Baz Luhrmann’sdetractors may be somewhat pleased to know that there have only been half a dozen movies made and released by the filmmaker in 30+ years of directing feature films. And he does have detractors; those who find his style somewhat exhausting, silly, and over-the-top. But those qualities almost always seem intentional, and with a little work and the right frame of mind, it’s possible to be awestruck by much of what Luhrmann crafts as an intense and very much passionate filmmaker.
Perhaps some detractors appreciate this to some extent, and some of Luhrmann’s fans may well have one or two movies of his that they personally find a bit much; it’s not likely going to be black and white. Without a doubt,Baz Luhrmann always swings for the fences… or always tries to hit a six, to make the phrase involve cricket, much more popular in Luhrmann’s home country of Australia than baseball. That approach leads to some big wins and some notable misses, and a filmography that’s scattershot and unlikely to be ranked in a way most agree on. What follows is just one ranking of his half-a-dozen feature films so far, not getting any of his shorts orwork in the world of television.
6’Australia' (2008)
Starring: Nicole Kidman, Hugh Jackman, Essie Davis
Though it didn’t necessarily coalesce into something great, there was a clear attempt todo something big and genuinely epicin feel withAustralia. It had a runtime that neared three hours, had a historical setting in the titular country before and then during World War II, had an impressive cast led byHugh JackmanandNicole Kidman, was made with a considerable budget, and also worked a love story into the whole thing. Perhaps that’s enough to call it Oscar bait, of a certain shade, but it wasn’t quite as successful as it needed to be, unlike other pastepics that had achieved success at the Oscars.
It’s hard to critiqueAustraliatoo harshly when judged purely as spectacle, because it’s presented well and uses its large budget generally effectively. It’s just unfortunately underwritten and overlong, not working nearly as well narratively or thematically as it does on a visual level. Even then, Baz Luhrmann has probably made more dazzling-looking movies in his time, both before and since.Australiaisperhaps the only real miss of Luhrmann’s career, and the one film of his you’re unlikely to see too many people passionately defendingin its entirety.
Rent on Apple TV
5’Strictly Ballroom' (1992)
Starring: Paul Mercurio, Tara Morice, Bill Hunter
Make no mistake:Strictly Ballroomwas an impressive feature debut for Baz Luhrmann, and is ultimately a good deal better than the aforementioned Australia. It established various trademarks and stylistic quirks of the filmmaker on a smaller scale than his later projects, but it’s still all undeniably Luhrmann-esque. It’s also the first part of a thematic set of filmsthat Baz Luhrmann dubs hisRed Curtain Trilogy, which later got two more installments that were a good deal more tragic (not to mention a little better), in 1996 and then 2001.
As forStrictly Ballroom, it’s a romantic comedy that’s set in the world of ballroom dancing, pitting two unlikely people together as partners for a competition. In typical rom-com fashion, they learn to work together and gradually fall for each other, too.There’s certainly a formulabehind the story ofStrictly Ballroom, but it nonetheless works and even charms at times, whilethestylish visuals and well-choreographed dance numbersalso end up doing a good bit of heavy lifting for the overall film.
Strictly Ballroom
4’The Great Gatsby' (2013)
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan
Somebooks don’t lend themselves well to film adaptations, but then others likeThe Great Gatsby(written byF. Scott Fitzgerald) seem well suited to thrive in both novel and feature film format. Granted, it’s probably a stronger book than it has been a movie so far, with the1974 version starringRobert Redfordbeing solid, if a little dry, and then the more well-known Baz Luhrmann version, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, alienating some by being too different from the novel.There’s no consensus here; this might well be Luhrmann’s most divisive, given the novel’s so well-known and because there’s a star as big as DiCaprio at the center of it all.
Some directors might have reined it in after being criticized for making an overstuffed film likeAustralia, but Luhrmann just pushed everything a bit harder… and it worked! Of course, it helped thatThe Great Gatsbywas a little shorter, but it was more bombastic, louder, and generally wilder, and such an approach taken to recontextualize/modernize the 1920s setting was certainly interesting. Perhaps that was a deal-breaker for some, but it was a new take on an exceedingly popular novel, and in the end, more about things within it worked than didn’t work.
The Great Gatsby
3’Elvis' (2022)
Starring: Austin Butler, Tom Hanks, Olivia DeJonge
One overarching misstep from Baz Luhrmann’s three most recent films,Australia,The Great Gatsby, and nowElvis, is the issue of length – they’re all a bit too long.Australiafeels the most unnecessarily long, andElvisonly really drags at a few points in its final hour, but Luhrmann’s excess is more than enough when his movies hover around two hours (as shown by the soon-to-be-mentioned films). The titularElvis Presleywasa larger-than-life presence, and arguably deserved a big movie… just perhaps one that was less than 2.5 hours long, rather than more than 2.5 hours long.
Getting over the runtime, there is still alot to love about this biographical movie, with historical times given a new look and feel, reminiscent ofThe Great Gatsby’sapproach to the roaring twenties, andAustin Butlergiving a star-making performance in the lead role.Elvisalso looks and sounds very good throughout, even when a scene here and there might get a little patience-testing. Oh, also,Tom Hanksis good in this. His performance was divisive and often mocked, but for tackling the kind of character that he was playing, Hanks actually did a surprisingly great (and way over-hated) job.
Watch on Amazon
2’Moulin Rouge' (2001)
Starring: Nicole Kidman, Ewan McGregor, John Leguizamo
WhileStrictly Ballroomhad its fair share of dancing, it took untilMoulin Rougefor Baz Luhrmannto make a full-on musical, because this one also had a good deal of singing alongside the dancing. It concluded Luhrmann’sRed Curtin Trilogy, functioning as a jukebox musical with many of the 20th century’s most popular songs heard throughout… though the film itself takes place as the 19th century is ending and the 20th century is beginning. Somehow, Luhrmann makes it largely of work.
The style isan assault on the senses at first, and trying to keep up withMoulin Rougeearly on is borderline nauseating. Eventually, things click, and the fast editing, wild camera moves, and over-the-top performances start charming more than they frustrate. It’s an excessive and bombastic romantic musical that also serves as a tragedy (it tells you as much in the film’s opening scene), but it’s hard not to be impressed by the vision on offer, and how it was pulled off. Also, it might well contain one ofEwan McGregor’sbest and most under-appreciated lead performances (the film was nominated for eight Oscars, but none of those nominations went to him).
Moulin Rouge!
Watch on Hulu
1’Romeo + Juliet' (1996)
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Claire Danes, Jesse Bradford
Across hundreds of years, people never seem to grow tired ofShakespeare’sRomeo and Juliet. The play inspired a stage musical that wasadapted into a Best Picture-winning film, and the basics of the plot have even beenadapted into a family-friendly animated movie. It’s atragic romance story at its best, and Baz Luhrmann’s take on it all – released in 1996, and calledRomeo + Juliet– is perhaps one of the boldest of all the adaptations, and maybe even one of the best.
It takes dialogue directly from the play, but updates the setting to modern-day America, perfectly maintaining the spirit and text of the original while doing something fresh and interesting aesthetically.Romeo + Juliethassome bombast to the presentation, but not an excessive amount; Luhrmann matched his energy well with the fiery and oftentimes melodramatic original play.Romeo and Juliethas always been youthful, unsubtle, and perhaps even overly dramatic, and Luhrmann understood the assignment perfectly here. It’s almost a shame he hasn’t made any other films based on the works of Shakespeare, but if he were only ever able to do one,Romeo and Julietwas the right pick.
