Tweet
lol, 0/10 can't wait to check it out, being a big Kevin Smith fan and knowing that he did it just for the money is just too much temptation to resist.
-
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
Robin Hood
Directed by Ridley Scott.
2010. Rated PG-13, 140 minutes.
Cast:
Russell Crowe
Cate Blanchett
Oscar Isaac
Max von Sydow
Mark Strong
William Hurt
Danny Huston
Mark Addy
Kevin Durand
Léa Seydoux
The legend of Robin Hood, here played by Russell Crowe, has survive for ages by keeping him fairly simple. He and his band of merrymen, plus Lady Marion (Blanchett), roam Sherwood Forest and steal from the rich only so that they can give to the poor. Have you ever wondered how he wound up there? Me neither. However, in Ridley Scott’s sparkingly grimy update on the character that’s precisely what we find out. Oh, if you’re vexing over the oxy-moronic “sparkingly grimy” you have to see it to understand. Dirty people have seldom looked better.
Not content to merely be about our favorite archer, we’re treated to several other storylines to fret over. Most notable is one that emphasizes the difference between King Richard the Lionheart (Huston) and his brother and eventual successor John (Isaac). This supplies us with our hero’s reason to be heroic. Of course, there is also the love story and a couple other things going on. It’s not as convoluted as it sounds. Most of them breathe well enough on their own and come together nicely.
In the lead role, Russell Crowe does what Russell Crowe does. It’s not up there with his best, but it’s solid work, nonetheless. He’s actually outdone by Cate Blanchett as his love interest. Overall, the acting is very good. You should expect no less from the excellently assembled cast. The action scenes are solid, but not spectacular and evoke memories of Braveheart. However, they don’t quite measure up.
Evoking memories is a bit of a problem for this movie. It seems to blend the aforementioned Braveheart with another Scott/Crowe collaboration: Gladiator. The main problem is there seems to be little difference between our newly crowned King John and Gladiator’s Commodus, save for that whole incest thing. Instead of becoming something grand, it turns into a rather bland epic. It’s not bad, but it isn’t likely to stick in your psyche for very long.
Despite the best efforts of Kevin Cosner and Mel Brooks, the image most of us have of Robin Hood is one of Errol Flynn practically dancing up the stairs while sword fighting with multiple henchmen. Maybe we think of Flynn swing from the chandelier or from some other moment culled from all the fantastic cheese that movie provides. All the while, he’s wearing the unmistakable bright green tight and funny mustache. Hmmm…I’d dismissed all charges of homoeroticism against the classic until I wrote this paragraph. There’s nothing wrong with that. I just had a revelatory moment, that’s all. Anyhoo, the 21st century version is a solid, but flawed effort not likely to change the reality of our perception of what Robin Hood should be.
MY SCORE: 6.5/10Comment
-
I actually really liked Robin Hood, taking it at face value.Comment
-
[quote=dell71;1327602]Also, I have to say that since our liking Freddy didn't happen until 3 movies in, its irrelevant to this flick. After the original, we dreaded him and that's the angle this goes for so I won't throw in the what happened in the sequels against it.[/spoiler]
Its a bit of a weird thing, but I have to disagree with your post here, because while Freddy was feared, and he didn't become the pop culture figure until the third film, but there is something that happens in that first film, there is a certain allure to that character after the first film...it is why there is a second and third and fourth film...the same happened with Mike Myers, Jason, etc. There is a certain fear after the first film, but they instantly become likable characters going forward, no matter how diabolical he is in the first film.
Again, I guess I'll disagree here. The essence of the character changed dramatically as soon as the first film ended. When watching Bride, I really find the character to be a cartoon...the damn thing is smoking, what is to be perceived as marijuana in the movie. Not to the same extent, but Dracula, Wolfman, The Mummy, etc. all became cartoons...maybe not so much The Mummy, as there was no real sequel, but about a decade later there was a series of B-Flicks involving the Mummy.Lastly, I see your point about "Bride of Frankenstein" but have to disagree on how the monster became a cartoon. Honestly, I think it had little to do with the sequel and much more to do with the original (& the book). Most of the time, when Frankenstein's monster is spoofed it is the groaning, barely coherent version that is mocked not the more intelligent version of the sequel. "Young Frankenstein" being an exception and even that skewers both. Also, the monster as an overgrown infant, an imbecile, is such an iconic figure he became an easy target.Comment
-
To that I'll say it's not that they're suddenly likeable characters, but we like being scared and they scared us. To me, that's the allure.
Can't really argue too much with that other than to note that there are cartoonish aspects to the character dating back to the novel. So I can see it both ways.Again, I guess I'll disagree here. The essence of the character changed dramatically as soon as the first film ended. When watching Bride, I really find the character to be a cartoon...the damn thing is smoking, what is to be perceived as marijuana in the movie. Not to the same extent, but Dracula, Wolfman, The Mummy, etc. all became cartoons...maybe not so much The Mummy, as there was no real sequel, but about a decade later there was a series of B-Flicks involving the Mummy.Comment
-
Comment
-
Wow I was going to go buy cop out but 0/10? Damn son.
Comment
-
Comment
-
A Single Man
Directed by Tom Ford.
2009. Rated R, 99 minutes.
Cast:
Colin Firth
Julianne Moore
Nicholas Hoult
Matthew Goode
Ryan Simpkins
Jon Kortajarena
In 1962, George Falconer (Firth) is a college professor and gay man who becomes distraught when his partner of nearly two decades dies in a car accident. He contemplates suicide, finds comfort in the company of his friend/drinking buddy Charley (Moore) and is pursued by a rather persistent young man who also happens to be one of his students. Persistent is putting it nicely. He’s actually stalked, but since George never complains it’s all good.
We watch our hero in flashbacks to happier times with his mate, seriously consider sticking the gun from his desk drawer in his own mouth and squeezing the trigger, get interrupted, have a laugh with Charley or flirt with Kenny (Hoult), the stalker. This actually happens on a loop, so it seems as if we watch the same series of events play out repeatedly. Since we can tell rather early where this is all leading, it seems rather pointless..
Opportunities to really engage us go by the wayside. Yes, he’s a gay man in early sixties. There’s even a few hints that this is indeed a more intolerant time than our own, but nothing really relevant to the film. As I mentioned before, the young student stalks him which he brushes off. What we have is a situation based on obsession by the younger party and lust by the older with neither aspect really being explored. Even worse, the ethics of a professor seeing a student is never even brought into question.
There are some good things going on. George’s scenes with Charley are easily the best in the movie. They share memories, wine, laughs, even a sexual past. What makes these work is the empathy we feel for her. She’s been unlucky in love and clearly pines for a man she can never have in the way she wants.
Through it all, the actors turn in some excellent work. Firth is very good at showing his emotions on his face without over-emoting. It’s a nice, subtle performance. Julianne Moore is excellent. In the unsung role of Jim, the deceased lover seen only in flashbacks, Matthew Goode is also very good.
In the end, it’s a decent watch, but it doesn’t realize it’s full potential. The story is told in a manner suggesting we’re watching something important but never gets around to what that might be.
MY SCORE: 6.5/10Comment
-
Did Firth deserve all the hype for his acting performance? He had a huge Oscar campaign to try and get him the Oscar.Comment
-
Watched Heath's last movie a couple more times since it's been on HBO.
It really doesnt make a lot of sense at times whatsoever. Like each person who goes into the mirror is supposed to make a choice, one being the devil's and the other the doctor's. You would think that the devil's option would symbolize evil while the doctor's would be the "good" choice.
But thats not how it is. For instance the first time Tony goes into the mirror with that old lady the choice she has to make is either take her lover (johnny depp) to a cheap hotel to fuck OR ride a gondola down a river which somehow is compared to James Dean, Princess Diana all dying young. The hotel choice = devil. the gondola = the doctor. This makes no sense.
And then the next time Tony goes into the mirror and is being chased by the mafia, he's shown climbing the latter to success or enlightenment while the guys chasing him ruin it, this symbolizes his past catching up with him in a sense. So the doctor and the devil are competing for the souls of the guys after Tony. Just as they're trying to hang him the doctor trys to convince the guys to become police offers (i guess because they like violence?) and then the devil ultimately wins their souls when he appears as one of the guy's mothers.... So join the police = the good choice, while the guy's mother = the bad choice? This shit makes no sense whatsoever.
Also LMAO @ Andrew Garfield's attempt at acting. This dude got spiderman? gtfo
/rant
Comment
-
Comment
Comment