Definitely, the best thing about "Australia" is the cinematography. Each scene is big, a panorama -- the desert, the cattle herds, the horses, the battleships, the fighter planes, the bombs. Even the most intimate scenes are photographed to be larger than life. This definitely has to be seen on the big screen to fully appreciate all the color and drama of the awesome photography.
I was very surprised to see just now that "Australia" only earned one Oscar nomination, and it is NOT for cinematography. I do not really know why of all things, its unimpressive Costume Design was the one cited by the Academy.
Honestly, even at the start, I felt the story would not be too good. The beginning sequences are not really too interesting for me. The romance angle is too obviously following the old "bickering at first, lovers at the end" route. Luckily, lead stars Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman have a huge likability factor for the audience to stay on and watch. (But I wonder why Director Baz Luhrmann seemed to have played up Hugh Jackman's "People Magazine Sexiest Man Alive" citation a wee bit too much with all the close-ups and slow-mo devoted to him?)
The basic romance story winded from cattle herding in the outback to World War 2 to aboriginal issues. All of which really took up what felt like a lot of extra time for each of these subplots. While still a visual spectacle, overall "Australia" was a picture of excesses. A more streamlined cut would have been a more palatable feast.
No comments:
Post a Comment