Why Fox has an epic problem

20th Century Fox had such high hopes for “Australia,” both as a commercial success and a critic’s favorite -- after all, it’s directed by Baz Luhrmann, a filmmaker long beloved by critics of all stripes -- that I got a call a week ago from a very high-placed Fox executive, boasting that the release of “Australia” on Friday would mark the end of The Streak. For newcomers, let me recap: Putting aside the animated kids’ classic “Horton Hears a Who,” Fox had released 22 consecutive movies since “The Simpsons Movie” arrived in July 2007, none of which managed to score better than a mediocre 50 on Rotten Tomatoes, the Web’s most reliable aggregator of movie reviews.

So the Fox exec eagerly reminded me that it was only fair that with the release of “Australia” I would have to take note of the streak’s end, since it was obvious that a Baz Luhrmann film would surely be a critic’s delight. Well, all I can is: Barely.

For all its directorial ambition, “Australia” just squeaked into positive Rotten Tomatoes territory, scoring a 53, which, to give a little perspective, means that it got the same score as last summer’s forgettable comedy “Get Smart.” So the streak is over, but it’s probably a Pyrrhic victory. “Australia” has bigger problems, having stumbled out of the starting gate at the box office, barely grossing $20 million in its first five days of release.

The problem with “Australia,” despite its hefty budget -- $130 million plus a giant wad of marketing expenses -- is that it’s the ultimate tweener. It’s an epic art film. But epics need movie stars, which “Australia” lacks, and art films need great reviews, along with ardent audience buzz, to find a sizable audience. So far, the consensus on “Australia” is that for all its bravura filmmaking, it feels naggingly unsatisfying.

As history shows, it’s almost impossible for a film with “Australia’s” mediocre critical response to land a best picture nomination, which robs Fox of an important marketing tool in keeping the film afloat in a crowded marketplace. Fox execs insist the movie will attract tons of adults in weeks to come, citing the film’s weekend numbers, which went up significantly as the weekend unfolded, a signal that it had strong word-of-mouth support.

In fact, the studio is so bullish that it sees “Australia” emulating the box-office performance of the equally adult-oriented “The Bucket List,” which opened modestly last Christmas but ended up grossing $93 million in the U.S. alone. My guess is that “Australia” will find it tougher sledding over the holidays, up against plenty of other adult-oriented films. Still, I’m glad Fox made the movie. I’ve long argued that Fox should be a more filmmaker-friendly studio, and whatever you say about “Australia,” it is surely a filmmaker’s movie.

But without any bankable stars in the picture (“Australia” once again proving that Kidman is many things but not a movie star), Fox has been forced to sell it as a Baz Luhrmann film. And as all of us Baz fans know well, Luhrmann is many things, most notably a brilliant artist, but he is not a popcorn-chewing, crowd-pleasing filmmaker. He is, irony of all ironies, the poster boy for the rationale behind Fox Searchlight, Fox’s specialty division, which keeps a tight lid on expenses so it can make money selling daring films to specialized audiences.

But the postmodern sensibility that makes “Australia” such a rousing but strangely self-conscious epic is a sensibility that really only fits the Searchlight economic model. Expect to see Fox double down on its marketing efforts to give the movie a big boost, gambling that the film could do considerably better overseas, but you have to wonder if “Australia” will be the kind of movie the rest of the world will wholeheartedly embrace.

--

patrick.goldstein @latimes.com