Australia: Another Look
This morning, MSN put up what they’re calling an “exclusive video” for Baz Luhrmann’s Australia, though many sources are calling it a trailer. I suppose it’s a pointless semantic argument, but to me a trailer plays in a theater before a movie. Anything else is a commercial or a promotional video. Whatever this is, it’s a more extended look at the film than we’ve yet seen.
I know there is a strong, vocal group of people who can’t stand Nicole Kidman, but I’m not one of them. I even liked her in Margot at the Wedding, a film I otherwise mostly hated. I’m still not sure how to feel about this one though. What do you think?
Filed under: Marketing
Tags: Australia, Baz Luhrmann, Hugh Jackman, Nicole Kidman
Related Posts: - The wait is over: ‘Without a Paddle’ gets a sequel
- Village Voice/LA Weekly Poll Strikes Oil
- Baumbach and Ruffalo and Adams…Oh My
- AFI Fest 2007: Day 10
- Weekend Forecast: 11/16/07
I’m in the tank for Baz Luhrman, really like and respect both Kidman and Jackman, am reading about Australia (the nation) now, get weak in the knees for Australian accents and loved the heck out of The English Patient, which this at least superficially resembles. I guess you’d say I’m looking forward to it.
You’re just a quivering puddle of goo for this movie!
What’d you think of the video? Is it living up to your weighty expectations so far?
Joe Leydon believes in it from a 20-minute chunk of footage he saw, from what I remember from back when I actually visited David Poland’s blog.
Good enough for me.
This is going to sound contradictory, but for me, with Luhrman’s movies, weighty expectations aren’t really an issue. I just go in there really curious about what he’ll do new and different. I suppose if he turned out a truly pedestrian film, I’d be disappointed, but not so far. This film looks more epic than anything else he’s done, which always contains the possibility of falling flat or getting bogged down in pacing issues, but yeah, it looks good to me. Luhrman’s unabashedly romantic, which will turn off more than a few cynical hearts I’m sure, but so far his romances have always worked for this gal’s sappy little heart.
I’m not expecting this one to redefine film, or reinvent the sweeping romantic epic, but I’m expecting to be swept up in a beautifully told story for a couple of hours.
It seems a little Mainstreamy from what I’ve come to expect from Luhrmann, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
It sounds like you’re going into it with the best possible attitude JB.
Mainstream, Craig? I guess you haven’t seen the deleted scene with the Aborigines drinking absinthe and ballroom dancing with the green fairy in a giant kangaroo windmill while singing Shakespeare lyrics to Madonna songs sung by Hugh Jackman.
Hey, a girl can dream.
Mmmmmmmm….
I’d give up my firstborn child to see this NOW.
Wait. I don’t have a firstborn child.
Whatever you can say about Baz, he’s an accomplished visual stylist. I do agree fervently with much of what jenny stated above.
Looks a lot like TEP and OUT OF AFRICA. Seeing as those are two of my all time favourites, I can take it if it’s kinda derivative.
Don’t want to wait. But I’ll have to.
I am stoked, though. This is my kind of flick.
hahah JB, yeah I missed that.
Miranda, I’m glad to see you’re excited about SOMEthing this season!
(also, thank you all for not mocking my semantical hard-assedness out loud)
I’m so ridiculously excited about this film. After MOULIN ROUGE I would follow Luhrmann anywhere. I’ve always liked and respected Kidman, especially after THE HOURS, which was my #1 film of 2002. She’s made some questionable commercial choices since then, but I think she’s a fabulous actress. I even liked MARGOT AT THE WEDDING, but I very much like Baumbach’s sensibilities, and I’ve seen the film more than once and enjoyed it each time. I don’t like it as much as THE SQUID AND THE WHALE (which I LOVED) but I still respected it for what it was.
I’m not too excited about this for some reason. I really admire Nicole and Hugh Jackman became a favorite after “The Prestige.” But Luhrmann…um…not too big a fan of his. I might see it just for the spectacle of it all (it looks like the type of movie made for the big screen), but as of now, it’s way at the bottom of my must-see list.
I’m inclined to see this because of what Luhrmann did with Moulin Rouge, but I don’t know how well it’ll be in a different (natural) setting. Certainly it looks good and Kidman and Jackman appear to have chemistry between them, and that can really help.
It really gets down to whether the story measures up to the spectacle of it, and I don’t know anything about that.
Agreed on the chemistry part Pierre. They look absolutely fabulous together.
For the record Matthew, I liked Squid and the Whale. Margot just rubbed me the wrong way for some reason. I think it was the scene where Jennifer Jason Leigh shit her pants…
And there’s a terrific interview with Hugh Jackman coming up in the December issue of Cowboys & Indians magazine, on sale Oct. 21 at fine newsstands everywhere.
Joe, you’re like Beetle Juice. Say your name and you appear out of thin air… :)
Or Candyman. (Actually, it helps when you get a Google alert in your mailbox each time your name is mentioned in one of the better blogs.)
My evil plan worked.
And yes, it does look like the two leads here have chemistry, something that I thought was lacking in Cold Mountain, for instance.
That’s interesting. I assume the Google alert doesn’t do anything if you mention Loe Jeydon.
Cold Mountain had a lot of problems which I mostly blame on the interference of the Weinsteins into a movie that should have been left alone to Minghella and co., but given its huge budget that was going to be impossible.
I concur with those here who have evinced enthusiasm as a result of MOULIN ROUGE.
PASS.
I know, I’m a pithy mofo these days.