BrowserMetrics

Australia is as big as the continent and takes as long to get to the end
as it does to get from Darwin to Sydney. Now I don't really know if
that's true, but it sounds like something you would say to make your
opening statement sound masterful. I don't know about the geographical
relationship between the two cities, and I don't know if it would take
just three hours to travel between them. Go google-map it and find out.
I just needed a hooky opening line for this review.Australia's hook is that Nicole Kidman, a bonafide aussie, plays an
English lady who arrives Down Under to pursue her dead husbands dream of
being a cattle baron. Just like other Westerns of the American Old
West. I can think that Kidman tries to tame the wild Outback, but it is
the Outback that she breaks her and she embraces it as she embraces the
young heart of the aborigine kid. Kidman starts as the classic duck out
of water. I think she would eventually become like Barbara Stanwyck in
Forty Guns, "a high riding woman with a whip," but only in my dreams.Then there is the sexiest man alive for 200x, Hugh Jackman. Water
caressing is sun baked body. Whew. Who wouldn't fall for that? He
should've been dumping the bucket of water on himself for the entire
movie. The girls would've loved that.The movie is long, but moves. The cattle drive does wonders to make it
work. Yet, the commercials and the trailer led me to believe that this
was Pearl Harbor all over again. The attack on Darwin were pretty much
over in minutes and appeared in the finale. I expected more.Overall, it is a much better movie than I anticipated it to be. I don't
think it would go on to be an Oscar contender, because it felt too much
like a Lonesome Dove or other CBS sweeps week western. 3 of 5 stars.

Twilight is the movie version for the first book by Stephanie Myers in
her teen-angst vampire series. It already has an intended audience
built into it, one which I am not part of. I've seen most of the
adaptations of book series: The Lord of the Rings (the gold standard),
The Chronicles of Narnia (boring), Harry Potter (exciting). This is the
first that I have not read any of the books upon which the series will
be based. I am an outsider which colors my reaction to the movie.I don't really care for vampire stories. They are not my usually
scare-fest fare. I prefer haunted houses and ghosts stories to creep me
out. The only vampire story I like is Stephen King's Salems Lot,
because it had a haunted house, the old Marsden place, in it, and it was
sufficiently creepy enough to keep me up till the break of dawn like
many of the ghost stories I read at the time.So vampires kind of bore me. They are too emo for my taste. The lead
vampire in the film is too broody and conveys his angst with furrowed
eyebrows. He reminded me of Brenden Fraser. Then there is the head
vampire who reminded me of Tom Cruise's vampire Lestat. This was a
brilliant casting decision. Although, less broody than the lead
vampire, his angst was summed up in his choice of becoming "vegetarian."
Why must I want human blood?The movie probably satisfies the fans of the book. They get to see the
characters in the flesh which they could only do in their imagination
until now. I now understand how it is to be an outsider to these fan
movies. I can't fathom what emotions the readers of the book are
investing in the characters and story of this film, but I know that
theirs are assigned with great heart. I can't really give a good
review, because I don't really care about the story. As a movie though,
it seems to be an opening chapter: incomplete and waiting for the next
to arrive. I don't think I want to see the next one.2 of 5 stars.