So I finally had time this week, while Nathan was out of town traveling on business, to watch Australia, starring Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman, and directed by the incomparable Baz Luhrmann. It took me two evenings to finish it. Yes. Two. If you haven't seen the film or heard of it, you can find trailers for it here.

This was a very long film. That doesn't start my review off on very good footing, does it? Hmph. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the film, and I have sat through films much longer (and some even all in one sitting), so it's not the length that is bothering me -- it's that the film felt long. Some of my musings here can be considered spoilers, so if you're planning to watch you might want to skim / skip with care.

Baz Luhrmann directed a wonderful film here, and you can see the quality of his direction and personalized mark all over the place. At its core, Australia is a love story, but there were a few interesting elements thrown into the mix: quite a bit of current political commentary couched into the portrayal of the plight of the 'Stolen Generations,' with a healthy dose of related racism thrown in appropriately; a battle of 'good' versus ... well, not evil, per se, but we'll go with morally corrupt here; a bit of the struggle to become a man plot element many 'feel-good' films feature... there really was a bit of almost every major film theme in the storyline, as one would probably expect from a film of this scope.

I don't want to sell the film short. It was gorgeous. The cinematography was excellent, the visual effects stunning (but without automatically being realized as such except to more keen eyed viewers) with deft (but heavy) reliance on CGI enhancements, the look, feel, set design, and color of the film were in keeping with Baz's other luminous undertakings, the acting exemplary and featuring a well-chosen cast - they really all gave remarkable and enjoyable performances.

But something didn't quite work for me with Australia.

The most obvious and universal complaint among viewers is the main plot was unsophisticated and unsurprising, but then, most romance films have exactly the same plot so in my opinion that isn't necessarily a bad thing. In other reviews I've read of the film, some even call the plot 'weak,' and I can definitely see what they are driving at -- Australia was a bit like Disney meets Gone With The Wind, with a few eerie similarities. There were definitely no surprises in its ending for me whatsoever, but again as I wasn't expecting any, that didn't necessarily bother me.

I can definitely see how many people would find the film slow and even a bit boring, however. A friend described Australia this way: "Long? or was it long? Long, maybe? I thought it was long, with 4-6 fake endings. And long." =) My friend BugFrog is marvelous, by the way - you can read more about BugFrog here.

I heartily warn away any and all (well, almost all) straight men from this film. Almost definitely, they either won't get it or won't want to tolerate it, will find it irritatingly tedious, and in general won't be better off for the experience of watching it. That's not a jab at straight men, mind you. Viewing this film will probably drive most straight men to drink. Heavily. And not in a necessarily good way. And no offense to my dear BugFrog, whose assessment of the film I have to agree with.

So that might lead you to believe this film is really more for guys with tastes more like mine? Wink, wink. =) You can laugh. That was funny. But the surprising (for some) answer is NOPE, not necessarily. Of course, Australia will appeal to some men who enjoy epic films largely for their aesthetic value. But that definitely doesn't mean if you're a gay man you'll go ape over it as I didn't feel that way myself and I can definitely say Nathan wouldn't sit through it unless I made him.

No, this film is definitely largely one for the ladies, and those of an artistic mind at that. Even so, not all ladies would enjoy it either -- another friend of mine who is a die-heard romance film junkie, gave it only three out of five stars on Netflix, and probably because, as BugFrog so aptly puts it, the film was "long." =)

To its credit (or detriment, depending on your taste) Australia is decidedly Luhrmanesque, and to the gills, as well as almost overwhelming in scope -- the film reaches to encompass many things, many elements, many epic shots, many beautifully lit stylized moments, and consequently almost thumps you over the head with its 'epic-ness.' Some might find this irritating. And confusing. And most will definitely find it long.

I couldn't finish it in one sitting. Although I had the time, after the fourth "fake ending" or so, I found I just didn't have the strength and shut it off, deciding on some 'The Sims 3' instead (Yup, I play. I admit it. It's fun. Too fun.). Anyhow, that should definitely tell you something; I love many different kinds of films, from thrillers to documentaries, from feel-good to horror, from drama and character study to silly comedy, and I really wanted to love this film, but I just couldn't. Instead, we'll go with 'I liked it.'

Slow doesn't bother me. Even long doesn't really scare me away. But as I said at the beginning of this casual collection of observations, the film felt long, and I don't think that's a good thing. Perhaps in its sincere and even aggressive attempts to try to be a truly great film it overreached and missed its mark a bit, leaving some viewers befuddled, overwhelmed, tired, heading for a serious sugar-crash from its saccharine-sweetness, and in need of a bathroom.

If you have some time to kill, and if you want to see a truly beautiful film that saturates you with color, dazzles you with scenery, intrigues you with presenting a side of Australian life you might not be familiar with (the film does an excellent job of this), and wows you with its epic stylized gorgeous saturated glowy long-shots, you should see this film. Australia isn't a bad film, not at all, but I don't think I can call it 'Great.'