comment #1

Gnome de Guerre says ...

My interpretation of those statements is that Kidman's unhappy with her performance (rather than the with film itself).

comment #2

actionman says ...

She should be. She was shrill and annoying and very awkward throughout much of the film. Granted, her character is total fish-out-of-water, but she didn't seem herself in the film. It also doesn't help when Jackman and his infinite man-hair steal every scene right out from under her.

comment #3

actionman says ...

And believe me, I don't like saying this. I've loved some of her work -- Eyes Wide Shut, Birth, To Die For, Cold Mountain, The Hours, The Others, Dead Calm. She can be great when she wants to be.

comment #4

Chase Kahn says ...

No one could have done anything with that role. She would have had to prance around in a G-string with a cowboy hat to match what Jackman was doing every scene...

comment #5

plastiqueelephant says ...

Poor Nicole. I'm Australian and caught the film in Mumbai last week with huge excitement, I loved Baz's first three films and its called "Australia" for chrissakes. The film left me fuming with rage... what a piece of crap. She couldn't connect with it emotionally because there wasn't a piece of genuine emotion in it. Baz made a film inspired by his love of American golden classics, not, um, Australia. I thought it was insulting that he spent five months in the outback essentially shooting plates for green screens he shot in Sydney at Fox Studios. You think Lean would've done that?

I don't think it's so much that she's "great when she wants to be" but she's a bit of a unformed piece of putty (like Brad Pitt). She sees to channel the director, when she's with someone smart and nuanced (Van Sant, Frears) that's how she acts. When she's with someone vapid (Frank Oz) that's how she acts.

What a shame, this film is a massive missed opportunity for the Australian industry and director's looking to return to that classical epic.

comment #6

Geoff says ...

I feel bad for Hugh Jackman. The guy did a great job with what was written.

comment #7

BurmaShave says ...

I hope this is the first step in a turnaround for her.

comment #8

MilkMan says ...

Baz Lurhman is turning out to be a bad filmmaker but a great story.

He's a classic flameout, someone who had it for a moment, and then didn't have it, and never got it back.

It's time to reassess what you're doing as a director when your leading lady is trying to distance herself from you.

Kidman wasn't upset with her performance, she was upset with Lurhman's interpretation of her performance, with what takes he chose to use, with the direction he gave her, that she trusted him to not make her look ridiculous which is exactly what he did.

It would be a shock if Baz was allowed to work with that much money again.

He's entered the Gilliam Zone. For the rest of his career he's going to have people tell him what a genius they think he is while he's directing Australian T.V. Movies of the Week.

comment #9

john says ...

Enough already. You've trashed this film to the hilt. It was a pleasant enough entertainment and, despite your proclamation of dead, dead, dead, a few weeks ago, the film is headed for a worldwide gross in the neighborhood of $200 million.

comment #10

hiviper says ...

plastique,
great observation. Certain actors need to be prodded by the director to do their best, and Kidman and Pitt are good examples of that. They both have great stuff and utter crap on their resumes, and I think that the directors were responsible for that in a big way.

comment #11

arturobandini2 says ...

I bet that final chapter of Lars von Trier's USA trilogy is starting to look mighty tempting to ol' Stretchybrow right about now.

comment #12

MilkMan says ...

It's a big bag of ham hocks, said John..

comment #13

D.Z. says ...

So is the first time she actually saw one of her films?

comment #14

Edward Havens says ...

Because no actor in the history of cinema has ever stated he or she has felt uncomfortable watching themselves in a movie...

comment #15

plastiqueelephant says ...

As much as I loathe AUSTRALIA, I'm not sure it's quite time to categorize Baz as a bad filmmaker for evermore. Plenty of great directors have misfires in them (Coppola and Scorcese spring to mind), especially when they're lauded as geniuses early and their wings haven't been burned yet by letting the hubris of their extravagances lead them into making a self-indulgent piece of rubbish.

The best thing he could do is take the criticism on board as fair, and move quickly onto something stripped back like Aronofsky did with THE WRESTLER. Hope he does, at his best he's made films that no-one else ever could and that's as rare as fairydust in the big ticket studio world.

comment #16

plastiqueelephant says ...

And by the way, the last thing he should do is make THE GREAT GATSBY. Tackling that ill-fated adaption would take hubris to new levels. Gatsby is such an empty protagonist, it'd play into the very weaknesses he displayed in AUSTRALIA. I really hope he makes something stripped back centred around a compelling central character, a RAGING BULL if you will after his NEW YORK, NEW YORK.

comment #17

Chinaski says ...

This whole story is essentially bogus. Whoever originally wrote it up just cherry-picked quotes from a radio interview and made it seem like she said she hated the film to fit the guy's story. This is exactly the sort of thing Ebert wrote about in his blog a while ago, how the standards of journalism have gone down. What she said was that she can never watch any of her own films because she's very uncomfortable watching herself on screen, surely not that uncommon a phenomenon. She apparently agreed to watch Australia at the premiere out of her respect for Baz and while she likes the movie, watching herself up there was uncomfortable for her. It's a non-story.

comment #18

AndrewOwens says ...

Yeah she's spoken before about how she finds it torture to watch herself on screen and has no objectivity about it. At no point does she actually critisise the film.

Haven't had a chance to see Australia yet but can't wait!

comment #19

Chase Kahn says ...

plastique -- the difference is that Aronofsky's 'The Fountain' was a good film, 'Australia' isn't.

comment #20

CJ says ...

While I think this article is just out of context junk I do hope Kidman starts reading scripts before she signs on. We in Australia think that this film has exposed Baz for what he really is, ie not a very good film maker. He has always surrounded himself with brilliant people, his wife being the main genius that have propped him up. I hope he has learnt some humility but I highly doubt it.

comment #21

rr3333 says ...

Hard to believe the story, simply because Kidman would be unable to squirm, let alone show any emotion at all, considering all that work that was done to her face.