Robin Hood
To be fair, I was not expecting much from the new Robin Hood. Constant delays and continuous script rewrites were among the rumors coming down the pipeline. But what concerned me more was that every time word came of a script rewrite, the entire concept of the film sounded different. First, it was supposed to be the Robin Hood story from the Sheriff of Nottingham's point-of-view, then it was supposed to be some sort of Scarlet Pimpernel situation where Robin Hood and the Sheriff were the same person, and then it turned into this "realistic" prequel that the Sheriff is hardly even in. To me this just sounded like director Ridley Scott wasn't sure what story he wanted to tell. And that is a bad sign.
So it is no surprise that the story of how lowly English archer Robin Longstride became a national hero and then infamous outlaw is deeply flawed at the conceptual level. This is a movie in search of itself.
Which is not to say it is all bad. There is too much talent involved, and they strive valiantly to make the film work. The acting along the board is terrific. Russell Crowe is brooding, and a bit in Gladiator mode, but he carries the film admirably on his shoulders. He isn't Errol Flynn, but he certainly isn't Kevin Costner, either. And Crowe and Blanchett, as Maid Marian, have an easy and realistic chemistry. Mark Strong as the villainous Godfrey, Oscar Isaac as King John, and William Hurt as loyal English baron William Marshall, all deliver terrific performances. The art direction and cinematography are all great; once again Ridley Scott's greatest success is in creating another world that is entirely believeable and not 'Hollywood.'
So it really is a shame that the film does not gel together. The first 30 minutes is all over the place, terribly edited and paced. And then the moment at the end where (not a big spoiler here) Robin Hood actually becomes an outlaw seems entirely arbitrary and silly. Inbetween, there are a legion of half formed ideas, from the weird wild children living in the woods who look like extras from Zardoz to a major plot point about a certain character's father that appears for five minutes, says its really important, and then vanishes without any other mention.
It is possible that there is a director's cut lurking out there, just like Ridley Scott's previous epic Kingdom of Heaven. With the extra footage, that film went from mediocre to superb. But I don't know if the extra footage would help Robin Hood. The problems run too deep. Like I said in the beginning, I wasn't expecting much from the film. And unfortunately, I got exactly what I expected...
MVP: I have to give it to the production designers, art directors, and costume team. From the castles to the armor to the look and feel of the villages, this is a world that lives and breaths and feels real. Kudos.
BEST LINE: Can I pick a line so bad it's good? "I declare him to be an outLAWWWWWW!!!!!"
TRIVIA: Russell Crowe at 45 is the oldest actor to play Robin Hood. Which surprises me because Connery looked pretty darn old in Robin and Marion.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Shane
Shane
Let's cut to the chase. Shane should be horribly dated. It should be one of those movies that loses its impact because it has been copied so many times. I went in with this fear and almost saw it realized.
I sensed trouble brewing immediately. Just like we've seen a million times before, an evil rancher - in this movie his name is Ryker (Emile Meyer) - is trying to push all the farmers off his potential grazing grounds. And just as we've seen a million times before, a bunch of thugs are in the process of bullying a poor sharecropping family (Van Heflin as dad, Jean Arthur as mom, and Brandon DeWilde as the son) when silent and badass Shane (Alan Ladd) appears. The bad guys, terrified of Shane's badassness, run away. The immediate problem for me, even this early in the movie, was that Shane just wasn't bad ass. I was pretty sure that even I could take him in a fight - and considering how much of a wuss I am, that says something. What follows is a bunch of scenes we've seen in dozens of westerns, including bar fights, country dances, a gunfighter who tries to settle down, quick draws, and evil guns-for-hire (a young and menacing Jack Palance). Maybe Shane did a lot of this first, but we've seen it all now a hundred times over.
But as the movie progressed a funny thing started to happen. I got hooked. The acting is truly what won me over. Van Heflin's perfectly pitched and natural performance as the farmer Joe Starrett was the first thing I noticed. Then it was Palance's genuinely creepy bad guy who seemingly can't stop smiling even when he guns you down. And then I figured out Shane's secret. He doesn't need to act badass. He doesn't even want to be badass. He's a genuinely nice and polite person. But push him too far and there will be hell to pay. He's nowhere near as tough as later lone warriors as played by Clint Eastwood, Mel Gibson or countless others, but I have a feeling he could kill them all without blinking. It's a subtle performance from the underrated Alan Ladd, and very real.
So it is safe to say that by the time the movie ended, I thought to myself, "Yeah, this IS a classic." We've seen it a dozen times before, but rarely has it been done better. The movie sneaks up on you and wins you over completely. I would definitely recommend it!
SPOILER: DON'T READ THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE!
One thing to discuss is whether or not Shane dies at the end of the film. I am of the firm belief that he does die. When the last shot of the movie is Shane's silhouette, stiffly slumped over a horse that is aimlessly walking across camera...I'm pretty sure the man is dead. Besides, Shane can't live. It defeats the purpose of the movie. His world is ending. Civilization and families are moving in, as represented by the Starretts. Shane does love this new world. He wants to be a part of it and much of the movie revolves around his attempts to join this more peaceful future. But in the end, its not his world. His world is the gun, blood, and ultimately death. And to me, that's what the movie is about. So sorry folks - Shane is dead!
OSCARS: Best Cinematography
OSCAR NOMINATIONS: Best Supporting Actor (Palance and DeWilde), Best Director (George Stevens), Best Picture, Best Screenplay
MVP: Alan Ladd puts in terrific work, but I'm actually going with Van Heflin. His performance is not dated in the least. He should be a noble and pompous ass, as written, but Van Heflin grounds the performance in reality and makes Starrett a man who ultimately just wants what is best for his family. You can't help but to look up to the guy. It's good work from an actor I never really paid attention to before. I'll be paying attention now...
TRIVIA: The memorable scene were Shane practices shooting in front of Brandon DeWilde took 119 takes to get right!
Let's cut to the chase. Shane should be horribly dated. It should be one of those movies that loses its impact because it has been copied so many times. I went in with this fear and almost saw it realized.
I sensed trouble brewing immediately. Just like we've seen a million times before, an evil rancher - in this movie his name is Ryker (Emile Meyer) - is trying to push all the farmers off his potential grazing grounds. And just as we've seen a million times before, a bunch of thugs are in the process of bullying a poor sharecropping family (Van Heflin as dad, Jean Arthur as mom, and Brandon DeWilde as the son) when silent and badass Shane (Alan Ladd) appears. The bad guys, terrified of Shane's badassness, run away. The immediate problem for me, even this early in the movie, was that Shane just wasn't bad ass. I was pretty sure that even I could take him in a fight - and considering how much of a wuss I am, that says something. What follows is a bunch of scenes we've seen in dozens of westerns, including bar fights, country dances, a gunfighter who tries to settle down, quick draws, and evil guns-for-hire (a young and menacing Jack Palance). Maybe Shane did a lot of this first, but we've seen it all now a hundred times over.
But as the movie progressed a funny thing started to happen. I got hooked. The acting is truly what won me over. Van Heflin's perfectly pitched and natural performance as the farmer Joe Starrett was the first thing I noticed. Then it was Palance's genuinely creepy bad guy who seemingly can't stop smiling even when he guns you down. And then I figured out Shane's secret. He doesn't need to act badass. He doesn't even want to be badass. He's a genuinely nice and polite person. But push him too far and there will be hell to pay. He's nowhere near as tough as later lone warriors as played by Clint Eastwood, Mel Gibson or countless others, but I have a feeling he could kill them all without blinking. It's a subtle performance from the underrated Alan Ladd, and very real.
So it is safe to say that by the time the movie ended, I thought to myself, "Yeah, this IS a classic." We've seen it a dozen times before, but rarely has it been done better. The movie sneaks up on you and wins you over completely. I would definitely recommend it!
SPOILER: DON'T READ THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE!
One thing to discuss is whether or not Shane dies at the end of the film. I am of the firm belief that he does die. When the last shot of the movie is Shane's silhouette, stiffly slumped over a horse that is aimlessly walking across camera...I'm pretty sure the man is dead. Besides, Shane can't live. It defeats the purpose of the movie. His world is ending. Civilization and families are moving in, as represented by the Starretts. Shane does love this new world. He wants to be a part of it and much of the movie revolves around his attempts to join this more peaceful future. But in the end, its not his world. His world is the gun, blood, and ultimately death. And to me, that's what the movie is about. So sorry folks - Shane is dead!
OSCARS: Best Cinematography
OSCAR NOMINATIONS: Best Supporting Actor (Palance and DeWilde), Best Director (George Stevens), Best Picture, Best Screenplay
MVP: Alan Ladd puts in terrific work, but I'm actually going with Van Heflin. His performance is not dated in the least. He should be a noble and pompous ass, as written, but Van Heflin grounds the performance in reality and makes Starrett a man who ultimately just wants what is best for his family. You can't help but to look up to the guy. It's good work from an actor I never really paid attention to before. I'll be paying attention now...
TRIVIA: The memorable scene were Shane practices shooting in front of Brandon DeWilde took 119 takes to get right!
Labels:
Alan Ladd,
George Stevens,
Jack Palance,
Jean Arthur,
Shane,
Van Heflin,
Western
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)