"Australia:" Land Down Under as in Underperformer

20th Century Fox had such high hopes for "Australia," both as a commercial success and a critic's favorite -- after all, it's directed by Baz Luhrmann, a filmmaker long beloved by critics of all stripes -- that I got a call a week ago from a very high-placed Fox executive, boasting that the release of "Australia" last Friday would mark the end of The Streak. For blog newcomers, let me recap: Putting aside the animated kids' classic, "Horton Hears a Who," Fox had released 22 consecutive movies since "The Simpsons Movie" arrived in July 2007, none of which managed to score better than a mediocre 50 on Rotten Tomatoes, the web's most reliable aggregator of movie reviews.

So the Fox exec eagerly reminded me that it was only fair that with the release of "Australia," I would have to take note of the streak's end, since it was obvious that a Baz Luhrmann film would surely be a critic's delight. Well, all I can is: Barely.

For all its directorial ambition, "Australia" just squeaked into positive Rotten Tomatoes territory, scoring a 53, which, to give a little perspective, means that it got the same score as last summer's forgettable comedy "Get Smart." So the streak is over, but it's probably a Pyrrhic victory. "Australia" has bigger problems, having stumbled out of the starting gate at the box office, barely making $20 million in its first five days of release. Even the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal called the movie the weekend's "biggest box-office disappointment," saying the "lackluster" opening will make it hard for the studio to attract a larger audience in the weeks to come. The Murdoch-owned New York Post, which apparently has total freedom to tweak its owner, gleefully called the film's opening "embarrassing."

Fox can't say I'm not an admirer of the film -- it's using excerpts from my largely enthusiastic review as one of the blurbs in its newspaper ads. But the real problem with "Australia," despite its hefty budget -- $130 million plus a giant wad of marketing expenses -- is that it's the ultimate tweener. It's an epic art film. But epics need movie stars, which "Australia" lacks, and art films need great reviews, along with ardent audience buzz, to find a sizable audience. That's what has propelled recent breakout hits including "Crash," "Brokeback Mountain" and "Juno" to success -- money reviews and great word of mouth. So far, the consensus on "Australia" is that for all its bravura filmmaking, it feels naggingly unsatisfying. Clocking in at 2 hours and 45 minutes, the movie seems like two or three historical sagas squeezed into one big package. Box Office Mojo compares "Australia's" opening with the 2003 holiday opening for "Cold Mountain," an equally ambitious historical epic -- also co-starring Nicole Kidman -- that never made it past the $95-million mark at the U.S. box office.    

At least "Cold Mountain" got an awards season boost from seven Oscar nominations (though no best picture nod). As history shows, it's almost impossible for a film with "Australia's" mediocre critical response to land a best picture nomination, which robs Fox of an important marketing tool in keeping the film afloat in a crowded marketplace. Fox execs insist that the movie will attract tons of adults in weeks to come, citing the film's weekend numbers, which went up significantly as the weekend unfolded, a signal that the film had strong word of mouth support. While acknowledging that the reviews were mixed, the studio said that "Australia" earned its best reviews from top critics, citing good reviews from Roger Ebert, Time, Newsweek, the L.A. Times and the New York Times.

In fact, the studio is so bullish that it sees "Australia" emulating the box-office performance of the equally adult-oriented "The Bucket List," which opened modestly last Christmas, but ended up making $93 million in the U.S. alone. I don't find that a persuasive comparison. "Australia" is a filmmaker epic, "The Bucket List" was a cheesy popcorn comedy propelled by a loveable movie star (Jack Nicholson). My guess is that "Australia" will find it tougher sledding over the holidays, up against plenty of adult-oriented films that will earn much stronger reviews. Still, I'm glad Fox made the movie. I've long argued that Fox should be a more filmmaker-friendly studio, and whatever you say about "Australia," it is surely a filmmaker's movie.

The only problem is that without any bankable stars in the picture ("Australia" once again proving that Kidman is many things, but not a movie star), Fox has been forced to sell it as a Baz Luhrmann film. And as all of us Baz fans know well, Luhrmann is many things, most notably a brilliant artist, but he is not a popcorn-chewing, crowd-pleasing filmmaker. He is, irony of all ironies, the poster boy for the rationale behind Fox Searchlight, Fox's specialty division, which keeps a tight lid on expenses, so it can make money selling daring films to specialized audiences.

Perhaps because Rupert Murdoch is one of Baz's biggest fans, Luhrmann had the kind of creative freedom at Fox that only Jim Cameron has enjoyed. But the postmodern sensibility that makes "Australia" such a rousing, but strangely self-conscious epic, is a sensibility that really only fits the Searchlight economic model. (Even though Fox did defray a big chunk of "Australia" expenses, thanks to Australian government tax breaks and outside equity investors.) Expect to see Fox double-down on its marketing efforts to give the movie a big boost, gambling that the film could do considerably better overseas, but you have to wonder if "Australia" will be the kind of movie the rest of the world will wholeheartedly embrace.   

Photo: Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman in "Australia." Credit: James Fisher / 20th Century Fox

Comments

[joseph (Australia)]

Thanks for the lukewarm response for Australia.
When the film was made it was a vehcile for Australia tourism so using aussie stars is a must. And Im pretty positive Jackman and Kidman are the some of Australia's biggest export movie stars (Kidman was once the highest paid actress in hollywood). Only Russell Crowe is bigger but he was in then left the production.
My point is being australian I get it, as in the movie and the goal its trying to achieve, amercians wouldnt necessarily get the movie's concept. They got Titanic cause Dicaprio was in it or Celine Dion was singing a song on it. In saying this the american public would rather pay there money to see "Four Christmases" which looks like another woeful quality movie then "Australia. You got to say 'Australia' is more of a quality movie, it has more heart and soul, the cast and crew are like family.
Maybe the name puts off the american public, even though australians are likeable we are probably not viewed as people to sit down and watch for 3 hours in a movie cinema.
Another point is I read a report that FOX in america put a 'action flick for young men' tagline across to promote the movie, which you must admit is much much more then that.

[peter white]

Problem you have is there's not enough sex, blood,gore and swearing for bulk of US audiences in this movie. So when a grandiose production comes along you pan it.

Clearly ignorance is bliss if you go and see a crap movie if an "American" star performs,
just look at what's popular on T.V, surely there's the truth.

I saw the movie , cinema crowded , very quiet attentive group throughout . They clapped at ending.

[Cinda Stevens]

Nasty eh? I don't hear any valid reasoning in your critique. You say the film can't achieve because Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman aren't stars enough to bring in an audience? Poppycock reason. Give Australian audiences a bit more credibility. I saw the film yesterday and am still enjoying flashbacks to some of the most spectacular images on film I've ever seen. The intensity of the seen where the cattle are driven almost to their deaths was incredible - movies don't achieve better than that! I think you need to remember what we go to the movies for. For me its first & foremost for entertainment & then to experience emotional highs. 'Australia's unashamed romanticism & heroism did it for me. Hugh is a dream & Nicole (who I have never enjoyed before) won my heart by the end of the film.
Tall Poppy syndrome is alive and well.

[Diana]

Just saw the film and beg your pardon, but it was amazing. I sometimes feel critics are at best cynical most of the time. The theater that I watched the film in was packed and obviously disagrees with your opinion.

Nicole Kidman, Hugh Jackman, the young Brandon Walters and the entire cast was flawless.

A must see!

[Mark]

I loved the movie Australia. I give it an A +. The critics are wrong about this one.

[Jenna]

Two words: Hugh. Topless.

Nuff said.

[Ben from Australia]

This film was marketed for about a year before it's release, so we had lost interest by the time it finally came out. From the outset it sounded like a string of cliche's, scripted for rediculous "aussie" accents popular overseas that don't really exist in mainstream australia anymore (if ever). I don't know anyone who wants to see it and nobody here actually likes Nicole Kitman (other than herself). Hugh Jackman is a reasonable actor but basically a "yes man" who has no strategic choice of roles and follows his directors orders to his own detriment. The movie looks like a complete bore. Australian history is the possibly the dullest subject in school - basically we came here on some boats, made some houses and lived happily ever after. I only feel sorry for my friends in tourism who were counting on it.

[Sheldon]

While I enjoyed Australia more than I might have exepected - given the everything but the kitchen sink trailers - I thought it had a serious identity crisis. For me it seemed like a fusion of John Ford, Michael Bay and Yahoo Serious - odd bits of humour; grandiose battle scenes, and sprawling vistas.

I found the casting to be lovely, except for Kidman, whose frozen forehead completely took me out of the film whever she had to express any emotion that would normally cause one's forehead to furrow. I kept thinking back to the stunningly real actor who starred in Dead Calm - and that was kind of a sad thing for me. Personally, I had hopes that the rumours of her retirement would turn out to be true. I just can't believe her on screen anymore.

Brandon Walters, on the other hand, was brilliant. I don't know if the Oscar® nominations will include him as supporting actor, but I expect he'll walk away the the Aussie version of that award. Very impressive performance.

When I see that Rottentomatoes.com's rating for the film is 53% [not quite fresh, but not a total waste of celluloid], I have to agree. Using my system, I'd give it C+ - but I was hoping it be better...

[Robin]

Wow! What did Nicole Kidman do to you? Run over your cat or something? No bankable stars in Australia? My jaw dropped when I read that -- whaddya mean? Nicole Kidman is one of the biggest stars in Hollywood today -- every time you turn around she has the starring role in the latest movie coming out. And what about the Fabulous Hugh Jackman? He's one of the biggest reasons I went to see the film!! You must have some sort of ax to grind.

[Ron]

Jesus - look at these comments... we're a defensive bunch aren't we?

Robin, Nicole may a big star in our fish bowl (Australia... the country that is) and Hollywood too but her movies are not translating well with audiences... that's not an attack it's a proven fact. Cinda... what are you on about you drip? "Give Australian audiences a little more creditbility" this is an article about Australia's performance in the U.S... what in the f**ck does that line have to do with anything?