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

Short Review: Answering the question "How can he do worse than the ending for Signs?"


I’m a dunce. That’s why I like films to have a clear point by the time they wrap up. I’m silly that way.

Stories are arguments. The first act of a story is the "question", wherein the central issue put before the characters and audience is posed. The second act is the various attempts to solve the riddle unleashed in the first act. The third and final act is the answer to the main question of the story. This is the whole point of the three-act structure. Ask – Debate – Answer.

In The Village, M. Night Shamalamadingdong lets rip a cornucopia of symbols and mysteries. Each seems to move toward some grand truth. The film is a string of events that lead us to some interesting places but ends taking us nowhere. Its as if he had a thousand cool ideas, but had no idea what they meant.

It is vital for a story to have a point of view – to take a stand on the issue it presses. This film doesn’t make its stake even slightly. With all of the conflicting subplots, symbols and statements, we end up with a story that is as murky and fun as the lining my toddler son makes for his diapers. Either Shamalamadingdong is for organized religion or he’s against it. Either he is arguing for the goodness of mankind, or he is arguing against it. Either civilization is needed or it is not. Read other reviews of this film. Find me one that is not confused on what is being said with this film. It’s not clever or fair to leave people guessing in this fashion. It’s okay to leave em’ guessing on some plot point or final reveal – but it’s never okay to have large questions surrounding the whole thesis of your piece. That’s just bad storytelling.

Again, it is the result of the third act not carrying its weight. The answers to the questions must make some sense. Perhaps he didn’t know what he was asking. I don’t know. The problem is, no one else does either.


Related Reviews:
M. Night Shyamalan movies
Lady in the Water (2006)
Signs (2002)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Decent Films Guide
PopMatters

Labels: Adrien Brody, Joaquin Phoenix, M Night Shyamalan, William Hurt

Short Review: Don’t make me act, you wouldn’t like me when I’m acting.


Back in 2004 Ang Lee created a desperately boring film based on the Incredible Hulk comic books. Bruce Banner was a grim guy and the Hulk was just a think necked green lug who hit stuff. Fast forward to 2008 and now there’s an attempt to reboot the failed project. Sometimes when the body is on the slab and the heart goes silent, its best to keep the paddles away and let then thing just be dead already.

There’s plenty wrong with this movie. The characters are flat, the conflict stale and Edward Norton just isn’t right for the role. The reason he was so perfect for Fight Club is the reason he doesn’t work well with this film. He’s at his best he’s portraying an emasculated Everyman who is educated beyond his needs. When he tries to be heroic, or portrays someone with something to offer society (Red Dragon for example) he falls short. He’s a great actor and when he’s in a role that feeds his niche there is no one better. Here, he is misplaced.

For all of the shortcomings the failure of the film can be narrowed down to one simple thing. Screenwriter Zak Penn (The Last Action Hero) chose to not include a first act. Literally, he stuffs the content of what should be an engaging first act into the title sequence. While the opening credits role we see Bruce Banner (Norton) strapped to a chair in a lab. He winks to his love Betty Ross (Liv Tyler) as an experiment begins. The experiment goes sour and Bruce turns into the Hulk. The Hulk then bashes everything and hurts Betty. Bruce is shown leaning over her hospital bed, wrought with guilt. He is then chased away by Betty’s father General Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt). The title sequence over, the story picks up with Bruce living incognito abroad. Penn and company obviously felt that it was wasted time setting up characters, conflicts and history. This is a critical error that decimates the whole production. Without establishing the relationships between the major players, there is no depth to the conflicts as they move forward. Because of this missing segment the film is forced to lurch into second act conflicts with no explanation or warning. The script leaps from one inexplicable battle to the next sans context.

With the recent spate of superhero movies, I hope the failure of this franchise sets some executives back on the heels and slows other productions down. There was a time when talented people gathered together to make works of art, or at least memorable pieces of entertainment. This continuous stream of comic heroes updated with modern angst is getting not only tiring but just plain pathetic.


Related Reviews:
Superhero movies
Iron Man (2008)
The Dark Knight (2008)

Other Critic's Reviews:
Creative Loafing
Need Coffee

Labels: Edward Norton, film, Liv Tyler, movie review, superhero, Tim Roth, William Hurt

Labels: Dane Cook, Demi Moore, film, Kevin Costner, movie review, serial killer, William Hurt