Author: Alton Williams

Robin Hood ***

Back in 2000, director Ridley Scott and star Russell Crowe scored a big box office and critical success with historical epic Gladiator, a film which spawned a fascination with historical epics in Hollywood, numerous other forays into the genre appearing during the following years, among them 2003’s Edward Zwick directed and Tom Cruise starring The Last Samurai, 2004’s Wolfgang Petersen directed and Brad Pitt starring Troy, 2004’s Antoine Fuqua directed and Clive Owen starring King Arthur, 2004’s Oliver Stone directed and Colin Farrell starring Alexander and Ridley Scott’s own 2005 film Kingdom of Heaven starring Orlando Bloom. Audience interest in these fims, however, was very short lived. While the likes of The Last Samurai and Troy proved fairly popular with moviegoers, although failing to live up to Gladiator in US box office takings, the latter mentioned historical epics flopped completely in the states, even though they did still deliver solid takings at the international box office. And this has been the state of the historical epic genre ever since, films within being largely ignored by American moviegoers and attracting only a solid but not great audience elsewhere. Now, Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe have teamed up once again for their second stab at the historical epic, this time taking on the well known British legend ‘Robin Hood’ – the first Robin Hood movie since 1993’s Robin Hood: Men in Tights and the first serious movie since 1992’s Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves – and aiming to provide a fresh take by showing “the man behind the legend”. But can the duo, whose track record as of late has been very hit and miss, attract the audience that made Gladiator into such a hit or will Robin Hood 2010 go the same route as many other historical epics have before it?

In 13th Century England, expert archer Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) is a veteran of King Richard The Lion Heart’s (Danny Huston) campaigns against the French. After Richard’s death, Robin returns to a England under siege from the tyrannical King John (Oscar Isaac) and travels, along with his companions Little John (Kevin Durand), Will Scarlet (Scott Grimes) and Allan A’Dayle (Alan Doyle), to Nottingham, a town suffering from the corruption of the despotic Sheriff (Matthew Macdfadyen). There, he encounters the spirited widow Lady Marian Loxley (Cate Blanchett) and her father-in law Sir Walter (Max von Sydow). Hoping to learn about his past, earn the hand of Maid Marian and restore the fortunes of the local people, Robin becomes a forest crusader. He assembles a tough and resourceful gang whose mercenary skills are matched by their appetite for life. Assisted by Friar Tuck (Mark Addy), they take on the indulgent upper class, aiming to correct the Sheriff’s injustices. However, Robin and his gang of honourable bandits soon find themselves in the middle of something much bigger when the treacherous Godfrey (Mark Strong) betrays the country to France by attempting to incite civil war within England, leaving the country open to invasion by the armies of France. Suddenly Robin is not only integral to the fate of Nottingham Forest but to all of England as his destiny begins to unfold.

The titular character in Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood is not the Robin Hood that you know and love and Scott’s decision to portray a Robin Hood completely different to the many past incarnations could be viewed as either a brave and bold move or a rather foolish one.After all, the legend of Robin Hood has a fond place in many people’s hearts and messing with a well loved formula isn’t always a very good idea. Consequently, at least some viewers may not be particularly happy about the changes that have been made for this reimagining of the Robin Hood legend. The Merry Men, long a major staple of the stories, are largely absent, the characters featuring but only sparsely and then not being particularly merry, and the closest the film really gets to them actually being the Merry Men is one slightly self knowing line of dialogue – “the more the merrier”. The characters of Robin Hood and Maid Marian have also been reinvented, Robin now a much more troubled character, haunted somewhat by faint memories of his distant past and Marian no longer a damsel in distress, in fact being quite handy with a bow and arrow. And, perhaps most significantly, it is hard to ignore the fact that, in many ways, this is a Middle Ages war movie disguised as a Robin Hood adventure. While the character of Robin Hood is undoubtedly at the heart of the story, many of the plot’s events don’t directly involve him, something that may frustrate avid followers of everything Hood. This film, of course, is not a complete retcon of the legend. In fact, it could be viewed as an origin story of sorts, like Robin Hood Begins if you will. It isn’t too hard to see how the story could connect to the legend, particularly in the scenes where Robin Hood and his gang are doing their thing in Nottingham Forest – which are incidentally, the most enjoyable of the film, even more so than the many battle sequences – and the closing scenes that hint at a sequel where we will no doubt see a much more familiar Robin Hood. Additionally, many of the familiar characters are still present just not as you have seen them before. These things aside, however, the film is first and foremost a historical war epic and in this regard the film does mostly deliver, on the technical side of things at least. The battle sequences are all truly epic in their scale and provide plenty of bow and arrow action, being both well shot and executed. Be warned though though that the violence is actually quite brutal, and definitely pushes against the boundaries of its 12A rating at times. While the battle sequences are indeed well done though the film is still at its best during simpler scenes, when emulating the Robin Hood we know, e.g. the aforementioned scenes of Robin Hood and his gang doing their thing. While historians will no doubt find many holes in the details, to those who aren’t history experts, i.e. most casual moviegoers, the film’s presentation of the period and place will seem very authentic and true to life. As you would expect from a film such as this, there is tremendous attention to detail, with costumes, locations, sets and props all creating a convincing look and feel of the period. The only gripe on the location front is that, particularly early on, many of the locations are very nondescript, so much so that were it not for the on screen text informing us of the locations where the scenes are set we would have absolutely no idea of when the film was moving from one place to another. In fact, most of the locations could quite literally be anywhere. During the climax of the film, we do get a bit more variety with quite some beautiful location work but sadly these locations don’t feature more greatly.

While the film does indeed look authentic, the same cannot entirely be said of the way it sounds. While it isn’t really a criticism of the film, not being an issue at all really, the dialogue is definitely not period authentic but then again I highly doubt many people today would be able to follow it if it were in ye olde English. This, however, is made up for by the fact that, for a change (for this kind of ilm), the actors actually do the correct accents, with the entire cast actually attempting the British dialect (obviously some actually are British). The cast are probably the one thing in the film that cannot be faulted in fact. Russell Crowe delivers a typically intense performance in the leading role; Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of Maid Marian is one that embodies modern female sensibilities while never betraying the period setting; Mark Strong, once again on villain duties, is superbly sinister, even if his performance is perhaps just a variation on other recent villainous roles he has played; and Oscar Isaac is also very good as a very different kind of bad guy. Strong performances also come from the likes of Danny Huston, Max von Sydow and William Hurt (the latter playing William Marshal). Additionally, Mark Addy (along with, to a lesser extent, Kevin Durand, Scott Grimes and Alan Doyle) is very amusing in providing the comic relief. Unfortunately, Matthew Macfadyen hardly gets any screen time, the character of the Sheriff of Nottingham hardly featuring at all, surprising considering his substantial place in the Robin Hood legend. Unfortunately, great performances alone do not make for a great movie and the surpisingly complicated storyline combined with the bum numbing 2 hour 20 minutes running time make for a film that isn’t exatly easy viewing. So, while this latest incarnation of Robin Hood is undoubtedly a well made film but this critic was quite bored in fact and definitely not very merry upon leaving the cinema. Put simply, if you enjoyed the likes of King Arthur and Kingdom of Heaven you will probably have much appreciation for this film but if historical epics aren’t really you’re thing this will probably seem exactly the same as countless other films before it, being too much like other historical epics and not enough like Robin Hood.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)

Four Lions *½

In case you don’t know already, Chris Morris is the writer and producer of several British comedy shows, his most famous being Brass Eye and The Day Today, two shows that were on the very edge of boundary pushing, successfully parodying the way in which news is reported by the media, with the latter show earning him the most controversy (and front page headlines) for its now infamous paedophile special. If you have seen either of these shows then you will know that Morris’ brand of humour will be taken very differently by different people – to some these shows were considered tasteless and highly offensive, to others they were considered to be hilarious works of comic genius. And now, with his directorial feature, Four Lions, you would no doubt expect the same kind of response, particularly considering that it is a comedy following the lives of a small group of would be suicide bombers, the very subject of the film being one that sounds as in bad taste as you could possibly get and that taken so lightly would surely cause huge outrage. Surprisingly, however, this is not really the case.

Angered by the treatment of Muslims around the world, Omar (Riz Ahmed) is determined to take drastic action by becoming a soldier in the global Jihad. Joining him are the easily-led Waj (Kayvan Novak), the not so easily-led Barry (Nigel Lindsay), a white Islamic convert with a grudge against the world and a nihilistic streak and the not entirely interested Hassan (Arsher Ali). Faisal (Adeel Akhtar) is the odd man out, as he does actually have the skills necessary to make a bomb. Unfortunately, blowing himself up is something he is not too keen on and, instead, he’s training crows to fly bombs through windows. This is what Omar has to deal with as he plots to strike a decisive blow on British soil. But will any of this unlikely terrorist crew ever do anything right?

Many will no doubt be apprehensive about seeing Four Lions. After all, the subject matter is a very sensitive and not especially appealing one and in real life suicide bombers are definitely no laughing matter. And, depending on you personal taste in humour, they may not be here either. While this film isn’t as tasteless or offensive as you might expect, the humour is definitely of the variety that will divide viewers – some, particularly those who appreciate Chris Morris’ past works, may find it hilarious; others will find it almost entirely unfunny. This critic (as, apparently, were the other members of the audience at the screening I attended) is in the latter camp, having sat through the film mostly without laughing, aside from a titter or two raised by a few physical gags, in particular a gag involving the misfiring of a bazooka, and another scene where a couple of police snipers debate whether the Honey Monster or a Wookie count as a bear. The rest of the humour, dialogue driven and based around the banter between the characters, didn’t amuse this critic much at all but this definitely won’t be true of everyone – some in fact will find this film quite hilarious. In addition to a lack of laughs (in this critic’s opinion at least) the film also suffers from the inherent nature of the characters. For obvious reasons we cannot fully sympathise or empathise with the individuals portrayed here and the fact that they are presented as bumbling buffoons and are well performed by the film’s cast is not quite enough to overcome this fatal flaw at the heart of the film, although the portrayal of the characters as everyday individuals, who have lives complete with families and jobs (reflecting suicide bombers in real life), does at least highlight the issue that even the least likely of people can be terrorists and makes the chraracters more than just suicide bombers, rather real people who have decided to sacrifice themselves for their beliefs something which could be considered almost noble in some ways. Also, while Morris does make some observations here and there and plays on the manner in which Islamophobia has become a strong force within our society, the film as a whole is not as insightful as it could be, meaning that the story is somewhat lacking in deeper subtexts. So, Four Lions is a film that, while highlighting some significant points, left this critic largely unimpressed even though some will undoubtedly think very differently. One final note – given that this film is essentially laughing at (rather than with) its would be terrorist characters, the question has to be asked – is making fun of terrorists really a good idea?

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)

Furry Vengeance *

Poor Brendan Fraser. As a performer he is not without talent, having demonstrated time and time again that he is extremely capable at delivering performances that entertain and amuse and, on a few occasions, he has even shown that he is a pretty decent actor capable of delivering performances that are convincing, but he must have a pretty lowsy agent to get him involved in a film such as Furry Vengeance (not only as the star, but also as an executive producer I might add), which has not only looked truly dire ever since the first trailer was released but has already been universally rejected by the children and families of the United States of America who made well sure that this film tanked badly at the box office there. Not exactly a ringing endoresement for the film and it really isn’t hard to see why audiences there have so unanimously rejected it and why they likely will here too.

Rocky Springs is an idyllic community in the heart of the Oregon forest. But an ambitious developer nicknamed ‘The King Of Green’ (Ken Jeong) plans to rip out the trees and build a shopping mall – “with a forest theme”. Brought in to work on the project, and dragging along his reluctant wife Tammy (Brooke Shields) and son Tyler (Matt Prokop), Dan Sanders (Brendan Fraser) manages to convince himself that destroying the forest is somehow good for the environment, but he reckoned without one crucial factor – the woodland animals! Masterminded by a clever raccoon, the furry creatures aren’t afraid to get their paws dirty and Dan soon finds himself up against bear, bird, squirrel and skunk as they fight back in increasingly ingenious ways. Whether they’re firing giant rocks at him, sabotaging his running machine or stealing his car, the animals will stop at nothing to teach Dan the error of his ways.

If you see Furry Vengeance, and unless you have very undemanding kids I highly doubt you will, it is likely that you may feel as if you have already seen the film before. This is because you may well have seen it before, or should I say the numerous films that it shamelessly rips off, the most obvious candidate being the superior animated feature Open Season but plenty of other films come to mind as well. Ripping off other films wouldn’t be too big a deal, of course, if this film did something a little different with the ideas it was stealing or at the very least proved really entertaining but, alas, it fails on both counts. The writing is dire, bordering on the abysmal, with an obvious and predictable storyline, good but far from original message about looking after the environment, lame dialogue and even lamer gags, with the physical and slapstick humour on display only really offering up a few laugh out loud moments and then ones that only undemanding viewers, i.e. very young kids, will actually laugh out loud to. The film’s sense of humour is completely childish, much of it consisting of Brendan Fraser going from one humiliating situation to the next, further destroying what little credibility he may have had as an actor. And given nothing to work with, every member of the cast just phones it in, with even rising comic star Ken Jeong and the often entertaining Wallace Shawn failing to raise more than a slight titter of laughter. The only positive thing that can really be said is that the animation work on the animals – furry critters of the non talking variety – is pretty good, their appearance, movements and actions seeming pretty realistic. This, however, does not even begin to account for the lack of quality elsewhere. So, all in all, Furry Vengeance is a film that should be avoided. Young children may laugh up a riot and think the film is amazing but anyone who has actually developed a taste in humour is far more likely to leave the cinema seeking some vengeance of their own – against the people who made this film.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)

Hot Tub Time Machine ***½

The title Hot Tub Time Machine was originally conceived as a joke by the movie’s co-writers when they were in college, and they figured no one would actually make a movie out of it. Such is the almost ridiculous nature of this movie’s title that it really had to be made into a movie. When you’re perusing through the cinema listings, this is just one of those titles that really pops out. Does the film live up to the comic potential of its title though? Best described as Back to the Future meets The Hangover, this film was pegged earlier this year in the states to be this year’s answer to the latter, with positive buzz ahead of its release prompting expectations for a break out hit at the box office. It wasn’t to be though, at the box office at least, as the film underwhelmed both on opening weekend in the long run, with box office numbers that proved moderate rather than spectacular. Nonetheless, though, the film has proven to be a winner with critics and those moviegoers who have seen it, suggesting that its underwhelming box office performance is more likely attributable to a lack of marketing than an absence of positive word of mouth.

For Adam (John Cusack) and his buddies, adult life just isn’t working out. Adam’s been dumped by his girlfriend, while Lou (Rob Corddry) is a party guy who can’t find the party, Nick (Craig Robinson) is a henpecked husband, and Adam’s nephew Jacob (Clark Duke) is a video game-obsessed nerd. In search of some action, the guys have a night of drinking in a ski resort hot tub. However, when they wake up, they realise that the hot tub is not only a hot tub but a hot tub time machine, and they’ve returned to the year 1986, a time when they were young and carefree – except for Jacob, who wasn’t even born yet. Ignoring the warnings of the mysterious Repair Man (Chevy Chase) that they must do everything exactly as they did when they lived through events the first time, the guys realise this is their chance to change their futures – Adam needs to change his love life, dumping his then girlfriend Jennie (Lyndsy Fonseca) and possibly finding new love with April (Lizzy Caplan), Nick needs to learn to assert himself, Lou needs to find his mojo after being beaten up repeatedly by Blaine (Sebastian Stan) – and Jacob needs to make sure he still exists when events involving his mother to be Kelly (Collette Wolfe) threaten to prevent him from ever being born.

Perhaps the simplest way of describing Hot Tub Time Machine is this – Back to the Future with lots of dick jokes. This will give you a pretty good idea of what to expect from the film. The ‘Back to the Future’ riffs are clear and obvious but it never comes off as though the film is ripping off that film, more like lovingly homaging it, only added with added nudity and much cruder humour. As with pretty much any comedy, this film won’t be to everyone’s tastes. If you are not particularly fond of (the aforementioned) dick jokes, sexual inuendos or poo, pee and vomit gags then it is fair to say that this film probably won’t be for you. That said, this critic doesn’t normally have much appreciation for this kind of humour either but the somewhat restrained – the film is more referential than explicit – and not entirely tasteless approach taken by the filmmakers hear mean that the humour often feels rather smart as opposed to childish like many films featuring such humour and mostly stays on the right side of gross. The film is often quite hilarious, with both funny and witty dialogue and comedic situations providing laughs and the reactions of the characters to the situation they have found themselves in being priceless, particularly the way Nick reacts to the realization that the hot tub is a time machine. A lot of fun is had with the scenario, especially as the possibilities of how the future can be changed are revealed, leading into the finale of the film that may not fully satisfy but still proves very amusing. One of the real highlights, though, has to be a recurring gag involving a character played by Back to the Future actor Crispin Glover – who plays both the past and present versions of his character, just like he did in that film – who has only one arm in the present but in the past has two arms and is yet to lose one. Even though his screen time is a bit limited and his character is essentially just a recurring joke, Glover is perhaps the highlight the cast but this isn’t to say that the other performers don’t do a good job themselves. John Cusack, Rob Corddry, Craig Robinson and Clark Duke are all on top comic form and really work great together, rising star Lyndsy Fonseca shows yet another side after her role in Kick-Ass (which, incidentally, also featured Duke), Lizzy Caplan is a delightfully offbeat romantic interest and Chevy Chase is also amusing in his small role. The film also delivers in its presentation of 1986, with the fashions, music, popular culture, technologies and attitudes being captured authentically, the overall product perfectly captruing the look, sound and feel of the 1980s in perfect retro style but never overdoing the 80s nostalgia, the focus being primarily on the characters and the situation they have found themselves in rather than things explicitly relating to the period. So, overall, Hot Tub Time Machine is a well made and very enjoyable comedy that, while not quite living up to the likes of The Hangover, certainly won’t leave you wanting to find a time machine to stop yourself from seeing it.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)