Don't Call Me Superman

What a turnaround it has been in recent years for both comic book movies and Marvel Studios. In the early years, they sold the film rights to their best-selling titles to studios such as Paramount, Sony and Fox. In doing so, Marvel often saw their franchises treated with disdain or indifference by major for decades. For every excellent X2 or Spider-Man, there was a Ghost Rider or a Fantastic Four that would ruin everything you might have liked about the characters. But while Marvel still doesn’t own the rights to some of their biggest comic titles, their perfectly-executed “Phase One” plan reversed their fortunes almost immediately. By taking several of their titles and placing them within the same overall universe and timeline, they created a force of nature that started with 2008’s Iron Man and finished with The Avengers, not only one of 2012’s best movies but the biggest blockbuster not directed by James Cameron (coming to a rest third on the worldwide box office behind Titanic and Avatar). Between that and Marvel’s purchase by Disney, the studio is locked in to deliver more greatness with their “Phase Two”, which began this summer with the extremely popular Iron Man 3.

What a day to not be wearing shorts!

DC Comics, meanwhile, would love that kind of success right now. Once seen as the creative superior to Marvel when it came to the film medium, their output the past decade has consisted of two-thirds of a great Batman trilogy (thanks to director Christopher Nolan) and a string of disappointments that includes Catwoman, Watchmen, Jonah Hex, Green Lantern and arguably the biggest bust, Superman Returns. A sequel to the first two Christopher Reeve classics (and ignoring Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace), the Bryan Singer-directed Returns was in fact moderately successful. Unfortunately, moderately successful doesn’t cut it with a film that costs over $200 million to put together, and plans for two future sequels were scrapped as a result. Now DC (and their resident film studio Warner Brothers) has attempted to recreate the success they had in rebooting their Batman franchise with their other major comic superstar, giving Supes a grittier, more grounded origin and dripping the story in emotional layers in Man of Steel. In doing so, they want to build the DC film universe to the point where they can answer Marvel’s challenge and issue their own superhero-team flick with The Justice League. And while the director they assigned this task – Zack Snyder, of Watchmen and Sucker Punch infamy – wouldn’t seem like quite the right guy for that job, DC did good by getting Christopher Nolan to produce, placing the best director they’ve ever hired just behind the shoulder of the flashy, style-over-substance Snyder.

Is he getting jealous?

The result of this pairing? Well, it’s good, for the most part. Man of Steel has some great moments, especially the early flashbacks of a dying planet Krypton and scientist Jor-El (Russell Crowe) saving his infant son by placing him in a rocket and sending him to the distant planet Earth before his home can be destroyed. Growing up knowing he is different from the people around him, Clark Kent (The Tudors’ Henry Cavill) travels around the world, helping people through his actions (and enhanced strength and abilities), and trying to discover where he comes from and his purpose in life. In flashbacks, we see how Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) encouraged his adopted son to keep his powers a secret, feeling that the world would be unprepared to accept Clark’s abilities. These are beautifully captured moments, mixings of bittersweet emotion, artistic camerawork, and excellent CGI when required (not just when it would look cool). Looking back, with the exception of the fall of Krypton, there isn’t a real action sequence until almost the last act of the movie, and the fact that you can forget and forgive that transgression from a supposed Summer blockbuster is a testament to how invested we become with the characters themselves.

Absolutely terrifying.

Those characters are the backbone of the film and its greatest resource, and Snyder (with perhaps some cajoling from Nolan) does an excellent job of using them to the best effect. Cavill and Amy Adams (who plays tough-as-nails investigative reporter and intergalactic love interest Lois Lane) are excellent both together and apart, with Cavill showing (often without dialogue) that he is an actor on the rise. Adams has arguably never done a bad performance, and her veteran presence is not only the best-ever interpretation of Lane, but a stabilizing agent for the up-and-coming Cavill. As for the rest of the cast, both Crowe and Costner do excellent jobs as Clark’s biological and adoptive fathers, respectively. Crowe seems born to play Jor-El, and Costner’s homesy look and drawl make for an excellent Papa Kent (Diane Lane however is kind of boring as mother Martha). Michael Shannon takes up the Terence Stamp’s mantle when he plays the Kryptonian General Zod. To look at Shannon on paper, you wouldn’t expect him to be so frightening a character as someone with all of Superman’s strengths and none of his morals, but the veteran actor really carries Man of Steel in the second half. As a result, he’s definitely going to be a tough act to follow in any potential sequels. My only disappointments in the cast were located in the Daily Planet, Lois Lane’s newspaper. Lawrence Fishburne plays the first ever African-American version of Editor-in-Chief Perry White, while Rebecca Buller plays intern Jenny Olsen, obviously the adaptation of the comic books’ Jimmy Olsen. The problem I have is that these characters are largely pointless, taking part in some expository scenes but otherwise not contributing much to the overall movie. I don’t care if Perry White is black or if Jimmy Olsen is a woman; I just wish that wasn’t the beginning and end of their character development.

Lois Lane: Kicking ass and taking names since 1938.

But Man of Steel’s biggest problem is not its development of poorly-scripted secondary characters or even the strangely wide-open plot holes that are scattered about the script, but an abrupt change of pace in the final act. That’s when the action strikes, and while it contains beautiful imagery, excellent CGI and character-defining moments, it’s just not that much FUN. Snyder’s direction has always been visually-appealing, even when the product was the mind-numbing horror of Sucker Punch. I’ve said before that Snyder should direct music videos, as his ocular palette works wonders in spurts a few minutes at a time. By the time we’ve gotten through twenty minutes of action sequences involving bright beams of light, explosions, rescues, destroyed buildings and a ton of violent acts, we just want the whole thing to be over with. The filmmakers also make the questionable choice of changing a major aspect of the caped crusader – in other media, you’ll never see Superman put defeating the bad guys in a higher priority over protecting innocent bystanders in big fights. Here the term “bystander” appears all but ignored in the script, resulting in simplistic good-vs-evil battles that never break the mold, and feeling almost like a typical Jerry Bruckheimer production. The film never gets Great Gatsby boring, but there’s still no excuse for such beautiful action that is so generic that we almost don’t care about the outcome.

Maximum security just got an upgrade.

The limp finish is really the only major thing wrong with Man of Steel, but it’s still enough to turn a potentially great film into a merely good one. I’ll give credit where it’s due: Snyder, Nolan and their crew succeeded in creating a Superman movie more grounded and realistic than anything done before them, and it’s the next-best thing in the DC film universe to Nolan’s first two Batman projects in terms of quality. Obviously Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are high watermarks to cross, and expectations of the like from Man of Steel are definitely unwarranted, though you can still have a good time should you see this on the big screen. In the battle of Marvel vs. DC, Man of Steel is a long way away from being as iconic as The Avengers or Iron Man, and is probably closer to Marvel’s second-rate Captain America movie. That’s not a bad place to be, however, and if the folks at DC and Warner Brothers can build upon its early successes (and bypass its weaknesses), then this might just be the first step in its own “Phase One”. Can a Justice League movie be far in the future? Give me a Wonder Woman I can get behind, and that’ll be a step in the right direction. Just like Man of Steel. 

Singing and Dancing

While my sister and I were growing up, our parents always wanted us to have a healthy appreciation for the arts and culture. Movies, museums and the theater were visited often, and those trips helped shape me into the man I have become, and continue to guide my perceptions of the world today. One I remember with some clarity was a showing at Boston's Wang Center of Les Miserables, the musical about poverty and revolution, crime and punishment in 1800's France. Even after all this time, I can remember the legendary musical numbers performed live by people who were masters of their craft. On Christmas, the whole country got a chance to see Tom Hooper's vision of that story on the big screen. Hooper, who could have done any project he wanted after scoring big with 2010's The King's Speech, decided to tackle the challenge of turning a story told 98% in song to a cinematic masterpiece. How did he do? Well, let's review.

Les Miserables follows Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) - a man who served 19 years in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's children - after he is paroled. While he at first cannot find work due to his reputation as a "dangerous criminal", Valjean eventually catches a break and manages to make some wealth and do some good for the people of France after fleeing parole and taking an assumed name. His nemesis and the man chasing him is Javert (Russell Crowe), an officer of the law who rigidly enforces the law and cracks down on even the smallest infractions. Valjean finds a purpose in life when he attempts to aid the sick and struggling mother Fantine (Anne Hathaway) and adopts her daughter Cosette upon her death. Meanwhile, a revolution is building as the downtrodden common folk take up arms against the oppressive King and bourgeoisie.

Hope you enjoy Hathaway's performance... it's damned short

The good news is, if you love the musical as much as some people I know, you won't have any problems with the big screen rendition of Les Mis. Hooper changes almost nothing about what makes the musical so impressive, from its memorable musical score to its multiple-threaded story full of entertaining characters. He augments only in the tiniest bits, most notably in the addition of a new song for Jackman at the midway point. Like the musical, the actors rarely speak in anything but verse, and the director gets great vocalization from his cast by having had them sing live during filming, rather than recording it in post production. While it takes some effort to get used to, and at a few moments the singing doesn't quite match the music, the result is a largely authentic emotional response from his actors, who really get into their performances as though they were really playing on Broadway.

She dreamed a dream, and then she was gone.

The cast of course is a big reason for why the whole thing turned out nicely, and the main credit for that can be attributed to Jackman and Hathaway. Hathaway especially steals the show, and considering she has MAYBE twenty minutes of screen time in a two-plus hour movie, that says a lot. She's assisted somewhat by Hooper's direction (the fall into degradation of Fantine just happens to be the most masterfully shot sequence in the whole movie), but for the most part she deserves all the credit in the world for taking an important bit part and wringing everything out of it that she could. I didn't even know she could SING, and here she is belting out solos like a veteran vocalist. She's an Oscar guarantee at this point, bringing talents to the role that very few people could have expected. Jackman, however, has a history with song and stage, and so his excellence as Jean Valjean comes as absolutely no surprise. The part plays to the best aspects of his theatrical abilities, and anybody who is used to seeing him play manly men in the X-Men films or Real Steel needs to see his work here. The rest of the cast are a step down, though both Eddie Redmayne and debuting Samantha Barks will completely surprise you with their acting and singing abilities. Both have long, excellent careers ahead of them at this point. Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen put on strong performances as secondary villains (when am I going to stop being surprised by Cohen's talents?), and while Amanda Seyfried did not really impress me with her appearances, she was so barely present that it's hard to really give her a hard time. The only dud in casting was Crowe, who sports a fine singing voice but can't seem to loosen up and look natural for the camera. It's especially surprising when you consider what a good job he did in the unspectacular Man with the Iron Fists. Here, he puts on one of his lesser performances, the weakest part of an otherwise great group.

If it wasn't for Hathaway, everybody would be talking about her.

But while Hooper gets a lot out of his cast and puts on some great visuals, his story feels... exactly the same as the musical. At the core, you're getting pretty much the same experience you would on a stage, and while that is pretty impressive it also speaks to a glaring lack of individuality in his vision. The last time I saw a musical theater-turned-theatrical release, it was 2007's Sweeny Todd, which suffered from much the same ailment. There just wasn't enough to make it feel like more than they filmed a stage play. While Hooper's Les Mis is a far superior experience than Tim Burton's production, at times the director could have mixed things up a bit to make up for the play's... melodramatics, especially in the final act. The final ten minutes are largely underwhelming, shoehorning an obscene amount of plot into a few minutes of film, and the closing scene is almost as bad as Titanic's "applause" finale. So why did this make the final cut? Because it was that way in the musical, that's why.

And he's STILL the manliest man in Hollywood.

There are people who absolutely LOVE the stage version of Les Miserables. Usually when adaptations such as this are made, they alienate fans of the original by completely changing elements that made the original experience unique, whether major or minor. But fans of the stage Les Mis will have no such issues, as few changes and an excellent voice cast guarantee that diehards will walk out of the theater crying and sure they have just seen a masterpiece. For the rest of us, this musical is great, but doesn't live up to that impossible superlative. Keep Jackman and Hathaway earmarked for their exquisite performances, but otherwise this is "just" a great, deeply encompassing good time at the movies, not one of 2012's absolute best.

Nuthing ta F Wit

When I was younger, I used to have a friend who was REALLY big into Asian Martial arts flicks. Anytime we would hang out at his place, there would be some movie or another playing on his television. I already was somewhat familiar with the popular Bruce Lee, but it was through him that I was introduced to Jackie Chan, Michelle Yeoh and Sammo Hung, years before their popularization in Hollywood. But it wasn't just these superstars that were in his VHS collection, but increasingly obscure titles that all but the most hardcore martial arts fans would know nothing about. These films often looked low budget, but made up for the imagery of not only what the human body could do (and most stars did their own stunts, remember) but the exaggerations through wirework that made for a wonderfully fantastical element to even the most grounded releases.

This same friend was also the one to introduce to me the New York rap group Wu-Tang Clan, often called the greatest and most influential hip hop group of all time. Nobody sounds quite like Wu-Tang, which is why the group has managed to keep their status for almost twenty years. De facto leader RZA apparently had as much respect for the old-school martial arts flicks as my childhood friend, because he directed and stars in The Man with the Iron Fists, an homage to the genre with big name stars Russell Crowe and Lucy Liu on hand.

That's going to be hell to clean out of the carpet.

Jungle village has its share of problems. The many clans are constantly at war, and the average folk just do their best to avoid being caught in the middle. When the Lion Clan, led by the treacherous Silver Lion (Byron Mann), makes a grab for power, every man, woman and child in Jungle village is in terrible danger. Their only hope of salvation? An opium-addicted mercenary (Crowe), the deposed son (Rick Yune) of Lion Clan's former ruler and the outsider Blacksmith (RZA), skilled in making exotic weaponry.

Oh, yeah. And Lucy Liu leads a brothel full of trained female assassins, as well.

The best parts of The Man with the Iron Fists? Well, leads Crowe and Lucy Liu add a bit of class to the cast, with an amazing on-screen chemistry that wishes you could see more of their characters together. Liu possesses the same charisma and allure that she brought to Ally McBeal over a decade ago, and forces control of every scene she enters. And Crowe, who was only able to be on set for ten days, does more with his role in that limited time than he has managed in the past decade of dedicated roles. For the first time in a long time, Crowe actually looks like he's having FUN. Maybe if he took roles like this more often, people would think more highly of his talents. Besides, they can't all be Gladiator. The soundtrack is solid and memorable, with new music not only from Wu-Tang but also The Black Keys, Kanye West and My Chemical Romance. The balance makes for one of the more pleasantly diverse soundtracks in recent memory, and stands out as one of the film's main selling points. The action scenes are decent, with no major problems sticking out, though for a movie with such obvious reverence for the genre, I wish there had been more major fight scenes than the few included.. MwtIF also carries with it a wonderful campiness; it's difficult to be too critical when things are far too silly, both visually and verbally, to really be taken seriously in the first place.

His name? Wait for it... Jack Knife.

Of course, that doesn't mean the experience is flawless. This is RZA's feature directorial debut, and it painfully shows on multiple levels. A couple of actors - Mann and Cung Le - manage to put in decent performances, but most of the acting is so bad that it completely defies the "so bad it's good" category, especially the surprisingly weak Yune. Worse is former WWE superstar David Bautista as a prototypical villain. But the absolute worst parts of the cast are the insipid Jamie Chung and RZA himself. Chung has shown no sign of improvement after poor appearances in Sucker Punch and The Hangover Part 2. All the potential she once had has turned to vapor, perhaps never to be seen again. RZA is slightly worse an actor than he is a director, taking himself and his film far too seriously and only popping during a brief flashback sequence close to the movie's climax. His dull narrative is a problem, as it's obvious he doesn't trust the audience to follow along such simplistic lines, or couldn't find a better way to convey it. You need a scorecard to keep track of all the characters and double crosses, and many potential storylines were left either on the drawing board or the cutting room floor. It's obvious that while Quentin Tarantino has attached his name to this, it's only in the most perfunctory sense; he definitely did his part to inspire this, but Man with the Iron Fists has a purely primordial feel, possessing Tarantino's carnage without any of the abject social commentary.

The Eyes have it!

As martial arts flicks go, Man with the Iron Fists will most certainly go unnoticed and unseen by general filmgoers. It's not a bad experience, and you get the feeling that RZA will improve with future projects, though perhaps he should choose one side of the camera and stick to it. But it's also a very specific experience; you know exactly what you will be getting into, and most people won't care one way or the other how this one turns out. RZA emulates the feel of a classic martial arts film, but never does anything to expand that experience for others. For hardcore martial arts fanatics, this is a must-see. For everyone else... not nearly so much.

A Good Film

Yes, this is another romantic comedy. With my current travels to see family in Florida this week, I'm dipping into the film reserve I've gathered on DVD of late, the same batch from which last week's You've Got Mail was a part. Once again I can thank my friend Anne for her suggestions, though I'm sure my readers will like me to move onto more varied fare, such as the R-rated comedy Horrible Bosses or the final Harry Potter film. There is no time to see new movies this week, however, so for now I'm afraid you'll have to settle for me lecturing you on a film you perhaps should have seen but didn't. This is hardly a surprise; despite his name recognition, Russell Crowe has never been the box office hero you might have imagined. In reality, he's much more well known for his quick temper and bad-boy attitude than his actual acting talent, which is unfortunate since he has in my eye proven himself to be quite the strong performer. With the notable exceptions of titles Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind (and maybe LA Confidential), Crowe's films can be categorized two ways: either they are so costly that they fail to recoup expenses despite good efforts (Robin Hood, Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World), or they are inexpensive flops that limp out of the gate. A Good Year was Crowe's first collaboration with director Ridley Scott after the cinema juggernaut that was 2000's Gladiator, a pairing that has often been spoken among the more legendary actor/director partnerships in Hollywood history (whether deservedly or not). Based on the bestselling novel by Peter Mayle, A Good Year should have garnered some support from audiences, but for whatever reason they were absent, leading insiders to call it a flop mere days after the film's release. It was an unfortunate failure for Scott and Crowe, but one that might have been simply undervalued not only by audiences, but by the very production studios that pushed this film.

I'm not sure you should be trusting your money with this man...

When hard-nosed London investment trader Max Skinner (Crowe) learns that his uncle Henry (Albert Finney) has passed away leaving Max the sole beneficiary of a vineyard estate in Provence, his first instinct is to sell the land. After all, Max has no use for a summer home when he hasn't taken day off from work for years, worrying about being usurped in his absence. After all, that's what he did to his predecessor. However, a suspension from his job for shady business practices forces him to at least visit his new property before selling it. While the estate could use a serious makeover, Max ends up nostalgic for the childhood spent there with his uncle, though not enough to reconsider his decision to sell. This creates conflict on several fronts, however; the land's chief winemaker Francis (Didier Bourdon) is adamant that Henry didn't entrust the estate to his nephew just so he could sell it off. And the sudden arrival of Christie (Abbie Cornish), claiming to be Henry's long-lost American daughter, threatens Max's sale of the vineyard by contesting his ownership. Finally, Max falls for a local cafe owner named Fanny (Marion Cotillard), who has supposedly sworn off men while becoming irresistable to Max. The reigning question becomes whether Max will sell the French vineyard, and if so whether he could possibly be redeemable afterwards.

"And if you look even farther, you'll see when Mr. Anderson DOESN'T review RomComs..."

For a film with such a high-profile star and director, problems have no shortage. Flashbacks to a young Max hanging out with his uncle Henry feel almost out of place against the backdrop that is the rest of the film, but unfortunately they are also important to the main tale and therefore cannot be ignored. This means that the scenes in which you are least interested are among the most needed to understanding what exactly is going on, a sad happenstance that reflects poorly on the quality of the script. Humor is also somewhat lacking. While many of the verbal quips are good enough for a nice chuckle, too often does A Good Year rely on slapstick and physical comedy to reach out to the audience, often to little positive effect. The romance itself, necessary for a film claiming to be a romantic comedy, is all but ignored until the film's final act, as the main focus until then seems to be on Max's nostalgia, the least interesting aspect of the entire story.

Apparently this is what passes for extremely funny in France

The film does have numerous strengths to assist in its cause, however. The script does have that charm that truly great actors can take advantage of, and I've seen no better use of Russell Crowe than his transformation from emotionless trader to charming romantic. Crowe's Max plays well through the first two-thirds of the movie in a performance that takes somewhat from earlier work thugs, malcontents and ne'er-do-wells, but with an easy charm that never lets you dislike him as we all did in LA Confidential. That charm really comes out to play when the romance with Fanny is (FINALLY!) explored later on. Until then we're happy to see him frolick verbally with costars Bourdon, Cornish and Archie Punjabi, who plays his personal assistant, matching him word for word. Looking back, it would be easy to say that Crowe is playing against type in A Good Year, but here is one of the few times that I think Crowe was most comfortable in a role, not playing to his usual thuggish ways.

Those Gladiator royalty checks didn't go as far as he thought...

The rest of the cast is also quite good, a sign that Scott had at least an idea what he was doing in that department. Finney is excellent despite being nearly relegated to the duller portions of the film, with Henry's paternal instincts in regards to Max coming through quite nicely. Sure, Finney amounts to little more than a scene-chewer (and with only young Freddie Highmore ever playing against him, he needs to), but he does it extremely well. This was Australian Cornish's first Hollywood role, and though it comes well before her beloved performance in Bright Star or even her mainstream success in this year's Limitless and Sucker Punch, she proves that she can handle working with the big boys as Henry's purported daughter. Witty as Max with little of the humor, Christie is a welcome respite from the bickering between Max and Francis. Bourbon does an okay job, but he's really among the least interesting of the cast, and almost cliched as a surly and dissheveled gardener. Punjabi raises smiles when paired with Crowe but has little overall impact on the story. Cotillard is by far the best, as its easy to fall in love with the woman who only a year later would take the world by storm in La Vie en Rose as singer Edith Pilaf. Here she plays a much more down-to-Earth role, but her beauty and talent combine to make her one of the best international actresses.

Minutes later, the two were at each other's thrats

A Good Year is not a great film. In fact, with director Ridley Scott clearly out of his element, I'm shocked that it was even a reasonably good one. Scott and Crowe have often worked well together, even if the behind-the-scenes arguments have stood out more than the products themselves. It's easy to forget that both are supremely talented, but fortunately it still can come through when you go back and watch what they've done together. A Good Year has a broken story and is extremely predictable, lacking in sufficient levels of romance or comedy. However, it is still talent and charm-packed, making up for much of what is missing from the big picture. You might want to fast-forward through a few bits, but if you check this film out I guarantee you'll be sucked into the Crowe-Cotillard relationship, as it's one of the more understated film romances of the past decade.

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.