Hmmm - where to start with a film that spans almost three hours and double that number of genres? Watching 'Australia' can be compared to watching another at-times-inept blockbuster: 'Pearl Harbour'. There are many similarities between the two films; most of all that the directors felt they had to include convoluted love stories to make the films work, when in reality a little research surely could have thrown up half-a-dozen non-romance-centred true-life plots that would have been far more engaging and potentially even Oscar-winning. Of the positive points in 'Australia': the production values and acting, as one might expect from such a budget and such a cast, were commendable and at the least watchable; there were also a good few moments of humour sprinkled throughout the script; and Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman had at least some small degree of chemistry together. Of the negatives: the length (this film had about three points that each would've sufficed as a suitable ending); the kissing (how many times is it really necessary to see Nicole and Hugh embrace?); and finally Nullah's almost indiscernible accent (this reminded me of the character 'Short Round' in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom - though the latter had a far more limited number of lines than Australia’s Nullah). Also, why did a film entitled 'Australia' finish with 'Nimrod' by the ever-so-English composer Elgar? - That for me kind of summed up the feel of this film! In all, if it's a rainy day and you want some escapism, or if you're simply in the mood for a long film that won't be too taxing on the mind, 'Australia' might serve a purpose and bring a few laughs along the way; just don't go expecting Oscar-winning film-making.