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

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

Screenwriters: Matthew Michael Carnahan (The Kingdom), Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton) and Billy Ray (Breach)
Director: Kevin McDonald (The Last King of Scotland)
Actors: Russell Crowe (American Gangster), Rachel McAdams (The Notebook), Ben Affleck (Hollywoodland), Jason Bateman (The Kingdom), Robin Wright Penn (Forrest Gump), Helen Mirren (Excalibur), Viola Davis (Disturbia) and Jeff Daniels (The Crossing)

Labels: Ben Affleck, film, Helen Mirren, Jason Bateman, Jeff Daniels, movie trailer, Rachel McAdams, Robin Wright-Penn, Russell Crowe, Viola Davis

I have mixed feelings about this film. Ridley Scott is a workman who has dutifully made very dense, impressive films. His best movies (Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, Thelma & Louise, Blade Runner, Alien) are strongly constructed and very direct. When he is on he is one of the most confident storytellers making movies today and I think that is his real appeal. These films don't wander, they choose their path and he mines the narrative for all it's worth. This, and his heroes tend to be blue collar in their thinking and manner. This outing is a little different. He seems less secure in his story and the whole film suffers from a lack of focus.

The film tells the story of Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington), a drug dealing crime boss who in the 1970's began funneling heroin from Vietnam to the United States. This was done by bribing military men to do his smuggling for him. Working against Lucas is Det. Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe), an incorruptable cop with a failing marriage and a ex-partner who overdosed on Lucas' product. A third branch of the film comes from the horribly corrupt police department fronted by the threatening Detective Trupo (Josh Brolin). Everything is there to make one heck of a story, multi-dimensional characters, strong motives, a grand scale. Scott missteps however in his choice of focus. He concentrates on Lucas' part of the story. While this means we get an opportunity to watch Washington dig his teeth into a meaty role (something not as common as it should be) it also means we are cheering on the bad guy. Lucas is the hero of the story, Roberts (the real hero) is cast as the villain. Do not understand, Roberts isn't portrayed as evil, he's actually quite sympathetic, he is the villain when we look at the narrative's structure. Since Roberts isn't a real bad guy, Scott is forced to drag in the corrupt cops and Dect. Trupo to play this role. This makes the narrative a little cockeyed and other areas suffer for it. First, Robert's failing marriage becomes a unconnected distraction to the rest of the story. This could have been a meaningful and rich area but it comes across as shoehorned since the topic is only visited instead of explored due to time constraints. Moreover, Lucas and Roberts as men are not as deeply investigated as they should be because so much time needs to be spent jumping from one avenue of the story to the next. ***SPOILER*** By the end of the film, Lucas is caught and imprisoned. He turns on his hard won business, and it is noted that Roberts eventually defends the man in court. This remarkable turnaround mentioned in passing before the final credits is confusing because there is nothing in the film that hints that this would ever happen. A shocking turn like this should be born out by the nature of the character, there is little in the actual film to explain what happened in real life after the story drops off.

Overall, the film is a good watch but it fails to be a great film. The awkward script asks too much of the audience and despite the wonderful scene work and strong performances, the film fails to deliver as much as it could. It's better than most but still faulty.


Cautions: There's tons of violence, drug use and swearing.


Worldview: The following of the criminal instead of the cop doesn't make this a bad movie. It is obvious that a criminal can make an effective hero (Godfather II leaps to mind). There needs to be a coming to Jesus moment however. The criminal needs to acknowledge his deeds, to be held to account. This film has this scene in the end, but it feels flat due to a lack of depth. Lucas is shown to be a criminal but he's not often shown to be acting criminally. He kills a man on screen but this man is a competing thug who is clearly menacing him. It comes off as more of self-defense even though he murders the man in cold blood. Since Lucas' crimes are watered down to make him more appealing, the power of his confession loses much of it's punch. This final conversation is a gentle twack upside the head of the audience alerting them that while we have been on the side of the criminal, what he is doing is indeed evil. This film doesn't come out in favor of murder and selling drugs. But it doesn't necessarily clearly condemn it either. When we look at the film's portrayal of almost all cops as being on the take and shown to be more villainous than the drug dealers the movie's finale is morally muddled and therefore misleading.


Related Reviews:
Denzel Washington movies
Fallen (1998)
Deja Vu (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Creative Loafing
Screen It!

Labels: cops, Denzil Washington, drugs, film, mob, movie review, Russell Crowe

Strong performances by Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly support a profoundly moving script by Akiva Goldsman. The film tells the tale of mathematical genius John Nash who struggles with schizophrenia. Intelligent and well produced, this has earned all of the praise it has received.


Related Reviews:
Russell Crowe movies
Mystery, Alaska (1999)
Cinderella Man (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Crazy 4 Cinema
Movies for Guys

Labels: film, Jennifer Connelly, movie review, Ron Howard, Russell Crowe

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

As a general rule I am against remakes. The recent trend is to rehash every recognizable title in cinematic history into a cheap facsimile, fabricated for a culture that no longer cares. To be honest, when I first heard they were remaking this classic, I expected a disappointing and unneeded film until I saw Christian Bale and Russell Crowe fronted the production.

Fortunately, this is a well-conceived film that is definitely worth your attention. Both Bale and Crowe give substantive performances. Crowe plays Ben Wade, an infamous criminal who has been condemned to be hanged at Yuma Prison for his sins. Crowe is well at ease in this role of a seductive, smiling criminal who can be murderous one moment and glad handing the next. Bale is Dan Evans, a financially strapped rancher, who also happens to be a great shot. When no one else is up to the task, Dan volunteers to deliver Ben to his judgment.

As Dan and his compatriots deliver Ben to the 3:10 train to Yuma, they run into all matter of danger and are pursued by Ben's gang. The gang is headed by the wild-eyed Charlie Prince (Ben Foster) who is flushed with rage and has a tendency to accommodate his itchy trigger finger. Foster overacts his part but his broad performance still works. His character is meant to soften Ben's villainy. Ben may be a bad man, but he's not as bad as that sharp toothed snake of man Prince.

Throughout the film Ben offers Dan numerous chances to avoid is duty, to break his word. It is clear that Dan will not survive the trip, Ben's gang will find him and they will kill him. It is likewise clear that Ben will not bend. He is the only man of honor in the film. He stands by justice and he does not yield.

The film is expertly executed and founded in a very strong script updated by Derek Haas and Michael Brandt (Wanted). Along with the strong performances and steady direction, this film is a blueprint on how to remake a movie.


Cautions: This is a violent film. The violence isn't gratuitous but it is plentiful. Those with sensitivity to violence should reconsider seeing the movie.


Related Reviews:
Christian Bale movies
Batman Begins (2005)
The Prestige (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Cinema Dave
Ill-Informed Gadfly




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

Labels: Christian Bale, film, movie review, remake, Russell Crowe, western

This is a great back up pick when what you want isn't available. This is also quite a well constructed sports film as well. If you're into sports, you should give this one a second look.


Related Reviews:
Sports movies
Faster (2003)
The Greatest Game Ever Played (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Big Screen Cinema Guide
3 Black Chicks Review Movies

Labels: film, Hank Azaria, movie review, Russell Crowe, sports