Robin Hood is not the film you would expect. It chronicles the rise to infamy (or 'famy' depending on how you look at it) that Robin Longstride took when he returned from the Crusades.
The film starts with a siege on a French castle, where Richard the Lionheart, the King of England, is killed. Meanwhile Robin has been put in the stockades with some people he was fighting with, and has made the decision to desert the army once he is freed. His opportunity arises when the king dies, and he, along with Little John, Will Scarlet and Allan A'Dayle (whoever that is). One his way he encounters an ambush on the King's Crown return party, which he, along with his 'merry men' in turn ambush themselves. They kill a few French soldiers and he (Robin) shoots Godfrey, the main antagonist of the film, across the mouth, scarring him. They meet a dying Robin of Loxley, who asks Robin (Longstride - Russell Crowe) to return his father's sword which he stole. This part confused me, because if you've never heard the story of how Robin Hood came to be, you wont know that Robin Longstride was a bad ass archer who was just a pauper, and Robin of Loxley was one of the King's knights. Robin Longstride then assumes the identity of Robin of Loxley (who was the one from Nottingham - I thing Longstride was from Darlington) in order to return the crown to England and Loxley's father's sword. Meanwhile King Richard's stupid younger brother Prince John has shacked up with the French King's niece, and is generally a tool. He get's proclaimed king, kicks out the chancellor and puts his stupid friend Godfrey (yes, the French guy who everyone knows is a badd'un) as the new chancellor, ordering him to go up north and collect taxes on pain of death from burning and swords.
Anyway to cut a 140 minute film short, Robin pretends to be the wealthy Robin, he gets emotionally invested in Nottingham and Marion, and unites the King and the north to fight the French who Godfrey invites to have a little invasion. Of course he wins, and then gets cast out by King John because he's much cooler and everyone likes him, but everyone thinks King John is a tool.
I had a few issues with the film, my main one being Marion. She waited 10 years for her husband to return from the crusades, having only spent about a week being married to him before he left. She then fancies new Robin, once he acts as her husband (she is fully aware he isn't, they are putting on a show for the people so she can keep her land) which to me, seems silly. She waited 10 years, for a man she dropped at the tip of a hat for someone PRETENDING TO BE HIM. That to me seems messed up. Robin Longstride stole Robin of Loxley's lifestyle as a 'favour to the Loxleys'.
Gripe number 2 is Russell Crowe's accent. Was he Irish? Australian? English? Get it together Russell.
Also, there was an awful lot of cheese in the film. Not the cool kind of cheese either, like Cheddar or Montery Jack, no, the corny type (what an odd concept). It can all be epitomized by Marion's line during the beach battle against the French which went "This one's for you Walter" (I should explain - Walter was Robin of Loxley's blind father who tried to defend himself against Godfrey when they came to Nottingham. Godfrey killed him). Marion then rode over to Godfrey, got beaten up because she had no place being on a battlefield and luckily Robin saved her, then carried her through the battlefield for a bit like in The Bodyguard, only there was no awesome kicking, just Russell Crowe not getting attacked because it was an emotional moment.
However despite all this I did enjoy the film, it was a lot of action, fun to see something about Nottingham (even though it wasn't really) and good to see some feral children doing their bit too. I would recommend seeing it, but only if you've got a lot of time cos it's a long stretch, but it doesn't feel like it while you're watching. See it once, talk about it for a bit, then forget about it.
29/05/2010
13/05/2010
Power Rangers: The Movie (Bryan Spicer, 1995)
Power Rangers, one of my childhood professions.
The film is based around the original Mighty Morphin ones, as opposed to the new 30 different types (they could beat the crap out of any of them) and involves, typically, the protection of the planet from an evil source, this time in the form of Ivan Ooze who for some reason speaks English despite being, like, 6000 years old and some sort of weird purple alien. Anyway he creates this ooze and gives it to all the kids in Angel Grove, and they take it home, and all their parents play with it and it brainwashes the parents but not the children oh no, they're fine. Ooze ransacks the Command Center and so the Power Rangers lose their power to morph and physically run to the Command Center to see what's up. Oh I should also mention that at the start they do SPORTS LOTS OF SPORTS and sky dive cos they're the best at everything, and everyone in the city is waiting for them when they land and then they roller blade and do tricks and stuff because life is good when you're a Power Ranger and you don't have any money problems or acne or parental trouble. (Where are their parents anyway?)
So they have to go to another planet and go on a quest to get their ninja powers because they don't mighty morph anymore they ninja morph, and then they come back and beat Ivan Ooze and then everything's fine again and they eat lobster and watch some fireworks.
The characters used to be very stereotypical, the yellow ranger was East Asian and the black ranger was African American but now that's all changed, the black ranger is just American and the yellow ranger is African American and things couldn't be better. The blue ranger is still a nerd though. The characters are pretty basic, you don't really get to know them apart from in terms of the relationships they have with each other, for example you never find out that Billy's father left his mother when he was a young boy and because of his mother's string of marriages he can never have a proper relationship with a girl (something which may or may not be true). But my point is you don't really know these people, but you're not supposed to, it's a kids movie and looking at it from the perspective of a filmmaker, or even an adult, is stupid so I'll just focus on other stuff.
The uniforms are awesome, I really want one of those helmets.
And the falcon zord has missiles in it! The ape zord is best though.
Also I hadn't realised until I re-watched it a few days ago, but I make all the kung-fu noises Tommy does, only I don't know kung-fu.
The film is based around the original Mighty Morphin ones, as opposed to the new 30 different types (they could beat the crap out of any of them) and involves, typically, the protection of the planet from an evil source, this time in the form of Ivan Ooze who for some reason speaks English despite being, like, 6000 years old and some sort of weird purple alien. Anyway he creates this ooze and gives it to all the kids in Angel Grove, and they take it home, and all their parents play with it and it brainwashes the parents but not the children oh no, they're fine. Ooze ransacks the Command Center and so the Power Rangers lose their power to morph and physically run to the Command Center to see what's up. Oh I should also mention that at the start they do SPORTS LOTS OF SPORTS and sky dive cos they're the best at everything, and everyone in the city is waiting for them when they land and then they roller blade and do tricks and stuff because life is good when you're a Power Ranger and you don't have any money problems or acne or parental trouble. (Where are their parents anyway?)
So they have to go to another planet and go on a quest to get their ninja powers because they don't mighty morph anymore they ninja morph, and then they come back and beat Ivan Ooze and then everything's fine again and they eat lobster and watch some fireworks.
The characters used to be very stereotypical, the yellow ranger was East Asian and the black ranger was African American but now that's all changed, the black ranger is just American and the yellow ranger is African American and things couldn't be better. The blue ranger is still a nerd though. The characters are pretty basic, you don't really get to know them apart from in terms of the relationships they have with each other, for example you never find out that Billy's father left his mother when he was a young boy and because of his mother's string of marriages he can never have a proper relationship with a girl (something which may or may not be true). But my point is you don't really know these people, but you're not supposed to, it's a kids movie and looking at it from the perspective of a filmmaker, or even an adult, is stupid so I'll just focus on other stuff.
The uniforms are awesome, I really want one of those helmets.
And the falcon zord has missiles in it! The ape zord is best though.
Also I hadn't realised until I re-watched it a few days ago, but I make all the kung-fu noises Tommy does, only I don't know kung-fu.
06/05/2010
Iron Man 2 (Jon Favreau, 2010)
I got stuck in New York. So sue me.
Well I went into this film having been told it wasn't as good as the first one, but I was pleasantly surprised. The action was action, Robert Downey Jr. was his usual debonair self, and Terrence Howard metamorphosised into Don Cheadle.
The story follows on directly after the end of the first film, but starts from the perspective of Mickey Rourke's character, Whiplash. I wasn't sure how to interpret Rourke's character, because he clearly had a backstory, and had been raised to hate the Stark family so I found it hard to hate him. Especially because he was such a bad ass. Anyone who has a Parakeet can't be all bad right? The real baddie turned out to be Hammer, Tony Stark's answer to Mandark (see Dexter's Laboratory).
The action sequences were really amazing, when I was watching the credits I counted about 10 visual effects companies who worked on the film, and it really shows because there're some spectacular special effects. I especially liked the parts in Stark's basement where we works. The effects where he walked through his computer and built the new element were astounding.
However my one gripe with the movie, is Scarlett Johansson. I've been told that her character has no purpose, and I absolutely agree. Any one of her sequences could have been altered so a pre-existing character could play her parts. Although I understand there is a whole world already created for Favreau to draw from, and she's probably in it. I just didn't see the point in her, Gwyneth Paltrow could have done most of her role and still have been Pepper Potts.
However having said that the film is fantastic, perhaps no so much so as the first but it still left a good impression on me, and despite preferring Terrence Howard to Don Cheadle as Rhodes, I did enjoy the fight sequences between him and Iron man, and then again at the end in the botanical garden dome thing.
Also, the AC-DC soundtrack is awful and there wasn't nearly enough Samuel L. Jackson.
I've got a little something in mind for my next review. It'll be awesome. And amateur.
Toodles!
Well I went into this film having been told it wasn't as good as the first one, but I was pleasantly surprised. The action was action, Robert Downey Jr. was his usual debonair self, and Terrence Howard metamorphosised into Don Cheadle.
The story follows on directly after the end of the first film, but starts from the perspective of Mickey Rourke's character, Whiplash. I wasn't sure how to interpret Rourke's character, because he clearly had a backstory, and had been raised to hate the Stark family so I found it hard to hate him. Especially because he was such a bad ass. Anyone who has a Parakeet can't be all bad right? The real baddie turned out to be Hammer, Tony Stark's answer to Mandark (see Dexter's Laboratory).
The action sequences were really amazing, when I was watching the credits I counted about 10 visual effects companies who worked on the film, and it really shows because there're some spectacular special effects. I especially liked the parts in Stark's basement where we works. The effects where he walked through his computer and built the new element were astounding.
However my one gripe with the movie, is Scarlett Johansson. I've been told that her character has no purpose, and I absolutely agree. Any one of her sequences could have been altered so a pre-existing character could play her parts. Although I understand there is a whole world already created for Favreau to draw from, and she's probably in it. I just didn't see the point in her, Gwyneth Paltrow could have done most of her role and still have been Pepper Potts.
However having said that the film is fantastic, perhaps no so much so as the first but it still left a good impression on me, and despite preferring Terrence Howard to Don Cheadle as Rhodes, I did enjoy the fight sequences between him and Iron man, and then again at the end in the botanical garden dome thing.
Also, the AC-DC soundtrack is awful and there wasn't nearly enough Samuel L. Jackson.
I've got a little something in mind for my next review. It'll be awesome. And amateur.
Toodles!
04/04/2010
The Hurt Locker (Kathryn Bigelow, 2008)
After initially not wanting to see this film (the trailer bored me) I saw it post-Oscars. And it was better than I thought it'd be.
It explores feelings of hopelessness and longevity in war situations, similarly to Jarhead, but shows them not through the central character, but the situations they're put in. For example they get stranded in the middle of the desert for about a day waiting for a pick up. After they've killed some snipers firing on them they have to wait and stare at their position just in case there's someone else they haven't shot yet. They wait like that, in the same positions for hours on end.
The main character is an abrasive redneck named Sergeant James who comes into the story about 10 minutes in as the new bomb disposal technician. Now I'd assume the guy is supposed to be abrasive and a bit of a tool otherwise Bigelow massively misjudged the character. However there are times when his cocky attitude is more of a help than a hindrance, and this only seems to be in war-time situations where he risks his own neck to save everyone, but when he's play fighting with his army buddies and takes it too far, he ends up with a knife against his throat. This exemplifies the idea that soldiers are a different breed of human, who can't function in society, something which is touched upon when he returns home and does the shopping, finding it difficult to decide which cereal to choose.
Another point worth mentioning, is that the whole scene that takes place in James' room where they all drink and punch each other, seemed completely stupid and just made me like all the characters less. I sort of understand that the idea was to make them the jocks of the working world, but it just made them seem overly-violent for no reason.
Other than that, I did really quite enjoy the film, despite my reservations. There were some harrowing moments, and these were delicately balanced by uplifting ones. The film ends on a high but questionably immoral note, as James makes the decision to do what he loves.
It explores feelings of hopelessness and longevity in war situations, similarly to Jarhead, but shows them not through the central character, but the situations they're put in. For example they get stranded in the middle of the desert for about a day waiting for a pick up. After they've killed some snipers firing on them they have to wait and stare at their position just in case there's someone else they haven't shot yet. They wait like that, in the same positions for hours on end.
The main character is an abrasive redneck named Sergeant James who comes into the story about 10 minutes in as the new bomb disposal technician. Now I'd assume the guy is supposed to be abrasive and a bit of a tool otherwise Bigelow massively misjudged the character. However there are times when his cocky attitude is more of a help than a hindrance, and this only seems to be in war-time situations where he risks his own neck to save everyone, but when he's play fighting with his army buddies and takes it too far, he ends up with a knife against his throat. This exemplifies the idea that soldiers are a different breed of human, who can't function in society, something which is touched upon when he returns home and does the shopping, finding it difficult to decide which cereal to choose.
Another point worth mentioning, is that the whole scene that takes place in James' room where they all drink and punch each other, seemed completely stupid and just made me like all the characters less. I sort of understand that the idea was to make them the jocks of the working world, but it just made them seem overly-violent for no reason.
Other than that, I did really quite enjoy the film, despite my reservations. There were some harrowing moments, and these were delicately balanced by uplifting ones. The film ends on a high but questionably immoral note, as James makes the decision to do what he loves.
02/04/2010
Alice in Wonderland (Tim Burton, 2010)
Finally saw Alice in Wonderland today and it lived up to my expectations. I'm a fan of Tim Burton but i'm always skeptical about his films because they're usually quite big hits. However.
Alice in Wonderland is exciting, fantastical and full of the symbolism of Carroll's original work, while remaining fully a Tim Burton film. Perhaps it's due to Burton's usual roster of actors. Speaking of actors, the film boasts a good line-up including Matt Lucas, Stephen Fry, Martin Sheen and the iconic Christopher Lee and Alan Rickman.
The film gives off a trippy, opium-driven perspective, following different characters at different times like the story is easily distracted. This is only added to when the film is seen in 3D.
Mia Wasikowska played a good Alice, however Anne Hathaway annoyed me a little bit. I know she was supposed to be airy and floaty, but she just didn't do it for me. She was more like the other type of queen.
Overall though I did really enjoy the film, holding it high above that other Disney garbage from the 50s.
Here's the trailer for your perusal...
Alice in Wonderland is exciting, fantastical and full of the symbolism of Carroll's original work, while remaining fully a Tim Burton film. Perhaps it's due to Burton's usual roster of actors. Speaking of actors, the film boasts a good line-up including Matt Lucas, Stephen Fry, Martin Sheen and the iconic Christopher Lee and Alan Rickman.
The film gives off a trippy, opium-driven perspective, following different characters at different times like the story is easily distracted. This is only added to when the film is seen in 3D.
Mia Wasikowska played a good Alice, however Anne Hathaway annoyed me a little bit. I know she was supposed to be airy and floaty, but she just didn't do it for me. She was more like the other type of queen.
Overall though I did really enjoy the film, holding it high above that other Disney garbage from the 50s.
Here's the trailer for your perusal...
The inevitable welcome post
Everyone has one. Hello. Welcome to my blog. It's about films. I hope you've come to the right place. I'll go ahead and post a review now.
This originally started as a thing on Flixster, but I figured there's probably a proper place for my half-hearted reviews. That'll be why some of them are a bit weird.
This originally started as a thing on Flixster, but I figured there's probably a proper place for my half-hearted reviews. That'll be why some of them are a bit weird.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
