Printable View
In our trip up Nth in '07 we were in Bowen where a lot of the filming was done and we have a great Vid of the sets etc......haven't seen the movie would like too though..
When in Darwin '08 we went to the museum and I sure didn't realise how much Darwin did cop it in the war....and the cemetery at Adelaide River with all those graves and the Post Office family and staff.....just unbelivable
Mrs ho har
We watched it as a family thing -kids loved it -but they suffer from disney syndrome anyway-i though it was a load of B*** S***.It could of been so much better -its not hard to see it was made for the US market with their odd way of distorting history.
I found it to be alright, but wasn't overly keen on how they computered in sections of land scape that don't exsist in oz;)
Still a pretty good movie:)
I believe most of it was shot on blue screen in studio and then post processed (from talking to an acquaintance who worked on post prod).Quote:
Originally Posted by long stroke
Martyn
I couldn't sit thru it all, about half way I retirered to the computer room.
What a load of crap. If it was an american movie, it would be one of the worst !!!
They couldn't even source authentic Aussie stock sadles and the trainer
who taught them to ride must have been an ex jockey.
Australian stockmen dont ride with short reins and crouch over the sadle,
although the george street cowboys might.
I hated to see it.
The little black kid done good but and I liked the old black fella ( they are
my favourite people ).
Over all, YUK PEW.
I wonder whether some of the people criticising the film would complain after watching a musical that it was unrealistic because people kept bursting into song or would criticise a Western because a cowboy actually hit someone with a shot from a revolver at 100 metres.
If you go to a musical, you expect even people like Meryl Streep in "Mama Mia" to burst into song at the drop of a hat. If you expect anything different of course you will be disappointed.
If you went along to see "Australia" expecting meticulous historical accuracy, realistic characters and dialogue and expecting to see the stitching on the drovers' belts, hat bands and boots done exactly the way it was done in the '40s, then I expect you will have been disappointed.
If on the hand you went along expecting a grand spectacle where everything and everyone was larger than life and were prepared to suspend disbelief for a couple of hours, you probably had a wonderful time.
The fact that a film, a book or a vehicle does not live up to your expectations may simply indicate that you didn't do your homework and you had unrealistic expectations.
VNX 205, for me it wasn't quite like you described.
I downloaded it and watched it hoping to be entertained.
I wasn't expecting to see a documentry either but if you are going to spend millions making a movie, a little accuracy in the detail makes a lot
of difference. That saddle that Nic had was tailor made for her and cost $5 G, fair enough but how much harder would it have been to do it all properly ? The boys could have looked like Aussie stockmen without
taking anything away from it all.
Every old bushman in the country laughed at it. Its not just us tho,
with your musical, attention to small detail can make or break the thing
if it is watched by musicians or dont they, we, count in the scheme of things at the box office ?
The small,no more expensive detail, has nothing to do with the storyline
that is a different thing altogether.
Most viewers dont care and are easily entertained, thats why american crap is so popular. Give them shoot em up bang bang and ten foot tall
heeroes and they are in heaven. Its escapism, which is necessary but
it can be mixed with a little realism at the same time.
The way it was done it should not have been called ' Australia '.
In my opinion it did the nation no favours
For no more money, it could have been so much better in my opinion.
I was disapointed and that was a huge disapointment.
I really enjoyed the movies Rabbit Proof fence and Ten Canoes, both of which were made at a fraction of the cost and I am proud of the fact
that they were both made here in Oz.
David Gulpilil is my favourite Actor.
Cheers.
OK olbod, it looks as if I had better cross you off my list of people unfairly criticising the film. :p
I understand your point about it being hard to enjoy a film when there is something bothering you about the way it has been made. I had a great difficulty enjoying "Mama Mia" for example, partly because of the amateurish choreography, but mainly because the idiotic, immature squealing of the young girl and her visiting friends at the start of the film irritated me so much.
However there is an important difference between those two things. The first one is a legitimate criticism of the way the film was made, the second is nothing more than a personal reaction.
I think the film does suffer from the fact that most people have some idea how much it cost and how long it took to make. Those things combined with its title and all the hype surrounding the film meant that it was always going to have an uphill battle being accepted as value for money.
In theory, how much it cost to make should not be a factor in judging the artistic qualities of the film. It should be judged purely by what appears on the screen. In practice, however, I can see why people have trouble ignoring the cost of production because it got so much publicity.
There will always be differences in people's purely personal reaction to a film and there will even be differences between people's assessment of the cinematic qualities of a film.
We agree about "Ten Canoes" and "Rabbit Proof Fence", both of which I thought were exceptional films. We obviously disagree about "Australia".
I am still sure that some people's evaluation of "Australia" is flawed because they are judging it against the wrong standards.
I won't include you in that group if you promise not to harbour a suspicion that I am a fan of mindless Hollywood tripe. Is that a deal? :p
vnx205, yes, fair enough.
I was just venting my frustration due to my disapointment with the movie.
They called it 'Australia' and I read a couple of things about it including
what it cost to make.
I made the mistake of thinking they made a serious attempt to make an
epic Australian historical film that would be deemed to be a classic.
They didn't and it wasn't.
If it had been called something else and had been billed as a larger than
life, fictional, good fun romp, the storyline would have gone over okay and I would have nothing to complain about because I would not have watched it. Those sort of movies are not my cup of tea.
I dont think I am the only one that came a gutsa. The movie was
called 'Australia' and it bombed out world wide because people judged
it by what it wasn't, rather than what it was !!
If they had gotten a few small details right, maybe even I might have
watched it to the end !!!
The last time I actually went to the theatre to watch a movie was in 1986.
We took some kids along to see 'crocodile dundee'. Yuk Pew. I vowed
never to do anything like that again and I havent since.
I am a big fan tho, of Dr Who, eh.
A few weeks ago I downloaded the b/w 1946 movie, 'The Overlanders'
with good ol Chips Rafferty. Again, war in the top end, moving a big
mob of cattle south out of reach of the japs. I thought it was excellent.
OH well.
Cheers.
We watched it on the plane going up to Thailand a couple of weeks ago, and while we enjoyed the movie, unfortunately the television / projection system on the plane was of pretty poor quality, and the picture was very "washed out" throughout most of the movie.
Will have to see it again, either on the big screen or at least, on a decent TV at home, to get a bit better appreciation of the scenery etc.