Robin Hood

After the jury began splitting over the goodness (or terribleness) of Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood I began wondering just what I was expecting when I listed it as my #4 most anticipated film of the year. sure, I’m enamoured with Miss Blanchett (who isn’t) and though I’d say that Crowe has been snubbed by awards too often in recent years I don’t particularly love him. True, I did read the original script for the then titled Nottingham but with all the changes made that was an entirely different beast. Naturally I was disappointed with the tepid response, thus my expectations were somewhat lowered. I expected less and watching Robin Hood I got less.

Half an hour into Robin Hood two things truck me. The first was more obvious, I was feeling bored. However, more than this, I found myself remembering a book on screenwriting I’d read a few years ago. Sid Field had said that it’s always good to have a back-story to your screenplay so you’d know what happened to the characters just before the credits roll. She went on to say that sometimes writers like their back-stories so much they end up using it as part of the screenplay. Herein lies one of Robin Hood’s earliest issues. Screenwriter Brian Helgeland seems to be altogether too fond of his work and he chooses to open the movie forty minutes before it actually begins. It’s not that the running time is outrageous, but it feels like a chore. Note, I watched this the same day as the 190 minute Doctor Zhivago (my review), and I didn’t look at my watch once during that one. Even more he has a tendency to write some blandly expository dialogue that even Cate Blanchett (she thrives on those exposition passages usually) falters at times. It’s actually what does in Oscar Isaac who I was impressed with in Agora. Ridley Scott, or Helgeland or maybe Isaac himself seem so enamoured with making John a lascivious villain that he spends half the film shouting inane lines in a VERY LOUD VOICE. Pass.

And yet, don’t think I’m trashing Robin Hood because as it picks up I find myself charmed by its machinations. I’ve heard more than a few persons recognise Scott’s skill with battles, but I’d have preferred if he’d tried to make Robin Hood an introspective character study than an amalgamation of what we’ve seen before. The entire point of rebooting the series depends on it offering something different. Hence, it’s the new portrayal of Maid Marian that stands out in this incarnation. Yes, I am unfairly biased to Cate. It is what it is, but it’s a register that I like her in. She’s not as irrepressible as Kate or formidable as Elizabeth, but the toned down but nonetheless strong woman is something she plays excellently. It’s not her best, by any means, but her decision to show bits of emotion at the strangest parts turns her Marian into the most realistic portrayal of the film. Sure, it ends with a somewhat misguided monologue from her but the almost chaste attraction between Hood and Marian work. Marian is past her prime, and more than a heated romance she wants a man she can finally depend on and stand by. Thus Ridley’s decision, to make it less about the physical and more about the intellectual, works for me.

            

More than any film Robin Hood thrives with the promise of what could have been…but I’ll put the possibilities out of my mind. Robin Hood is imperfect, but in its own way it was divertingly charming. Certainly not the comeback Scott and Crowe were looking for, and after a year and a half without Cate I’m unsatisfied. Still, they could do worse. I came in expecting less, but I didn't get nothing.

              

B- [almost a C+, but not quite]

The Ultimate Road Trip

Ridley Scott is a director that doesn’t get enough credit. Sure, he did Gladiator which was the more or less a return to form the epic but he’s no one trick pony. I, for one, am anticipating his interpretation of Robin Hood next summer. In 1992 Scott earned an Oscar nomination for a film that people often forgot he helmed. Thelma & Louise looks like a chick flick, perhaps it is a chick flick. But it is also a thoroughly enjoyable film that features two exceptional lead performances. It’s the story of two friends – Thelma & Louise – one a meek housewife, the other a brash waitress who head out for a bit of fun on a road trip, which goes horribly awry.

I cannot think of Thelma & Louise without affection and even though it’s not exactly a comedy there is that subtle feeling of joie de vivre one unearths from it. Much of that comes from the two lead performances – Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis. I have nothing against Jodie Foster, but I’d not have voted for her on either of her Oscar wins. I often wonder if Susan Sarandon failed to gain an Oscar because of vote-splitting with Geena Davis. The two women are outstanding in their roles and they do some fine bits of acting off each other. The womanly affection they have between themselves is beautiful to see and its an enduring example of cinematic friendship. A young Brad Pitt makes a showing as an intrepid and possibly dangerous drifter and his unlikely chemistry with Geena Davis is lovely to watch.

                              

When we remember Thelma & Louise we often remember than iconic final jump, and that only goes to show how Ridley Scott put his indelible stamp on this film. But above all else Thelma & Louise’s success lies in its story. Callie Khouri is skilled and manages to make all the outlandish occurrences believable and never insincere. It’s a good piece of writing, and I can turn a blind eye to the horrific Mad Money.

                    

Thelma & Louise is a tour de force for Scott. It’s edited wonderfully, features good performances and boasts a top notch script. It’s fun and sometimes even funny and above all else it’s a good piece of film. Not bad for something that people are prone to refer to as a chick flick. It’s #78 on my list of favourites.