<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>newcritics - Latest Comments in The Undiscovered Country</title><link>http://newcritics.disqus.com/</link><description>the best in web criticism</description><atom:link href="https://newcritics.disqus.com/the_undiscovered_country/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:39:13 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: The Undiscovered Country</title><link>http://newcritics.com/blog1/2008/12/27/the-undiscovered-country/#comment-4893053</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Just my $.02 but I saw Australia  this weekend, and, to tell the truth, I'm amazed that a film that takes so much time telling one of the most banal tales ever filmed even got financing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This coulda been a John Wayne studio western--rough trade ranch hand and snooty upper crust dame drive a heard of cattle across the desert w/ the predictable romance ensuing (and despite the best efforts of a villan so formal he could be twirling his moustache ends tho' you're right, it's two John Wayne studio movies--it's also a war pic).  It would have been a predictable, trite piece of subfluff in 1951 (complete w/ its "big theme" subtext of racial tolerance).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Characters? Ha.  Archetypes slapped into place to fill their formal roles so thinly drawn that the male lead has a job title not a name. Now, I don't have anything against genre fiction, but this is genre fiction at it's most unimaginative and rote.  Whatever appeal this movie has, I don't understand it.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jason_Chervokas</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:39:13 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>