best, except the ability to communicate via chant/song. (note: this happens in thousands of films).

Side note: no other Aboriginals in the film possessed this "power" (even though it was barely a power) in the film.

Again, here I was just poking some fun at the movie, but I'm still going to defend my comparison to force powers. Nallah put his hand out and stopped a huge group of raging cows or whatever from stampeding off a cliff. I mean, come on. I can understand that the communicating was supposed to be chants, it just struck me as a bit odd that they were able to do it at massive range and to anyone, but that was just a stupid nitpick. But controlling livestock with your song? That's a bit extreme if you're going to justify it with being in touch with the land. I wouldn't have made quite a big deal about it if the movie itself hadn't first.

SOaDaholic wrote:

Its borderline offensive what you have written here..

Seriously man, Wtf? Comparing the way they portrayed the Aboriginal Heritage/Culture as a Disease/Hitler ? I think they did quite the oppisite and idolised the aboriginal culture abit too much, came off very tacky to me, But I do not in the slightest agree with your statement.

Side note: They were not married / never got married in the film..

This is where we can agree to disagree. Not about them not getting married, I'll take your word on that, but about the way that whole scene treated his walkabout. The way Nicole denied the kid this right and tried to stem his cultural rites like that is fucked. She was ignoring it and treating him like he was her white child. The Drover tried to tell her it was Nallah's right to do it, and she thought he was just avoiding responsibilities? What? No, walkabout was, as you say, very important to the child. The Drover was in the right and they made this whole weird contrived plot development around a stupid debate that Nicole's character had no right to argue. The Drover was gone so he couldn't prevent Nallah getting taken away and being put on the Missionary island. Sure, I may be remembering it wrong, but I'm fairly convinced that that whole thing was just dodgy. Oh, but the Hitler crack was just for a giggle. In bad taste, yes, but I think it illustrated a point to a degree. Sorry if it's an offensive turn of phrase, I can understand that.

And I can see tackiness as well, in how they made the powers they possessed strangely powerful and yeah, over idolized.

SOaDaholic wrote:

She was worried as the cops were after him, Fletcher was after him, and obviously her maternal instincts had kicked in and she didn't want him to leave her. He actually ran away in the end and got caught by the cops and sent to mission island, or did you miss that part of the film?

She did let him go walkabout in the end of the film but obviously finally understood its implications and how important it was.. so what your saying is that if a character cheanges heart/mind/grows by the end of the film its considered inconsistent?

Yes, I recognized that the conversation she had with that guy (can't recall his name, sorry. ) was supposed to mean that. I understood that she was worried if Nallah went out they would take him away, and that he even threatened her. I just think that this is a goddamn terrible move for the plot. What's more, it also felt like a forced way of making the plot accommodate another 40 minutes and include Darwin's bombing, as well as what I stated earlier. "Epic" indeed.

SOaDaholicn wrote:

I hope to god that your review of this film has been written this way as you think its cool to write a scathing review, or maybe its just because you were so bored (expecting an action film) that you missed 80% of what was going on..

There was so many things wrong with this film, barely any of which you have mentioned and I would have thought a scholar such as your self would have appreciated a story based movie more than an action based movie. But it looks like you missed even the simplest of details. I hope it was due to your beer-swilling before hand maybe?

[...]

Either way, its not a terrible film, but only see it if your interested in film as a medium for telling a story, not for blowing things up.

I wrote it, as Fox has said, as an exaggeration of my feelings of frustration with the film. Again, I didn't expect anything like an action film, and it's borderline an insult to my own intelligence to continuously imply otherwise. So with all due respect, fuck you.

But seriously, I thought it was overlong. I thought that some of the genre-hopping was just silly and not in a fun camp way, in a this is just breaking up the flow and making it hard to take it seriously way. I thought that the plot took events and warped the consequences in a way that could force more into its bloated self. I also made a few silly remarks. It was supposed to be kinda funny.
But I can see that I shouldn't have expected something that would present itself to me with a straight face. So some of the comedy was totally lost on me, and put the a lot of it into a bad light. Maybe I ought to watch it again, but I still feel like even then it would only raise from terrible to mediocre for me.

Secure that weapon bobbin

Omg, You have no idea how long it took me to write my post, then when I clicked send, it asked me to log in, then it didn't post it~!!

I seriously CBF typing/arguing on the Internets anymore so lets continue this in VENT at some stage if your still game. Its too easy to miss interpret what someone says on msg boards. Also, I feel totally lame defending the movie, it was pretty average indeed, but I guess I just disagree with most of your points.

Oh and Fuck you Right back, (obviously, I was having abit of a joke with the action movie thing man)

AWESOME.
Book a time you two and let everyone know that you are going to debate this on vent.
I want to listen just for the fun of it. I'm sure others would be amused.

I'll try to setup vent so that I can control who is talking or something so we don't have an all out war

that would pwn!

Damnit, this was some good reading at work. Don't stop now!


Although, you have made me not even want to watch the movie anymore. It sounds pretty average.



-Sabba

Sabba wrote:

Although, you have made me not even want to watch the movie anymore. It sounds pretty average.

Yeah, it is.

Anyways, I'm not a big fan of making this an event (kinda why I dont like arguing on the net) but if bobbin wants to do it this way I'll do it.

For me its just about prooving my point to Bobbin, not everyone else.

pimaster wrote:

AWESOME.
Book a time you two and let everyone know that you are going to debate this on vent.
I want to listen just for the fun of it. I'm sure others would be amused.

I'll try to setup vent so that I can control who is talking or something so we don't have an all out war

Haha, I can't imagine that the discussion will get so heated that we'll just be yelling over the top of each other, but I'm probably game to have a talk in Vent. If you have something you want to prove, go for it. Just keep in mind that the original post was just supposed to be a lame joke, and I'm sure everything'll be fine. And of course, that as far as interpreting the story goes, it's pretty subjective and may not be much chop for discussion. But only time will tell!

Bobbin wrote:

the original post was just supposed to be a lame joke

Thats all I was trying to proove.

Bobbin wrote:

And of course, that as far as interpreting the story goes, it's pretty subjective and may not be much chop for discussion.

I have no problem with subjective subjects, hence why I never really called you up on things like the movie being too long/boring/obvious/boring/contrived/boring/lame/boring

Like I said, I'm not defending the movie, just thought your main points were stupid.

Next Movie to Discuss: Watchmen and The Spirit

(since i am not admin just take this as is)
LOCKED!~___________-------------------------------------```````-------------------_________________________ ____________________________ DO NOT POST HEAR ANY MORE