Version 2.0

Today's review is for Barney's Version, based on the 1997 Mordecai Richler novel and starring 2011 Golden Globe winner Paul Giamatti. It would be fair to say that Giamatti's nomination for Best Actor in a Comedy or Musical was the main reason I wanted to see this film. A trailer seen not long after those nominations cemented it as a film of interest. Sadly, movies of this ilk tend to keep holding patterns active in limited release and wait until the Oscars are announced before making the final push for box office success. Sometimes this works, as films like Black Swan and The King's Speech made a lot of money in limited release before Oscar nominations and wide release. Sometimes, however, this backfires when a film garners no major nominations and pretty much missed their chance at the big payday. Barney's Version is the perfect example, as here was a chance to really push Paul Giamatti as a major acting force left instead in a gutter by the wayside. But that has to do with marketing and number crunching, which isn't my forte. So how does this title stand up as a film in its own right?

Challenging the idea that one can't look TOO Jewish

The film tells the life story of Barney Panofsky (Giamatti), from his youth as a layabout in Italy through the marriages to his three ex-wives (played by Rosamund Pike, Minnie Driver and Rachelle LeFevre), the disappearance and presumed death of his chemically-addicted best friend Boogie (Scott Speedman), and to the present day, where he recounts all this in the wake of his latest divorce and continued accusations of responsibility for Boogie's death by the detective who originally accused him. The story is presented from Barney's version of the facts (hence the title), and Barney himself is an uncomplicated character, making motions through life until he meets his true, and then does everything he can to keep her with him.

"I'm so high...look at my thumb! Weird..."

I've never read the book by Richler, so while I can't say I was a big fan of the film's story as a whole, I can't be sure if this is a problem inherent in the novel or simply in the transposing of the tale to the big screen. Barney's Version can't seem to decide what kind of movie it is. The film goes from being a coming-of-age tale to a romantic comedy, dabbling in buddy films and gross-out humor, and managing to incorporate a murder mystery between the margins as well. This is unfortunate because with such a jumbled storyline it's difficult to get a gauge on what we're supposed to be feeling towards the characters, especially Barney, who appears to go to and fro along the sympathy scale without any clear destination. This might not sound bad to those reading this, but trust me when I say that I'm sure this works much better in a four-hundred page book than a 132-minute movie. Also of some concern was the film's makeup, which garnered an Oscar nom but nevertheless couldn't make Giamatti look the same age as his cohorts at any given time. I suppose they deserve credit for getting CLOSE enough.

May it last longer than the first two

The performances, however, are what make the film as good as it is. Giamatti especially makes it onto a very long list of lead actors who SHOULD have been nominated for Best Actor at this year's Oscars but didn't make the cut of final five (talk about a category that could benefit from expanding to ten nominees). Though his character goes through a few periods where the audience would be fully forgiven for thinking him a complete and utter douchebag, Barney is more often than not a good man who falls in love, loses and gains friends and enemies, and undergoes a life transformation over the course of, well, his life. Often he's the main reason I kept my eyes on the screen, and for much of the film qualifies as it's savior. Rosamund Pike is also charming as Barney's third wife Miriam, who is the love of Barney's life, the one and only. Though you can't escape that Pike looks years younger than Giamatti at all points during the film (she's only two years older than ME, folks), their relationship is shown in a very realistic manner, and Giamatti can't take all the credit for that. While Pike is forced to work under a lot of aging make-up during the film's run, she still manages to convey a different type of heart than we've seen from her before. Not to be outdone are the first two wives, played by Lefevre and Driver. Lefevre, whose biggest role to date was the role of Victoria in the first two Twilight films (and lost that role in the third by committing to this one), takes a small role and makes it hers as the snotty young woman Barney knocked up to become his first wife. Driver's career prime may not have been as high as some hoped or expected, but she's still delightful here as his shrill, overly-emotional second. Scott Speedman puts on one of the better performances I've seen from him as Barney's talented but troubled best friend, and Mark Addy makes a nice turn as a hard-nose detective sure Barney is guilty of murder. Last and unfortunately least is Dustin Hoffman as Barney's ex-cop father. Hoffman is in his "Focker" phase, with the cliche Jewish persona in full effect. He's not BAD, per se, he's simply played this role far too long and far too often, and it shows. While he still cranks out the occasional award-nominated roles, this isn't one of them.

Is the makeup making him look older or younger? I can't tell

There were times where I really wanted to get up and walk out of the theater. There were times I was sure I was seeing a masterpiece. Unfortunately, these were parts of the same film. While Giamatti deserves every great attemtion for his role in Barney's Version, the movie itself is mainly blah. It ties up every loose end with an annoying lack of subtlety, and while the ending gets up there in the "masterpiece" rating, it doesn't make up for the rest of the film not getting the job done. Not a great movie, by any stretch, but I'd recommend it just to see Giamatti and crew exchange good dialogue over the decades.

Bullseye

What is it these days with the movie industry trying their hardest to portray things "accurately"? It seems every filmmaker who once contented themselves with dreaming up original ideas before immortalizing them without needless speculation about exactly how things should be, now go the extra mile to make things as accurate as they possibly can. Medically accurate. Historically accurate. Scale accuracy. Hollywood is slowly becoming so obsessed with how things need to appear that I fear someday soon these same film legends will forget that they're trying to ENTERTAIN an audience. Ridley Scott I fear is strolling down that road. The director, whose sci-fi films Alien and Blade Runner were among the best of their genre, seems to be on a permanent accuracy-high since his good but over-hyped Gladiator won Best Picture in 2000. Since then, he's produced a number of films that have been lauded for their "historical accuracy" and while some, like Black Hawk Down or American Gangster, were fairly well received and made gobs of moolah, Kingdom of Heaven's lack of audience is a perfect example of what can happen if you too overly rely on such semantics. At least, these thoughts are what I had after seeing Scott's latest directorial effort, Robin Hood.

Russel Crowe and other people

In his take on the fabled hero who robbed from the rich and gave to the poor, Scott has attempted to draw upon the true happenings in England during the year 1199. Russell Crowe plays Robin Longstride, an archer in King Richard's Crusades and the war against Philip II of France. Along with his fellow archers Alan A'Dale (Alan Doyle) and Will Scarlett (Scott Grimes) and another soldier called Little John (Kevin Durand), Robin leaves the King's army and journeys home to England, where the men want to live in peace. Richard the Lionheart is killed in battle, and when news reaches England of the King's death, John (Oscar Isaac) is immediately anointed the new King of England. However, all is not well, as John's childhood friend and knight Godfrey (Mark Strong) secretly plots with the the French King to invade England, and John's rise to power facilitates the Barons of England-ruled territories to rebel against him, fracturing John's rule. Robin and his (not yet merry) men, meanwhile, have found themselves in Nottingham, a village where Robin is asked to fill in for a deceased knight, Robert Loxley, and meets Lady Marian (Cate Blanchett). Over the course of the film, Robin also learns much about his past, which had been a mystery to him for most of his life.

So tell me, why will a spoon hurt more?

This particular adaptation of the Robin Hood legend actually plays out more as a prequel to the more popularly known stories such as the one depicted by Disney. Starting not all that differently than the Kevin Costner variation, this new telling puts aside much of the feuds with King John and the Sheriff of Nottingham to focus more on the traitor Godfrey and the impending French invasion. In this way we actually get something different than we're used to, while also being exposed to enough familiar territory to be comfortable. It's a delicate balance, and this level of storytelling is one that Scott does well. As for the "historical accuracy" aspect, there are plenty of spots in the tale that Scott either glosses over or just plain gets wrong. I'm fairly certain the French never used a rowing variation of the Higgins boat made popular during the invasion of Normandy in WWII when invading England. Many bits, such as the details of King Richard's death or the inaccuracy of the French invasion, happen nothing like what appears in historical texts. In all, the "historical accuracy" claim seems to be unfounded and unnecessarily rolled out.

Marian wishes for more historical accuracy

This in itself isn't too bad when you consider the interesting characters and the actors who portray them. Though Crowe is a talented performer, he's really not suited to the role of hero. His best performance to date is of Officer Bud White in LA Confidential, a complete and unrepentant asshole, yet he keeps trying to play these noble roles of characters who are put under the thumb of oppression and lead those like him out of it. Robin is a capable, strong, and charismatic individual who for much of the film is just a common soldier. Yet by the end he's practically commanding the British army to victory. This is mostly the script's fault, but Crowe is not infallible, especially when his accent (which I guess is Scottish, but who can really tell?) changes constantly over the course of the film. He's also not quite so convincing when he's trying to be more suave. It's obvious he was cast in an attempt to recapture the glory of the Gladiator days, and here it just doesn't work. Blanchett is also talented as the Lady Marion, but she's another performer who had one major role and has been trying to duplicate it's success ever since. Her dialogue is mostly empty and voicing thoughts for the audience's consumption, and her eventual romance with Robin is not a little contrived. And of course Scott couldn't resist plugging her into soldier's garb when given the opportunity She's talented enough to pull it off, but there's only so much she can do. Imagine if she'd gotten a REAL role, what she could do with it. The standouts of the film are by far Mark Strong as Godfrey and Oscar Isaac as King John, Strong has been in a lot of good films lately, with Sunshine, Kick Ass and Sherlock Holmes painting the canvas with talent and believability. As the traitorous Godfrey he is charismatic in a deadly sense; he can convince you he's your best friend while sticking a blade in your spine. Isaac is more of a campy performance, but make no mistake: This is no Alan Rickman "spoon" stint. John is an unloved King, full of the things that make you hate even his appearance when he's on screen. He's everything Robin isn't, and it's a shame they don't spend more time together on screen, as that might have brought the film to another level.

They would settle for TARGET accuracy

The Merry Men get much less attention than they usually would, and that's a shame. Kevin Durand actually puts on what I think is his strongest show to date as Little John, the playful but dangerous second-in-command to Robin. The only non-archer in the group, Durand plays to his physicality the best of any role he's had since Lost. Mark Addy makes a fun Friar Tuck, recently taking over Nottingham's Abbey. With the odd habit of beekeeping (to make Mead, of course), Addy is fun in the little bit he's allowed to perform. Scott Grimes and Alan Doyle are fine if underused in their supporting roles. Grimes, best known for his work on Band of Brothers and ER, is charming but doesn't do too much else besides fire arrows. Doyle uses his musical talents as a member of the Celtic band Great Big Sea to play the minstrel A'Dale, but when he's not making music he's pretty much a side note. A little more attention to these men, as well as the professional William Hurt as Earl William Marshall would have helped expand the story and take a little away from focusing on Crowe's foibles.

William Hurt is better than this

Taken with a grain of salt (and avoiding talk of historical inaccuracies), I enjoyed Robin Hood in spite of it's problems. It's an overwrought mess, obviously bucking for awards but not good enough in any capacity to be deserving of them. It is however a fun viewing if you don't focus on how good it SHOULD have been. It's about on the same level of Hereafter: Interesting story with talent in both the director's and actor's chairs and yet somehow lacking in what makes a wonderful movie-going experience. Not equal to the sum of it's parts, I'd still recommend seeing this if you want to take in a fantastical action film with good acting, and it certainly was better than the movie you PROBABLY saw when it was in theaters, the disappointingly mediocre Iron Man 2. A word of warning to historical scholars, however: YOU won't be able to sit through this film.