Action Comedy TV: Showrunner Matt Nix 
SAG National Board Approves Joint Bargaining … 
BBC Drama Unfreezes Development Money; … 
Lionsgate Board Rejects Icahn's $6/Share 
Is Betting On Box Office Good For Films? 
Marvel Still Looking For Captain America 
'Sopranos' Creator To Film Rock Drama 
LIVE-SNARKING THE 82ND OSCARS... 
'ALICE' IS A MONSTER! $116.3M Blows Past … 
Oscar Not-So-Thriller: Diller Mogul Picnic 
'Precious' Sweeps 25th Indie Spirit Awards 
Howard Stern Won't Be Next 'Idol' Judge 
Justin Theroux Readying 'Zoolander 2' For … 
Mickey Rourke Wooed For Two Big Roles, … 
CBS Reups Les Moonves Through 2015 
TUESDAY 4 PM UPDATE: MovieTickets.com says Twilight has sold more tickets on its site than Bolt, Quantum of Solace, Australia, and Milk combined, and still boasts over 345 upcoming sold out performances.
TUESDAY AM: This is shaping up as one of the big holiday weekends. No doubt the entire country may be in the mood for comedy, even a mediocre one, given the grim economic news. So it shouldn't be a surprise that New Line/Warner Bros' Four Christmases has "the best shot" to beat Summit Entertainment's low-cost blockbuster Twilight this weekend, according to my box office gurus. They're predicting the Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon PG-13 starrer should debut over $25M in its 3,200+ theaters for the 3-day weekend (which is far better than Vince's last seasonal outing of $18.5M in the just plain awful Fred Claus) and $35M for the 5-day holiday. Twilight should experience a big but not unexpected 3-day weekend drop into the high $20sM. But Summit hopes for low $30sM (3-day weekend) and mid $40sM (for the 5-day holiday). But it also could finish neck-and-neck with Disney's Bolt which, after a difficult debut last weekend when Twilight skewed younger than expected, could also end up in the high $20sM since Thanksgiving audiences love family pics so much. The release of 20th Century Fox's sweeping epic Australia in 2,600 venues should find itself in a race for #4 with Bond holdover Quantum of Solace from MGM/Sony: both should have 3-day weekend totals in the high teens, and maybe $25M for the Oz pic's 5-day holiday.
Is that a good, bad, or indifferent number for the Baz Luhrmann epic starring fellow Aussie countrymen Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman for a media conglomerate begun Down Under? Depends on whether this is supposed to be a tentpole or a full-frills specialty film. It's either Far And Away with Vegemite and thus Rupert's Folly, or an artistic homage to a country and nationality that's more about Aussie Pride than profit. (Although Fox keeps insisting that the film's cost of $125M was tempered by 40% Australian government tax credits to bring Australia's negative cost down to $75M. But mention that to the moguls for rival studios, and they scoff...) In any case, it follows a summer and fall series of box office losers for the studio which keeps reminding everyone (as all majors do in down times) that this is a cyclical biz.
Insiders claim Rupert Murdoch had no involvement in the greenlight process even though his and Baz Lurhmann's, and his and Nicole Kidman's relationship, dates back some 15 years. "Baz has an overall deal that gives us a first look at stuff he wants to do. He had the idea for this movie some years ago, and we liked it. He wrote a script -- several drafts in fact, with co-writers, and we liked them too. Then we cast it. Then we made it. Pretty routine actually," one source told me. Routine for most studios, but not for Fox -- since this is a 1 1/2 quadrant movie tracking best with women over age 25 made by a studio whose mantra is making 3+ quadrant fare. And let's not forget that Kidman is box office poison while Jackman has only made money playing Wolverine. "And no one ever heard of some kid Leo D or Kate W, and everyone already knows the Titanic sank... And how can you have Tom Hanks look ugly with a beard and only talk to a volleyball the whole time... And nobody but a few country western people in the South care about Johnny Cash... And on and on," one Fox insider lectured me. "Of course, we thought of tons of hurdles it would have to leap -- the unique ones always present a million more reasons to say no than to say yes. But if you believe in a project and believe in a filmmaker, then the thing to do is to try to responsibly protect the economic downside with partners and investments, which we have done, and, occasionally, reach for something fresh. In this case, we hope that by reaching back, we will actually be reaching forward."
Or else Fox is reaching for Oscar, something the majors have been doing less and less in recent years. Until 2008 when several studios got behind other high-profile, low-grossing pics which obviously cost a bundle, like Paramount's The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button. But Australia also looks like Tom Rothman's response to all the dissing that 20th Century Fox receives from inside Hollywood for making low-brow but high grossing fare. (Which also enables Fox Searchlight to stay open when so many other faux indies have been shut down or swallowed up.) Still I'm just too cynical to believe the studio spin that this pic was embraced for its old school, big spectacle, multi-genre storytelling. Or to accept straight-faced that, in the words of one insider, "Everyone here believed that we just hadn't seen a film like this in a long time, and that with so many movies looking so much the same as every other film out there, a smart movie for adult audiences that was crowd pleasing and emotional and could 'sweep audiences away' as Hollywood used to do, would be unique in the market." Puh-leeze, had this film not been Australian-centric, and Fox not owned by Murdoch's News Corp, it would never have seen the light of day. And if shareholders don't like that, then they shouldn't be stupid enough to invest in a company where a mogul can pretty much do anything he wants to.
As for Baz, Fox's explanation is that Luhrmann's films "have never been sprinters, they have been marathons. It takes awhile for audiences to catch up to his movies, which is why they have such large multiples (e.g. 4.2x opening for Moulin Rouge and Romeo & Juliet)," another studio insider lobbied me. "Bottom line is this is an unconventional and original film unlike it's opening competition (haute cuisine vs. fast food!) and this business needs more films like this." Which explains why Fox is lowballing its predictions to only $13M for the 3-day weekend and $18M for the 5-day holiday. Besides believing the pic will have legs, Fox is counting on very strong international appeal because Baz's films do double overseas what they do here.
Jason Statham is a reliable draw in the franchise Transporter 3 (now being released by Lionsgate after the first two were released by Fox) so with 2,500+ plays it should open at No. 6 with mid and possibly even high teens. DreamWorks Animation's Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa, should start its month in release by grabbing #7 with low teens.
In terms of Oscar-touted pics, Focus Features opens Gus Van Sant's Milk starring Best Actor nomination shoo-in Sean Penn this weekend at 35 theaters in 19 major series. Look for it to score the best per screen average
Loading ...
When did this blog jump the shark? People are jealous of Tom Rothman? There is only ONE studio where director after director says “never again” and that is Fox. There is only one studio that ruins the source material completely of the projects that it buys (have you seen the Dragonball Z trailer lately?) and that is Fox. Now that finally the worm is turning and these turkeys might be out in the rain why are you mitigating the fact that their movies suck? That is the riddle of life- the legacy of Tom Rothman, a man who clearly loved films but because of his need for control only made crap ones. Maybe now when Peter Rice steps up he’ll trust his gut and they will make money and quality.
Four Christmases potentially opening at $30m? I’m surprised, the trailer has no pop at all.
Who’d have thought that the remainder of New Line’s slate would be so beneficial to Warner Bros this year.
Sex And The City was a given but anyone who says they knew Journey 3-D would do $100m domestic when they watched the trailer is a liar.
I can’t help but feel that if Four Christmases does open to $30m or more it’s better than New Line would have managed with it if they were still ‘alive’.
Four Christmases has terrible reviews.
Brilliant post, Nikki. I wish you had mentioned Murdoch’s weird, protective friendship with Nicole Kidman, to the extent that he’s spiked some negative Page Six gossip items about her in his New York Post. Of course he was involved in greenlighting Australia. Everything he has ever done speaks of corporate interference, for better or worse. As for Kidman’s poisonous box office record, I’ve often heard it wondered how she still manages to appear in big-budget movies. I’m still curious about that.
Nicole Kidman is a bomb-stress. Why directors cast her is truly puzzling, given the fact that all of her films have bombed. And ‘Australia’ will be no different.
As for the Oscar buzz, of course Sean Penn will be nominated. Firstly, he hates Bush and, secondly, Harvey Milk is a gay (and, therefore, Hollywood) Icon. Will Americans go see it? Nope, but that has never stopped Oscar voters before. Just be prepared for another low-rated snoozefest, where the Oscar elite feel all warm and fuzzy and nobody watches.
Who will host this year? Any guesses? I’m thinking they’ll go the Emmy route with multiple hosts. My choice is Michael Moore, Al Gore and Ellen. Now that would be a hoot.
Heard Four Christmases is completely unwatchable. Not a surprise considering it was developed under the watch of Toby Emmerich. Guy has never had a legit hit that he shepherded in his entire tenure and you can’t count Sex and the City since we all know he had nothing to do with it!
“Australia” may be a sweeping, grandiose, emotional throwback of a film but it’s DOA because of it’s title. Market the film as an epic adventure/drama with Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman and it’s got a shot but call it “Australia” and you are really narrowing the audience. It’s like making an epic film about the north country and calling it “Canada” instead of, say, “North”.
First I must defend Nikki from the first poster. Her job on this blog is to analyse the box office performance of each movie. Yes Australia only had a few tv spots, but I am willing to bet that Nikki is right on the money because that film sports better reviews than Four Christmases and that movie and Bolt could split the family box office allowing the #1 race to be between Twilight and Australia. Basically, what Nikki is saying here is that Australia could finish in fourth place, but don’t be surprised to see it outperform the competition.
As for the Oscars, look for the host announcement to come in mid to late December to early January.
Those are my sentiments exactly! When I first saw this trailer I thought “fuck those aussie’s” then i saw the title and i said “fuck Australia!” Look people don’t like Kidman and most people tolerate Jackman, who arguably has some talent but boy he sure chooses terrible roles. This will do $15m over the five days and then drop 65% the following week. Thank God!
Four Christmases looks funny, but trailers always have a habit of showing only the best parts, then the rest of the movie is dull and boring.
Jason Statham -Transporter 3- Now that is a movie I want to see. They were showing the original Transporter on cable this weekend, and damn it’s a good action flick.
Not so savvy, savvydude. Kidman’s film haven’t all been flops. See:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=nicolekidman.htm
Granted, she’s had some major flops, and not all of her films have gotten wide releases, but she’s also had her fair share of hits too.
As for Australia, it will tank in the US, but not because of Kidman. It will tank because it’s close to three hours and the reviews have made it sound like it’s insufferably cheesy.
You left off another huge hit against Australia – its mammoth runtime. At two hours and 45 minutes, that’s a real stretch for most viewers, and it’s harder to book as many screenings in a day. If Fox really cared about making money with the film, they would have pushed for a shorter cut.
As for Milk, Sean Penn will surely get more accolades for hamming it up and overemoting in a style not fashionable since the advent of sound. He acts with a capital “A,” lacking any subtlety or nuance, getting closer and closer to bad dinner theater with each film. Spicoli should be bludgeoned with his own undeserved Oscar.
Here’s the inside scoop. The inside inside.
Four Christmases. Has been rewritten more times than a baby needs a diaper change. That said, script one was bad. The coverage at one of the major was poor, satisfactory, poor, low good…Pass. Eighteen rewrites and here was the coverage: poor, satisfactory, poor, high poor…Pass.
The movie will make tons of cash. The casting. Vince Vaugh can fart while Reese smiles and the movie will make money.
Twilight. No stars. No script. Nada. Money!
We need producers to make real movies again. From great scripts. The Four Christmases do not need producers. They will make money regardless.
As a talent manager if there is any new talent that needs a break please respond to me here. I will take a look.
Thank you.
I saw MILK last night at an advance WGA screening at Arclight and I am happy to report that, for fans and followers of the Milk legend and legacy, the film is everything we could have hoped for and more.. Apart from Sean Penn’s towering, yet intimate portrayal of Harvey Milk – he nailed every nuance of his persona – the entire cast (Franco, Brolin, Hirsch, etc.) delivers the goods. Amazingly, the film manages to be inspiring, emotional, hilarious, touching, disturbing, and thought-provoking all at once, building to an almost operatic tragic climax as we all know. The cruel irony is that, more than THREE DECADES later, gay men and women are still fighting against homophobia, intolerance, and outright hostility towards us – witness how Milk helped overturn the Briggs Initiative in the 70s, and now we must grapple with the passage of Prop. 8 – you’ve come a long way, baby? No so much, sadly. This is why MILK, even though it’s a period piece, is the most timely, topical movie of the season – and you have to wonder how the gay rights movement and political arena might have been forever altered had Milk not been murdered by right-wing, conservative, probably-closeted Dan White just as Harvey was on the rise in power? – Harvey Milk really was the gay movement’s own Obama circa 1977.
I don’t think it’s mere coincidence that it was FOCUS FEATURES who took the financial risk to greenlight and produce this film when most other studios had passed or the Milk story languished for years in development hell, as many tried to turn Milk’s amazing true story into a feature film – i.e., wasn’t Robin Williams attached to star in a biopic based on Randy Shilt’s definitive THE MAYOR OF CASTRO STREET for WB years ago? In fact, I would venture that MILK would have NEVER been made had it not been for the major commercial and critical crossover success of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN – Focus rolled the dice then when no one else would step up, and they’re doing it once again know. Kudos to James Shamus and everyone at Focus for finally bringing this story to the screen for posterity.
It must be said that 2008’s MILK owes a huge debt to both Shilt’s early ‘ 80s biography and the ‘90s Oscar-winning documentary THE LIFE AND TIMES OF HARVEY MILK – which in many ways is still superior to Gus Van Sant and Dustin Lance Black’s labor of love. Still, MILK is a front-runner for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Screenplay – the burning question three years post-Brokeback is: will the Academy voters be homophobic again and rob MILK of a clutch of Oscar gold just like they did for Brokeback? I’m still pissed off about that Brokeback didn’t win for Best Picture and Best Actor – how can you win for Best Director and Best Screenplay and Best Score (which Brokeback did), but NOT win for Best Picture? Reason #1: Lionsgate flooded the industry with CRASH screeners to way lazy old AMPAS voters who refuses to even watch Brokeback and/or b) homophobia, plain & simple.
The more things change, the more things stay the same.
Since when were reviews indicative of box office success? I’ve always thought two things about “Four Christmases:”
1) It would royally suck as a film;
2) It would do strong box office.
It’s just the kind of film that does well. It’s sad, but true. Warner seems to be marketing the film toward “red state” type of people, given the cast. I think a lot of times liberal reviewers tend to forget that there is this whole other demographic. There’s definitely a market for stupid in this country.
With all the chatter about big movies that will ultimately disappoint both economically and disappoint audiences, why not talk about the smaller movies that will be fun. I recently got to see a press screening of Cadillac Records (coming Dec. 5th) and thoroughly enjoyed it. It’s about the rise of blues music under the Chess Records label in 1950’s Chicago. Besides a star-studded cast (Mos Def, Cedric the Entertainer, Beyonce, Jeffrey Wright, and Adrien Brody) and beautiful old Cadillac’s, the movie features a relevant social message and well as a truly entertaining soundtrack!
People thought that Fred Claus was going to be a huge hit because of Vince Vaughn and it being an xmas movie, but guess what, it did no business. Despite having the supporting cast of what you would expect in a top notch Oscar contender drama. Four Christmases might have a good take the first weekend, but it won’t make enough money to cover the bloated salaries of motor mouth Vince Vaughn and a miscast Reese Witherspoon.
@Jimmy James: Why such hate for the Aussies? You seem to have some anger management issues.
No way Kidman should’ve been cast – she’s awful and the reason I probably won’t ever see the film.
Kidman’s Oscar and films like Moulin Rouge, Practical Magic, The Others and The Hours are now a thing of the past. She has had too many recent flops to be taken seriously as a box office force anymore…the only actress that has really recovered from similar circumstances is Angelina Jolie, after years of flops she has rebounded nicely these past 3 years. Nicole’s face is also a disaster, it doesn’t move…to cast her in an epic movie is just shocking on many levels. She also seems too icy to be in a warm romantic movie.
@Michael D. I don’t hate the Aussies…But I do dislike the fact that Nicole Kidman continues to make movies. I almost want to protest this film. Such blatent patriotism! For Australia! In America! The title bothers me. Why didn’t they call this film the “Two down under” or “Nights in Down under” something, anything other than Australia! And Jackman with that “i’m so sexy” walk of his. It’s his attempt at homoeroticism. He did the same walk in the last XMEN film, when they’re getting on the plane before the final battle…I want to knock him in his teeth. Why do we have to put up with crap actors from another planet? And then we have to put up with crap actors from another planet in a movie ABOUT their planet!
I’ll give you all five good reasons why Brokeback Mountain did good box office.
HEATH LEDGER
HEATH LEDGER
HEATH LEDGER
HEATH LEDGER
HEATH LEDGER
If people went due to the news coverage, I would be surprised. The second Brokeback Mountain opened, the media started pouring on the coverage and awards giving us Brokeback Mountain stories every hour for just over two months to the point that the final runup to the Oscars was all Brokeback Mountain. What was notable about the 2006 Oscars was that Jon Stewart hosted for the first time along with political attack ads written by Stephen Colbert, Tom Hanks had to be driven offstage by the attacking trombone section, George Clooney gave his famous acceptance speech, and Crash stopped the Brokeback Mountain express in its trash.
I have seen the movie Australia 3 times now and each time it gets better and better. Why? Because the movie is an instant classic. It is the Dr. Zhivago of its time.
Romance, adventure, triumph of the human spirit is the test of what makes a movie great.
A classic gives you the feeling of deep emotions while being transported to another place and time like in the movie classic Casablanca.
The story is really the Aborigine boy’s story and not Nicole or Hugh Jackson’s character’s POV. Through the eyes of an innocent child we get to see a three dimensionally texture world –
Who can remember when they were a young boy or girl and you believed in Santa Claus? Magic? and dreams?
Who can remember when you got your first box of Crayons? Whatever you colored opened up your imagination to a better world then which you lived in.
Well if you have never experienced the above – please don’t waste your time and see this movie. Because you have lost the part of you that makes believe in love.
The best you can do is buy a dog and invest all your emotional energy into it instead of the love of another human being.
Chris Jackson
Ready to fall in love again.
Re: Australia marketing
Oprah Winfrey shilled it like crazy. This week’s episode of “Sammy Who?” did an embarrassingly blatant marketing job, even showing clips as part of their story. It was the worst in-your-face product placement I’ve ever witnessed. What’s up with that?
The first trailers and artwork were so cheesy, I was speechless. Cheesy – not romantic.
Re: Milk
Compared to “Australia” being aggressively marketed on “Sammy Who?”, Gus Van Sant’s appearance on “Entourage” this week was way too subtle. No mention of “Milk”. (Loved “that would’ve been way too gay” comment by character Ari Gold, though. Nod at ABC?)
I’ve wondered why Nicole Kidman still gets work since her appearance in The Interpreter, where the filmmakers so obviously had to concern themselves with the presentation of Kidman’s face. It was downright distracting, watching her hair….
She IS the main reason why people are less interested in seeing Australia in the first place. But with Oprah shilling…. If she can do for films what she’s supposedly done for books, anything’s possible.
I think Vincent Chase would have been a much better Harvey Milk.
To anHonestAnswer: You serious about wanting new talent? Good scripts? Post an honest answer here; we’ll talk.
Okay, anHonestAnswer, I’ll take you up on your offer.
But first, let me just say this in defense of movies like FOUR CHRISTMASES: writing a comedy with mass-appeal is not easy. In fact, I think it’s harder to do than writing an Oscar-baiting drama. However, I have to admit, most mass-appeal comedies that do get made are really poorly written. But I think that’s mainly because it’s so goddamn hard to do it right. I mean, it took me several months of brainstorming just to come up with a good concept! Not to mention working out the plot, characters, story arcs, and then making sure everything was funny from beginning to end, and had enough heart to balance the cruder elements. Comedy writing is ridiculously underrated!
Anyway, I’m now just a few days away from finishing my last and hopefully final draft and it would be really great to get an insider’s opinion. I actually paid for professional coverage on an earlier draft and it rated a CONSIDER, so basically, I’ve been rewriting to get it up to a RECOMMEND level. I figure that’s what it’s gonna take for a complete unknown to get people’s attention in this business.
And now, here’s some info on my script:
TITLE: The Break-Up Artists
GENRE: Bromantic Comedy
TAG LINE: In the battle of the sexes, everyone needs a bulletproof exit strategy.
LOGLINE: A modern-day fairytale from the male perspective. After being brutally dumped by his girlfriend, a guy is convinced by his womanizing best friend to join a secret club dedicated to the pursuit of short-term relationships. This new lifestyle, however, is put to the ultimate test when these two cocksmen hook up with their female counterparts.
Thanks in advance for your consideration.
Best regards,
Gary Milin
gdmilin@yahoo.com
How interested are Americans going to be in the formative travails of a country 10,000 miles away when their own country, right here, right now, is on the verge of falling apart? “Australia” comes to market about eight years too late. On the heels of the Sydney Olympics would have been a better slot.
At the end of the day “Australia” is a home-nation vanity piece with a story and stars that don’t resonate in the US. Nor would you expect the film version of “1776″ to fill the cinemas in Perth or Darwin.
I’ll see “Australia” this week because (A) my wife wants to go and (B) I love it Down Under and look forward to the scenic photography. But like most Americans I could care less about the storyline, Kidman or Jackman.
Note to Chris Jackson: if “Dr. Zhivago” had been released in the US in the 1960s as “Russia!”, it would’ve died in two weekends, regardless of story or stars.
I wouldn’t be so quick to bury Australia under 6 feet of dirt in the event that it doesn’t open huge. Baz Luhrmann’s films have a tendency to open slow but then maintain formidable steadiness. His last outing, Moulin Rouge, achieved sleeper status in an overcrowded summer ‘01 slate after a modest rollout. I’m surprised there’s not more anticipation surrounding Australia with movie buffs since BL is one of the most talented guys around and this is his first film in over a half dozen years; maybe the classical romanticism of the project is something that many are just going to be hesitant to embrace in this cynical age. People I’ve talked to leer at my like I have a third eyeball when I tell them I want to see it. It was a shame that Oliver Stone beat him to the punch on an Alexander epic since Baz had been nurturing a film on the same subject, but with a decidedly more offbeat approach, for years with Leo Dicaprio and Kidman attached. Also, threat of bodily harm might not be enough to make me see 4 Christmases even though I generally am never opposed to seeing anything with Reese, even stuff that skews exclusively female with its content.
Someone stated that movies about gay people won’t be seen by everyone. You forgot that Brokeback Moutain made almost 100 million dollars. I think Milk will not have the same sucess but it won’t be bad. Sean Penn is actually quite good. I know people who don’t like him and want to see the film.
Note to TomF: There are people on this planet outside of America. The only reason Brad Pitt still gets a job is becaues he’s big in Japan. Americans couldn’t give a shit about him. Likewise, Australia may well do great business outside of America just as Nicole’s The Golden Compass did last year.
To Princess and Gerald, I will raise your messages to TomF by one, though you never intended to reply to TomF, Gerald.
I would just like to say that Americans have a love affair to Australia the country. Now I am not saying that tourism from the US to Australia is down, but Australia is seen as a place we could all visit. Outside of Sydney and the rest of their east coast, it is a land of mystery with the outback, The Great Barrier Reef, and so on. Movies based on Australia or about Australia have always did good box office. Now granted we can’t all visit the country, but the movie might be good to check out even if you are just interested in the scenery. For the record, Australia is going to be a Oscar winner to the point that it will be all we will be talking about for the next three months. Using the Olympics as an excuse for a movie not to be a hit, is stupid. Crocodile Dundee was success long before the Sydney Olympics and Americans cried with Greg Norman (who is from Australia BTW) when he lost the 1996 Masters. I for one always want to visit different countries. For example, if all I get to do in Sydney is drive across Harbor Bridge once, I’d be happy.
On behalf of all Australians I wish to apologise for “Australia”, we were not consulted, nor are we happy about millions of taxpayer dollars being poured into this turkey that no one would want, even on Thanksgiving.
It bears as much resemblance to the truth as one of Michael Moore’s mockumentaries.
There was no “stolen generation”, and the rest of this fiasco is just as bad. Luhrmann has also played fast and loose with the truth.
The story that Aboriginal children were callously and deliberately sent into danger at Melville Island, while whites were evacuated south is a lie.
In fact, Aboriginal women and children were evacuated from Darwin and nearby settlements – including Garden Point – and sent as far south as the Blue Mountains.
Nullah, Mrs. Boss, the Drover and “King George” the lithe, elder aborginal medicine man watching over his daughters who ride their own magic across the land — if you don’t see the movie, Australia, you will miss these characters in iconic movie-making upgraded to 21st century technology visually akin to the Lord of the Rings franchise.
I saw Australia twice in two days at a movieplex where the film magic felt as sublime as being the little kid who got to skip Sunday night church to watch the annual re-playing on TV of the Wizard of Oz.
Like Mamma Mia!, this is a movie experience that makes you happy to be living in this time and place.
So what if Australia is a bit long (more for your money) and multi-plexes don’t provide for intermission. Skip the big Coke, or take a pit stop after the visually stunning stampede scene.
Don’t miss seeing this amazing movie just because the lay and professional critics are jealous, grumpy, whatever makes them so negative.
It astonishes me that folks would criticize those whose talents bring about the experience of being at the movies. Because my daughter is a fledgling actor during college, I took an acting class to see what is involved. After decades as a trial lawyer, fearless before audiences when being myself, acting in somebody else’s story was harder than anything I have ever tried.
We owe the folks who make movies our appreciation and love, for the big-screen horizons opened to seeing the world as it should be, and as it may become. About the romantic leads: Kidman, gorgeous and spirited; Jackman, gorgeous and spirited. Movie-star fantasy and make-believe powerful enough to make me forget the world as it is and hope for how it should be.