This production gives stupid movies a good name. Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas meld their asinine SCTV characters with Shakespeare’s Hamlet in this funny, but not hilarious, comedy. This is one of the rare exceptions where the poor production values actually helps the overall movie.

This film sports a performance that is a family favorite. During the 1980's Swedish actor Max von Sydow, a favorite of director Ingmar Bergman (Wild Strawberries, The Seventh Seal, The Virgin Spring) had been reduced to taking scrap roles well below his skills, such as this production and Ice Pirates. He hasn't really redeemed himself and return to great art. He is now in higher priced productions (Robin Hood, Rush Hour 3, Shutter Island) with talented directors who should be making far better films. In my home he is simply known as "Brewmeister Smith" and he is loudly called that when he first arrives on screen.


Related Reviews:
Max von Sydow Movies
Le scaphandre et le papillon (2007)
What Dreams May Come (1998)


Other Critic's Reviews:
FilmCritic.com
The Independent Critic



Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Labels: comedy, Dave Thomas, film, Max von Sydow, movie review, Rick Moranis

Short Review: Russell Crowe goes from Maximus to Minimus.


Ridley Scott is a hit or miss guy. When he hits, he tends to knock it out of the park (Alien, Gladiator, Blade Runner). When he misses he lets go of the bat mid-swing and sends it helicoptering into the stands (Legend, G.I. Jane, Hannibal). In this instance, you want to make sure you're ready to duck.

Scott attempts to display “the real” Robin Hood by dispensing with all of that entertaining legend nonsense. This is as sensible as making Star Wars focusing on Luke Skywalker before the droids drop from the sky. The whole point of going to see a Robin Hood movie is to actually see ROBIN HOOD. Perhaps I’m just stilly that way. Instead of a movie about Robin Hood with his merry men and all of that fun stuff, Scott sticks us with an origin story for a franchise that will never come.

Scott, on one hand, wants to show the real Robin Hood, but then infuses so many ridiculous Hollywood cliché moments into the story that it saps the production of any sense of historical accuracy.

Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) rises from common archer (a.k.a. disposable, faceless soldier) to become a consultant to the King of England. This amazing and illogical transformation happens in what is apparently the course of a few weeks.

Longstride and his men are lying, philandering grunts who are prone to violence. They steal from corpses, get drunk and fight. Fun guys. Longstrides himself impersonates a dead knight so he can con people out of their money. This plan lands him back in the knight’s hometown of Nottingham where he finds the knight’s wife Marion Loxley (Cate Blanchett) and the knight’s father, Sir Walter Loxley (Max von Sydow a.k.a. Brewmiester Smith).

Sir Loxley is devastated by the news of his son’s death. Well, he’s more troubled by it. Brewmiester Smith turns on an emotional dime and then happily offers to have Longstride pretend to marry Marion in order to retain their property rights. Yes, Loxley learns of his son’s death and in reaction offers the man who stole his son’s clothes a fine meal and tops that off by offering to let him have a run at his son’s widow.

Spoilers abound in the next paragraphs. You have been warned.

This kind of dissonance is littered throughout the movie. Marion survives an attack on Nottingham by French soldiers. During the raid she also dispatches a rapist by stabbing him in the neck with a hidden dagger. Other than this brief moment of sneaky self-defense, she offers no recognizable skill at arms.

Since she is a woman and Scott is an adherent to 1970’s feminism, Marion being a woman isn’t enough. She isn’t a real woman until she transforms into a man with birthing hips. This translates to Marion arriving at the climactic battle sequence dressed in full battle armor surrounded by orphans riding ponies. Yes, you read that correctly.

Does Scott explain how she could afford a full suit of armor when she’s cried poverty the whole film? Does Scott explain how a thin woman could move in such a heavy suit? Does Scott explain why veteran Medieval soldiers would allow her to enter the field of battle, let alone fight? No on all counts. She’s a manly woman now, and she’s come to kick some butt. It doesn’t matter if it makes sense, its accepted Hollywood sexist pandering.

The rest of the review is free of spoilers.


The previously mentioned contrivances aside, the actors are forced to recite dialog that does little beyond establish basic facts for the situation at hand. There is no deeper meaning to their words nor do they carry any emotional weight.

The thin dialog leads to stumbling character development which in turn gives the actors no footholds to explore their roles. Crowe ends up providing a mush-mouthed version of Maximus from Gladiator and Blanchett turns Maid Marion into Queen Elizabeth with muddy cheeks. If anything, this production may have you pining for their previous work, when they could display their talents in a forum that was worth of their effort.

The film isn’t a complete waste. There are many moments that are enjoyable and contain some worthwhile messages. Longstride is given plenty of lines defining self-determination and human freedom. These messages are lost however in the wandering plot and lose their impact. If you get bored you can look for these small kernels of meaning in this slop of a plot.

I wanted to enjoy the movie but Scott and co. wouldn't let me.




Related Reviews:
Russell Crowe movies
American Gangster (2007)
A Beautiful Mind (2001)


Other Critic's Reviews:
eFilmCritic
Roger Ebert



Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: Cate Blanchett, film, Max von Sydow, movie review, Ridley Scott, Russell Crowe, Scott Grimes, William Hurt

Screenwriters: Brian Helgeland (L.A. Confidential)
Director: Ridley Scott (Kingdom of Heaven)
Actors: Russell Crowe (American Gangster), Cate Blanchette (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), Mark Strong (RocknRolla), Matthew Macfadyen (Frost/Nixon), Kevin Durand (Smokin' Aces), William Hurt (History of Violence) and Max von Sydow (The Adventures of Bob & Doug McKenzie: Strange Brew)

Labels: Cate Blanchett, film, Kevin Durand, Mark Strong, Matthew Macfadyen, Max von Sydow, movie trailer, Russell Crowe, William Hurt

I originally saw this movie before becoming a Christian and even thought it was screwed up back then. Looking at this with open eyes, it’s more of a cartoonish version of the afterlife than I remembered. Robin Williams is Chris who travels from Heaven into Hell to retrieve his wife who, consumed with grief has committed suicide. There’s so many theological issues littered throughout this New Age junk pile I’m not sure it’s possible to account for them all. This movie shows us the perfect post-modern version of Heaven – it’s all about me. The afterlife is the way you perceive it, you make your own Heaven or your own Hell. In Heaven you see things the way you want, to make you most happy. People are seen in the way that makes them most happy. God plays little if no role, we don’t have any relationship to him beyond what we choose, and on and on – me, me, me, more me now. Director Vincent Ward pulls out some interesting visuals but when dealing with the aspects of the afterlife clever set design doesn’t cut it.


Related Reviews:
Robin Williams movies
The Fisher King (1991)
The World According to Garp (1982)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Film Threat
ScreenIt

Labels: Cuba Gooding Jr, film, Max von Sydow, movie review, Robin Williams

This movie is easily the best horror movie of all time. A young priest, haunted by doubt and personal turmoil joins with an older priest to exorcise an adolescent girl, possessed by a demon. The demonic portions of the film are overplayed at times, the spinning head and spewing pea soup is a bit much, but overall William Friedkin handles his subject matter with a masterful hand. Horror works best if the filmmaker takes the subject seriously and grounds it in reality. In this case, Friedkin succeeds because he has respect for the theological aspects of the story and doesn't handle them with a smirk but with some reverence. He clearly understands that if you're going to propose possession than you have to seriously acknowledge that God exists and is the only answer to the conflict.

Strong performances from Max Von Sydow, Ellen Burstyn and Jason Miller make the most of the script penned by William Peter Blatty and Friedkin does well to capture their work.

This isn't a film for everyone. People easily frightened may want to avoid the movie. Those sensitive over the topic of possession may also want to pass this one up.

As a quick kick in the short loins to my atheist friends. If you're a slack-jawed atheist you may also want to see something else because, well, if you're really an atheist then this movie will be a stupid thing for you to watch. You can't tell me you don't believe in God but then turn around and get frightened by demon possession. It would be akin to me having a irrational fear of unicorns. I've had atheists try to tell me they thought this was a scary movie. Yeah? I guess I'd be scared too if I was unconsciously acknowledging the existence of God while still consciously denying him.


Related Reviews:
Exorcism movies
Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005)
The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Christian Spotlight on the Movies
FilmHead

Labels: Ellen Burstyn, exorcism, film, Jason Miller, Linda Blair, Max von Sydow, movie review, William Friedkin