14.5.10

REVIEW - Robin Hood

When Robin Longstride (Crowe) returns to 12th Century England from the Crusades to fulfil a promise to a dying man, he finds himself trapped in a country destroyed by taxation and threatened with invasion by France. When the newly crowned King John begins to steal from his own people, the lords of the land unite against their crown – while a greater enemy lurks to the south.

Oscar-winning lead Russell Crowe and director Ridley Scott reteam for the fifth time for a take on one of the most enduring legends in English history. But this is not a story of Merry Men loose in the wilds of Sherwood Forest, stealing from the rich to give to the poor. This re-imagining steps back from that much adapted tale to give us a glimpse at the events which led to the birth of Robin of the Hood.

And who better to tackle a period action drama with a heady mixture of myth and history than the team behind the stupendous Gladiator and almost-worthy Kingdom of Heaven. Scott is a director who creates world’s that feel utterly real and Robin Hood is no exception. From the opening, tactically-rich siege of a French castle, through incredible recreations of medieval London and all the way to the massive final battle, the attention to detail is incredible.

More problematic is the story. While Scott and his gaggle of screenwriters should be commended for giving us a new perspective on the overly familiar tale they simply take their changes too far. The reason the Robin Hood legend has endured for so long is because it is a brilliant tale of a small band of adventurers taking on the might of the establishment. By widening the scope of the story, adding political intrigue and the possibility of French invasion, we lose the thrilling fight of the few against the many and the mythical tale of one man who tried to redress the imbalance between the wealthy and the impoverished (surely a timely theme).

This wouldn’t be such a problem if the period epic we are left with was a little more sprightly. At almost two and a half hours long, there’s little for the audience to sink their teeth into. The more realistic scale means it lacks the awesome spectacle of Kingdom of Heaven and the decision to make it suitable for little ‘uns means there aren’t even delicious scenes of dismemberment to keep us entertained. When Robin Hood ramps up to its historically-fabricated finale (a blatant, medieval version of the Normandy landings) it’s a pretty measly collection of drab soldier types, hacking away in bloodless fashion for a few moments before a hideously easy rout.

Crowe is fine as Robin, with an accent that occasionally takes a holiday around the north of England but there’s not enough meat on the Longstride character to keep the audience engaged. The cast arrayed around him is undoubtedly impressive but the character bloat means few are given time to distinguish himself – even the normally dependable Mark Strong flits by as a one note evil dude with a scar. It’s left to Cate Blanchett to steal the film completely; her Marion may be a little older than the norm but she looks absolutely stunning in the role and hits each emotional and mildly humorous note perfectly, selling the burgeoning romance with Longstride despite limited screentime.

Robin Hood is an attractive period epic which gets by on its performances rather than its spectacle. Scott’s attention to detail is impressive but the film often seems torn between a serious tone and some broad comedy – like Mark Addy’s Friar Tuck who attacks the invading French with bees and saucepans. There are marks of extensive trimming (a montage of towns sacked for taxes looks like something from the History Channel) and the fights are small, bloodless and lacking in any sense of peril. Ultimately, it lacks the enjoyable histrionics and spectacle of Gladiator and proves that the birth of the legend isn’t nearly as interesting as the legend itself.

3/5

10.5.10

Review - Four Lions

Christopher Morris' feature debut is a typically controversial comedy about Islamic fundamentalism in which four Muslim's decide they want to send a message by blowing something up... they just aren't sure what or how. Four Lions is a brave attempt to use comedy to address the very real fears we have of suicide bombers, and Morris and co make some powerful points about the mindlessness of religious or idealistic zeal. It's terrifying to see this group of people who compare the chance to go to heaven to going on a ride at Alton Towers instead of being stuck in the queue and are quick to reference Mortal Kombat as a murder tutorial, working their way towards terrible violence. It's a shame that these potentially strong messages are smothered by a film that is more intent on reaching for farce than illumination. For what it's worth, there are many hilarious moments in Four Lions but the comedy is so broad that it's hard to see beyond it.

4/5

Review - A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Freddie's back as the Michael Bay-owned Platinum Dunes production company takes another swing at a horror classic. We had relatively high hopes for this revamp, chiefly because the mechanics of the Nightmare series lends itself perfectly to movies which play with the expectations of the audience as much as the cast. 1984's Krueger was a maniacal trickster, flitting through the early scenes in a barrage of fun and often cheesy effects. 2010's version of the character has transformed into a staid movie monster - walking slowly through dank environments before boringly slashing his perma-tanned victims into mincemeat. The jumps are limp, belonging strictly to the cinema of loud noises = scary and an attempt to explain the psychology behind what is going on comes off as merely laboured pseudo-exposition. Worst of all, the kills are uninspired (though the final sting is a winner), the cast utterly forgettable and the modernisation of Freddie's crime more than a little distasteful.

A nightmare you could sleep through.

2/5