The World Beyond BetterMost > Anything Goes
Hugh Hugh Hugh!
louisev:
And I just got back from seeing it at my local theater - there was a decent sized crowd, not a large crowd. And for those who weren't turned on by Hugh in X-Men, or wished he wasn't a claw-handed mutant, and those who thought he was just too evil in The Prestige, and maybe a little too polite and stuffy in "Kate and Leopold", this movie shows the full range of beefcake Hugh for anyone's appetite. And that soapsuds scene does something you have to keep your eyes on the screen for because it's, um... you'll know what I mean when you see it.
I had filled up on the negative reviews before I went and was very pleasantly surprised. It would not have succeeded as a cattle-drive film because that story was too thin. But then it expanded, and expanded some more, and the back story of Hugh's character and his connection to the aborigines who are part of his droving team ( I don't want to spoil the plot here) really made it a full range story for him as a character. I don't think Nicole fared so well, mostly because of the horrifically bad hairdos, one after the other. But nothing could mar Hugh's looks. And his pants could not have been any tighter. See what a shallow movie critic I am? You won't be disappointed.
belbbmfan:
Louise and Leslie, you're telling all the right things: an old fashioned movie, lots and lots of Hugh goodness... Yummy!!
20 days to go! :)
delalluvia:
Not great.
MIGHT BE SOME SPOILERS BELOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nicole was god-awful in the first part - but I think that's Baz's (the director) touch. He does a bit of dramedy in most all of his movies and this was no exception. That made the first part of the movie to me almost over-the-top and over-acted comical. Especially for Nicole. They had to establish her character I guess, so they did it in this fashion, but this is where I wish they had done more Out of Africa realism than what they did do.
I didn't like how it was narrated or that it had to be narrated at all. I think the audience could have picked up the themes without having to be told. I believe that would have made the movie stronger by making it more powerful through its subtlety. I didn't like the heavy-handed-knock-you-over-the-head-over-and-over again with the theme song that went through it. Again, something that could have been used like a repeating refrain without being overly obvious about it.
I disliked the weird post modern PC correctness of the family theme thing - see Out of Africa for how an aristocrat from a high social class handles a cute native child.
The cattle drive was filmed weirdly, with obvious staged scenes interspersed with on location shots. I guess they did pick up scenes and added them into the location filming, but the add-ins were very obvious as were the special effects.
Eventually the movie got serious and Nicole started to shine and show that award winning talent.
I have nothing but praise for Hugh Jackman's performance from beginning to end. He was the straight man in this and played it straight throughout. He was unbelievable - in a good way - in his scenes, radiating emotion so intensely at times that it just burned through you, it was so convincing.
His obligatory shirtless scenes were extremely intense as well. ;D
The vistas were sweeping and beautiful, I liked the mysticism and I liked the war part.
Overall, 2 out of 4 stars, Hugh Jackman's body and acting gets 4 out of 4 stars :-*
MaineWriter:
from the Huffington Post:
Michael Jones
Posted November 30, 2008 | 08:17 PM (EST)
In Praise of Australia
Let those without a heart beating in their breasts give Australia less than four stars. Those who boo kids at Easter Egg hunts, yell at referees at junior hockey games, sneer at sunrises, cut in line in front of little old ladies, give out healthy snacks at Halloween, talk during the Star Spangled Banner... they will laugh and slang at Australia. A pox on them. They prove that they are not really members of the human race.
For if you have a heart, if your thick cynicism barely covers a romantic soul a mile wide, if you teared up at the last scene in In America, if John Wayne in the doorway at the end of The Searchers made you feel something somewhere in you, if you have a pulse, you will love Australia.
I have looked at the reviews: two stars, two and a half stars, I did not read them.
I walked into the movie uninfluenced by words, but worried by the lack of eight down in today's New York Times crossword puzzle: critical acclaim. Biased? Perhaps, I love Baz Luhrmann's movies, but was resigned not to like this movie. I had read a scathing catty critique of all things Nicole Kidman that made me wonder at her status as Baz's favorite actress. I had read of Luhrmann scurrying to recut the movie days before its premiere. I went hopeful, but wary.
And then, from the graphic beauty of the opening credits to the bigger than the Outback story line, Baz had me at G'day. All the most popular of fictions swirling around its epic story: improbable love, class differences, larger than life characters, incredible landscape, life and death. And, my favorite story technique, an omniscient narrator speaking from some time in the future about the past that you are viewing. A movie with highs and lows, tensions built and equitably satisfied, a soaring score, a major throwback, stirring, Hollywood epic.
I just reread that paragraph and I hope it entices you to go see Australia, but, I realized I hadn't even mentioned cattle drives, bar fights, war, violence, mystery, love unrequited, love requited. It is such a big movie that at one point, halfway in, I fully expected a dissolve to a 'Intermission' sign and cocktails in the lobby discussing what we had all just seen and then back in for the climax. Australia feels like one of those big road show movies of the fifties: Ben-Hur, Cleopatra, The Ten Commandments, The Longest Day.
Most interestingly in such a classically told movie, is its historic story line on Aboriginal racism. Modern movies usually treat race and other au courant social issues with a bludgeon, making critical opinion an exercise in proving one's bonafides. As in Crash, an Oscar winner which will be as unwatchable in ten years as 'Ordinary People.'
Australia has at its core, a story of race. It tells that story in a way that makes everyone understand the injustice and cruelty through character and event. There is no treacle, nor superiority, nor moral wallowing.
I once met Jimmy Pike, an Aboriginal artist, who found success in prison, drawing dreams with magic markers. He and his family danced at an Australian government function I attended. They were forced to wear adult diapers to hide their nakedness, with the smell of a two thousand year old culture assaulting our aftershaved, perfumed, and deodorized senses. I didn't realize then, but do now after seeing Australia, how demeaning an experience it must have been to them and should have been to me.
Repugnance to racism does not overwhelm Australia but is an integral part of the story. No bludgeon to make its points, but a narrative flow that involves us all in discovering and understanding its evil. The characters are as compelling as the narrative: the youngster who plays a mixed race boy real; Hugh Jackman heroic and with a masculine beauty that Baz Luhrmann is unashamed in reveling in (there is a soap and suds soft porn shot so compelling that Mormons in California might reconsider their Prop 8 vote); a dastardly bad guy that joins the ranks of classic movie bad guys; Nicole Kidman, unlined but not distracting in her unworldliness, effective as Lady Sarah Ashley, effective in portraying love and the need to be loved in a highly sympathetic way; Bryan Brown, not seen on the screen of late, a robber baron who would give the Rockefellers a run for their plutocratic money.
Four stars. Or ten points. Or A+. Or a confession that Australia is so sappy in some parts that I had to do the old look at the ceiling and hope that no one noticed the welling eyes. Two stars? Two and half stars? Criticism based on plot holes, improbability, unbelievability, or a sentimental script? Piss on the hard hearted bastards. They watch six movies a day in little rooms with pasty porcine nerds scribbling notes while eating take out. If you love movies and watch them in real movie houses with fellow movie lovers, Australia is just for you, mate. But, bring a box of tissues, and, remember that the heart will always trump reason if given half a chance. Especially in a movie like Australia.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-jones/in-praise-of-emaustraliae_b_147041.html?view=print
MaineWriter:
What news!
FLASH: Academy wants Hugh Jackman to drove, er, host Oscars
"Deadline Hollywood Daily" columnist Nikki Finke reported Thursday that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences was thinking "outside the box" in terms of who it wanted to host the 81st Academy Awards show in February, and today she provides a specific name: Hugh Jackman!
Jackman, who was recently named People magazine's "Sexiest Man Alive," seems to be an inspired choice. He's dashing (wavy hair, killer smile), strapping (6-foot-2, built), likable (smart and kind) and tremendously talented (acts, sings, dances). He’s been groomed for stardom like the classic leading men: He tackled the stage in “The Boy from Oz” (2003-2004) and became Broadway’s darling, winning a Tony; he was introduced to movie-going women in a rom-com, “Kate and Leopold” (2001), earning a Golden Globe nod; and he picked up his guy's-guy credentials in the “X-Men” films (2000, 2003, 2006), each of which topped the box office. And although his latest film, "Australia," has been a critical and commercial disappointment, he gave an endearing performance and has escaped most of the blame.
So is Jackman game? Finke reports that he is — on the condition that the format of the show be slightly altered to better fit his strengths, which do not include stand-up comedy. A shakeup probably wouldn't be the worst thing for the Oscars, the ratings of which have been sagging for the last decade. The Academy has already brought in new blood to produce this year's show, Larry Mark and Bill Condon, and both of them have apparently been very receptive to Jackman's request and are prepared to cut out the traditional opening monologue.
My sense is that this could be a brilliant alliance that would last for years. The most frequent and successful hosts in the past — Bob Hope, Billy Crystal, Whoopi Goldberg, Steve Martin, etc. — were all familiar faces in Hollywood but still essentially outsiders, figuratively (they were best known for their work in another entertainment medium, such as television, stand-up comedy, etc.) and literally (most were from New York). Jackman fits both criteria perfectly, and if his success at hosting the 2003, 2004, and 2005 Tony Awards is any further indication, he would be a resounding success at the Oscars.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/files/2008/12/flash-academy-w.html
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version