Times Online: I’d forgotten how much I loved you!

“Think of a 600 page Mills&Boon novel titled Crikey.”

Put me a good mood till I hit the traffic.

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

So yes, I agree with Matt and Paul’s comments. OK, I don’t plan to see it either, but maybe, just maybe, you should mention the opinions of more than those who just happen to agree with the result you were so earnestly hoping for (as satisfying as it might be to see a film so over-hyped fall flat on its face).

I haven’t seen it yet. (and I certainly won’t be a paying customer)
But after listening to all the local critics grovel at the shrine of Baz.
I had more than a sneaking suspicion, it was going to be an utter dog.
Sounds like it actually howls at the moon!!

“I love Kidman’s spunk and educability. I utterly agree that Jackman is, as People crowned him last week, the “sexiest man alive.” Above all, I like the good-natured, hell-for-leather energy of the movie, the sense it imparts that no matter how much its silent-picture villains twirl their mustaches, its good folks, the people who represent the generous spirit of Australia, are going to win out in the end.”

As for the New York Magazine, as one local respondent noted, Elizabeth Weitzman has never once posted a positive review of any film. Then there’s Melanie Reid of the London Times who has trouble in saying anything good about Australia the country and its people, generally. In the end, but, I reckon that it’s the paying public which will decide.

I have a last question, however. Just where can I find the “raging debate amongst reviewers world wide(which) is exactly why the movie that was supposed to save our film industry is quite this woeful…”? I must be reading the wrong newspapers as I’ve merely seen a passing reference, once, to this claim, and from memory, it could have been that well-known Aussie-lover, Melanie Reid.

Fair and balanced reporting please.

Built on lavish vistas and impeccable production, Australia is unfortunately burdened with thinly drawn characters and a lack of originality.

I saw the first 30 minutes before deciding 3 hours would be too much. On the positive, it was long enough to see Hugh having a camp shower (thats a shower in the outdoors, no pun intended) and that was enough for me. I think it is more Croc Dundee than epic but, fortunately for the real Australia, times have moved on.

http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/movies/26aust.html

The repulsive Tom Cruise and his wacko religion.

Your selections are biased in their focus on what went wrong and from foreign sources. Where are the Australian reviewers’ comments. C’mon, play fair …

Oh dear … the LA Times finds ‘expressions and accents so authentically Aussie the specifics are at times hard to follow.’ Tough titty.

I don’t know who most of these critics are, but Manohla Dargis, film critic of the nationally insignificant NY Times, was postive, particularly about Nicole Kidman’s performance. Roger Ebert, another nationally important reviewer, liked it,too

“Still, what a gorgeous film, what strong performances, what exhilarating images and — yes, what sweeping romantic melodrama. The kind of movie that is a movie, with all that the word promises and implies.”

Basically, critics seem confounded by an old-fashioned type movie which doesn’t grovel around dirt, drugs, distress and disease and post-modern angst. Friends and family in New York also report to me that most people really like it but that Australians there, especially, are embarrassed by the broad Australian accents. From what I know, they are here, too. Gawd!