Robin Hood

Directed by: Ridley Scott
Written by: Brian Helgeland (story and screenplay)
                 Ethan Reiff (story)
                 Cyrus Voris (story)
Cast: Russell Crowe (Robin Longstride)
        Cate Blanchett (Marion Loxley)
        Max Von Sydow (Sir Walter Loxley)
        William Hurt (William Marshal)
        Mark Strong (Godfrey)


This movie had a couple things to live up to, a comedic rendition of Robin Hood (thanks Mel Brooks for Men in TIghts) and the 90s classic, Prince of Thieves.


I say that it had things to live up to also because of the all-star team fronting it (see above).


Again though, I will do my best to review this as a movie on its own and without comparison (if that's at all possible).


Long Live the King


[spoiler alert!]


In one of the films first sequences (interestingly done castle siege, at that) we see a French archer kill Richard the Lionheart. Historically speaking, I don't think this actually happened. In other treatments of Robin Hood, the king was always described to be "away at the crusades" or something similar. Very quickly I thought, "This kinda screws the Robin Hood universe. He was supposed to be the good king that everyone waited for!", now though, no matter what difficulty came to Nottingham, on some level, it would never end because the tyrannical king would never really be replaced! But that was just a quickly intrusive thought that affected the whole storyline and not the movie per se.


English to French


Mark Strong as Godfrey was excellent, as with Blackwood in Sherlock Holmes, this was a bad guy that I wanted to see hurt. He was probably one of the character I had a genuine sentiment towards. Though his scheme was simple, I really enjoyed watching him do it. Something about the way he acts makes the villain look more devious and hate-able.


Two for two as a bad guy, I wonder which bad guy he'll portray next...


Gritty, Edgy, and...FAIL


The setup for Robin Hood was quite good. The movie looked "hard", more graphic, rougher - similar (I am using this term LOOSELY) to the transition of Batman to Batman Begins. Ground work was laid out well, the tandem of Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe was set to work it's magic yet again.


Here's where things start to miss their marks.


The storyline was stretched too far. The England breaks into civil war, Robin discovers his bride-to-be, England unites against France, and the king goes back on his word. Now this could've easily been made into a movie, no doubt. Except that, the portrayal of the story and combination of the elements that told Robin's tale fell short of something that would keep an average moviegoer entertained. Some of the sequences felt "forced" and did nothing for the movie except add to the running time.


What's the first thing I think of when I think Robin Hood? Archer. Did this movie live up to that thought? No, not even close. Robin had maybe two well portrayed arrow shots in the whole movie but that was it. The archery tournament happens in the next story, but even then. You've got a guy who you know can shoot an arrow through an arrow, and what do you do? Almost nothing. The movie failed to make me feel like he was THE archer of his time. Hell, I think Legolas had far better firing shots than Robin Hood, especially after seeing this movie.


Tied in to my previous point was that there was no visual hook to this movie when in fact there were numerous chances to do so. "What was your favorite part of the movie?" - some might answer with the ending, still some will answer with something else; what that something else is, I have no clue. The trailer of Robin Hood had me going "ooooohhhhh", like I was looking at something that would be death-defyingly cool, the movie...left me feeling robbed (Not that I'm rich and he gave to the poor, but I felt like Robin Hood stole from me and gave it to the movie makers).


Lastly, I would've liked to have seen and felt the presence of the sheriff of Nottingham more. This movie is just a setup, thats true, but we all know the sheriff to be Robin's main enemy, I think they could have made the audience feel that more. He wouldn't have had to steal the limelight, it would've been okay for him to make me feel that he would make Robin of Loxley's life a nightmare, like we all expect him to. Loxley's chance to do the same for the sheriff could've been shown in the next movie (pray tell, should there be one).


---


From the guys who gave us Gladiator, I expected more, a lot more. Robin Hood missed its target.

Overall: 5 out of 10
- Wait for the DVD to go on sale, then buy it. Watch something else at the local theater.
- The conversations you'll have about this are how most of you will prefer Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and Robin Hood: Men in Tights.

Sherlock Holmes

Directed by: Guy Ritchie
Written by: Micheal Robert Johnson (screenplay)
                     Anthony Peckham (screenplay)
                     Simon Kinberg (screenplay)
                     Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (characters)
Cast: Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes
          Jude Law as Dr. John Watson
          Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler

          Mark Strong as Lord Blackwood

I had no clear expectations before I saw this movie, the only thing I had seen prior was the poster. Let me say this before I start: 

I WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THE MOVIE, MAKING ONLY SLIGHT (IF AT ALL ANY) REFERENCES TO THE STORIES. 


This is after all, a movie review, not a book-to-movie review.

A Matter of Logic

Computing and calculating how to beat someone while sneaking up on him? Impromptu chase investigations incognito? I'd say that goes beyond the standard detective stuff.

It was an entertaining approach to what would have usually been very normal and common. The slow-mo with the narration worked really well both as an entertainment factor and as a support for Sherlock Holmes, defining his character further. Same goes with his investigative methods, I particularly enjoyed the sequence wherein he ran after Irene Adler. It was an interesting take on early English private investigation.

Elementary, My Dear Watson (signal British accent, clear diction)

I'm no expert on the British accent by any means, but I really don't think that what I heard resembled anything authentic, most especially with Sherlock Holmes (let's set aside Jude Law and Mark Strong, as they are British). There is more than one British accent, probably depending on where in England one is from, I don't know them all but for the most part, I really feel that Downey could've done a better job making Sherlock sound more British. With Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler, I found her accent to be confused. Trivia: Irene Adler was supposed to have been born in New Jersey, only moving to London in her late twenties. Given her history, it is MAYBE excusable for her to be sounding "confused".

Enter now: Sherlock Holmes lines and dialog - I couldn't really understand a lot of what he was saying all because I found him to be eating his words and hardly even opening his mouth when he had something to say. It sounded like he was reciting things to himself, like solving puzzles aloud. As a member of the audience, I ended up hearing garbled speeches, leaving me to pick up every third word and complete his sentences on my own. There was a lack of diction and emphasis on dialog, which took me out of the movie. A good film reels me in and makes me forget about the guy chewing popcorn next to me. This this really made me look at my watch and sit back, waiting for the scenery and production to explain itself. Again, a good movie won't make me "wait", it will make me want to see what's going to happen next [I'll mention another element in tandem with this point in in a bit].

Added Thrill?

There were a number of scenes wherein the musical score was overdone. Let me zero-in on one as an example. 

The fist fight between Holmes where he is in the "arena". Fast-paced fight, howling crowd, cool calculated logic, the shrill scream of violin/bag pipe sounding. Off the bat, it could work, why not? Except when the music over-plays that it takes the attention away from the scene (note: I think it was the only active audio at the time, everything else was muted), then yes, you might have overdone it just a bit, to say the least.


End Note


The movie lacked the X factor that would've sucked me in. My last example, the villain that Holmes is supposed to pursue in the sequel was named as Moriarty. Trivia: Moriarty is main villain in the Sherlock Holmes stories. Did you feel that there was even a build up that alluded to that? It felt like Moriarty was just another villain, nothing more.


Not the best work from the heavy hitting names on the roster but an interesting take on Sherlock Holmes altogether. 




Overall: 6 out of 10
   - Only worth your money if there is nothing else to see at the theater
   - You and your friends will probably have two conversations about this movie before you find something more interesting. I doubt anyone will talk about it further, no 'Holmes Hangovers' in the predictable future.

Avatar

Written and Directed by: James Cameron

Cast: Sam Worthington as James Sully

         Zoey Saldana as Nertini

         Sigourney Weaver as Dr. Grace Augustine

         Stephen Lang as Colonel Miles Quaritch

         Michelle Rodriguez as Trudy Chacon

         Giovanni Ribisi as Parker Selfridge

Even before seeing this movie people were telling me right off the bat that it was gorgeous. Another friend even said it was "simply beautiful", mind you that dude never talks like that. So I walked into a 3d theater and thought I'd see the "beautiful stuff" for myself.

Visual Eyegasm

From floating rocks to freaky birds of prey to the slendar Nav'i, I was blown away by the gorgeous visual treatment of Avatar.Watching it in 3d made it even more pleasing to the eyes. I tip my hat off to the imagination that came up with such a vivid and original display. I mean, really, a forest that glows in the dark??? It had me as soon as Jake Sully and Nertini stepped on the first branch. 

No qualms here. Almost pure perfection (I only wish my 3d glasses were bigger, but I can't blame the film crew for that one).

Pocahontas on Steroids

Let me get this out of the way: Michelle Rodriguez, please find new roles. You are falling into a typecast trap. You were alright in Battle in Seattle but you need something new.

I praise the concept of the Avatar: going into a machine to control another body (kind of like The Matrix meets Fern Gully except the other body in controlled in the same reality, oh and the other body is that of an alien race, the Nav'i - tall blue people), I can take (even enjoy) the tree hugging bit - given how relevant the idea is to the times, the love story (the whole falling in love with the enemy gig) was a bit contrived sure but that's okay. This is the one that really snagged me: for such an original execution I wish that the back bone of the storyline was more original.

[Spoiler coming!]

Humans look for new resources, they find Pandora, from it they want "unobtainium". Dr. Grace Augustine and Jake Sully through the Avatar program mingle with the natives, in the process, earning their trust. One of the goals is to relocate the locals because their camp sits on a large deposit of unobtainium. Corporations behind the endeavor however find that "peaceful" means is taking too long so they simply try to take it by force.

In a nutshell, that's Avatar. Again, it's a nutshell so I intentionally missed out on some elements which I'll mention later. To me though, it was simply a morphed-beefed up-alien Pocahontas translation. Man needs new resources, finds them then discovers that he is at war with himself in that some do not want to take it by force. Man fighting himself because he can't have something that is not rightfully his. This is little too unoriginal. Many of the other story elements built are around this main theme - a wasted opportunity.

For such great execution, Avatar could have been much greater as a movie. You have an excellent combination of production design, visual effects, direction, audio, acting (wait...I apologize. Except for Michelle Rodriguez.) - what's missing? A story backbone with depth. The supporting themes (nature, love, transfer of consciousness) can only be as great as the core they support.

Great work by James Cameron, i just feel it could have been greater.

Overall: 8 out of 10 

    - definitely worth your money

    - definitely worth discussing after with friends (other drinks or otherwise)

What and Why

My first blog entry...ever. Let me get some things out of the way before I actually start with the geek-speak.

The what: this blog is intended as a venue for me to share my thoughts (violent and otherwise) about movies. I'm a movie dork and have been since as far as I can remember. The silver screen has always been my refuge from reality and I can't help but recognize that the refuge that I run to changes, sometimes being nothing short of spectacular and sometimes still being the type of place you don't want to be caught dead in.

The why is simple: I love movies. I love saying what I think about them. I love hearing what others think about the movie and what I have to say.

With that, I close this blog entry.

The next post will be about an actual movie!