Australia

Yesterday I saw Australia, starring Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman.

Baz Luhrman brings pre-World War II Australia to life by telling the story of Lady Sarah Ashley (Kidman), a British widow who has to relocate to the continent to save her husband's business and property after he is murdered. After many doses of typical movie-romance banter, she enlists the help of Drover (Jackman), a morally sound cattle rancher, who successfully assists her while consequently falling in love with her.

They also unofficially adopt Nullah (Brandon Walters), an aboriginal boy, who often appears to be the most resourceful and clever member of this dysfunctional, yet loyal, family.

To call the film a romance isn't really being honest—sure there are elements of it surrounding the main characters. And yes, Kidman and the ever-appealing Jackman have a respectable chemistry opposite one another. But the basis of the story is not merely their love; in fact, that part feels like more of a side dish in a meal that's more Western/war than anything else.

Because Director Baz Luhrman is in charge, that's all okay, though.

His stunning landscapes make for such a beautifully lit narrative, somehow even the hellish fires of war come out looking magical.

He also commands an almost supernaturally good performance from his youngest star, Walters, who brings so much character to Nullah, he steals the show.

Australia has all the elements of a traditional epic: deaths, rivalries, lovers torn apart, orphans, war and aristocracy, and each delivers in a satisfying, if not overwhelming way.

Many of the scenes and outcomes are predictable, but nonetheless well executed. Overall, it's an entertaining and attention-keeping film.

The biggest criticism I have is in the work's length—at nearly three hours long, I couldn't help but make mental notes along the way of portions that should have been cut.

But I'll forgive an artist as great as Luhrman for seeing his vision through to the end. Despite its flaws, the movie is still a suspense-filled visual marvel, and for that reason alone, audiences should see it on the big screen.

Marie Antoinette

Last night I saw Marie Antoinette, an exhilirating, realistic glimpse of the subject's life during her time in France.

Kirsten Dunst makes a perfect Marie—naughty and naive as a youth, clever and indulgent as a queen, and brave and sensible as a target of immense hatred. It's easily her best role yet. And her supporting cast is great too. From the sexually challenged Louis XVI (Jason Schwartzman) to the sexually charged Madame du Barry (Asia Argento), each actor fulfills their role and then some.

Sofia Coppla's writing style is brilliant. Every bit of dialogue sounds like words that would actually come out of the mouths of the historical characters, which makes it easy to follow. The fast-paced, blink-and-you'll-miss-it scenes are reminiscent of Baz Luhrman's William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, but not as dizzying.

The authentic sets (i.e. the actual palace where the actual Marie Antoinette reigned), coupled with extravagant costumes that are sure to attract attention during awards' season, make the viewer feel as if they're a party attendee rather than an audience member.

Can you tell I had a good time at this film? Well, I did.

That of course doesn't mean that it's perfect, because it's not. The pace in the beginning is frightfully slow and the time spent dwelling on the young couple's non-existent sex-life is too lengthy, but the payoff of an engaging middle and exciting end (though we all know how the story turns out before we arrive at the theater) makes it a worthwhile way to spend two hours.

Just go see it.