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

Ridley Scott is a brilliant director who has a tendency to stumble every once in a while. He’s made impressive, consequential works like Alien, Gladiator and Blade Runner. He’s also responsible for G.I. Jane, Hannibal, Kingdom of Heaven and Black Rain. When he makes a film he goes all out. Sometimes he finds his groove sometimes he doesn’t. When he misses his efforts aren’t abysmal, they’re still loaded with carefully crafted scenes and some good performances. The pieces as a whole are flat and in this case lethargic as if his message isn’t able to get through coherently. Even his most awkward efforts are still better than most films out there.

This particular production fails to give a reason for its being. It happens, we watch and nothing is learned or gained. It’s well organized but ultimately static. The story about isolated CIA agent, Roger Ferris (Leonardo DiCaprio), who operates out of Jordan and who is under the whims of his stateside handler Ed Hoffman (Russell Crowe), is typically cynical and convoluted. The plot unrolls in the expected fashion of a war on terror flick with the conventional relativist conclusions and sneering account of American motives. The problem with moral equivalence and not picking a side is that you end up having no point of view to express. A plague on both your houses argument may seem like a reasonable reaction to modern international politics but in a narrative such as this it is hard to posit without becoming muddled.

The film would have been better with clearer lines drawn. For those who would argue that is not how the real world operates, here’s a clue, this is a movie not the real world. To tell a story you need to make concessions to get a useful point across. I’m looking forward to Scott’s next film, he tends to follow up his fumbles with touchdowns.


Related Reviews:
Leonardo DiCaprio movies
The Aviator (2004)
Catch Me if You Can (2002)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
ReelViews
Critical Culture

Labels: film, Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Strong, movie review, Ridley Scott, Russell Crowe, terrorism

Ridley Scott has a great track record, and if nothing else this movie will be well pieced together. The trailer seems to tip us too much information however. Scott will obviously have a deeper movie than what is suggested here, but enough of the narrative is given away to make me wonder if they weren't a little too generous.






Screenwriter: William Monahan (The Departed)
Director: Ridley Scott (Gladiator)
Actors: Leonardo DiCaprio (Titanic), Russell Crowe (Mystery, Alaska), and Mark Strong (Sunshine)

Labels: film, Leonardo DiCaprio, movie trailer, Ridley Scott, Russell Crowe

Nicholas Cage stars in this forgettable film about a neurotic con man who is cursed by his compulsive need to have his environment clean. There’s really not much else to talk about. You watch Cage act twitchy, not the best way to spend one's time. There are some good works mixed in with plenty of mediocre fumbling. This film seems to be up some good but the ending is so illogical that it spoils any of the positive aspects. There are good threads about guilt and family that run through the film, but they fizzle in the finale. This is too bad since the story should have delivered the goods. If you haven't seen it, no need to bother yourself with it now.


Related Reviews:
Nicholas Cage movies
National Treasure (2004)
World Trade Center (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Roger Ebert
Reel.com

Labels: film, movie review, Nicholas Cage, Ridley Scott, Sam Rockwell