Movie Review: Robin Hood

2016 was awful. It’s been a year of loss, as many talented individuals have departed this world and much uninspired, lackluster art has, unfortunately, graced theaters. Disappointment begets depression and disorientation, which is why I have taken a leave of absence these last weeks. 2016 didn’t promise much and hasn’t given much reason to hope for a bounceback 2017.

But in the mud, rubble, ash and muck, some have come through in 2016, as some always do in times of turmoil. Even Marvel couldn’t keep its streak going (Strange review coming tomorrow) but they more than made up for it with Civil War, delivering a compelling drama to audiences while staying true to itself with some true comedy gold sprinkled over top. Collateral Beauty was also quite a treat but I’ll have to review that another time.

No, we’re gonna start this year with a vigilante, the real OG, Robin Hood himself. Who doesn’t admire Robin Hood? Crossing the line of justice for the right reasons. Add me to the list of people who would love to be in his entourage. A view into the growth and founding of Robin Hood should be quite aspiring, no? You would be wrong, apparently.

No, you would be right. It should be. Ridley Scott just really dropped the ball on this one. Bludgeoned it with a tire iron and threw it in an ashtray. This is a doozy of a film and so uncharacteristic of Sir Ridley. Scott is capable of far greater storytelling. We’ve seen it many a time.

At no point does Robin Hood ever feel like a solid drama or competent novella. It’s so blase, surprisingly generic to the point of surrealism. Surely this isn’t Scott. Surely this is a different Ridley.

It carries no charm, delivers no wit, showers no brilliance and grasps a long-winded plot with open arms. It’s not consequential. It’s barren and irrelevant because we know the story. It’s the precursors to that story that should draw us in but we’re flown right over that like a jetliner flying over its destination. Imagine the disappointment. Robin Hood’s not too far removed from that.

What should be a fun character portrayal is surprisingly dormant. Instead, we’re given a Robin Hood not confident in himself and worse, still trying to discover his own identity. This is a polar opposite to the Robin Hood e as kids are taught to idolize: a sometimes rash but always good-meaning rebel.

Russell Crowe might be walking around with a script that reads Robin Longstride but he’s walking away from the character. There are some portions of the original personality that remain but it’s hard for me to appreciate the Mona Lisa when someone cut her eyes out. Puts a little bit of a damper on things.

The spectacles we’re used to seeing from Scott simply aren’t here. Crowe and Blanchett are left in the sun, the side characters in the Robin Hood story are left undeveloped and our villain is an unknown. There’s no visual extremes to be demonstrated here. It’s a blemished work that’s excessively average and I’m left extremely disappointed.

Once again, if you’re new to my blog, I’ve always ranked movies on a scale of 0-100 (I don’t know why, I just always have). Here’s the grading scale.  

90-100  It’s a great movie and definitely one worth buying. (Captain America: Civil War, Deadpool, Avengers: Age of Ultron, The Avengers, The Babadook)

80-89   It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (Olympus Has Fallen, The Cable Guy, The Cabin in the Woods, Tears of the Sun, Edge of Tomorrow)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too. (The Invitation, Hush, Ghostbusters (2016), Batman, Free State of Jones)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (Johnny Mnemonic, Jason Bourne, Suicide Squad, Batman Forever, The Crow)

50-59   This movie isn’t intolerable but it’s not blowing my mind either. I’m trying really hard to get some sort of enjoyment out of this. (Underworld, The Do-Over, X-Men: Apocalypse, D-Tox/Eye See You, Constantine)

40-49   This movie is just mediocre. It’s not doing anything other than the bare minimal, so morbidly boring that sometimes I’m actually angry I watched this. (Underworld: Evolution, Batman & Robin, Bloodsport, War, The Ridiculous 6)

30-39   Definitely worse than mediocre, the 30′s ironically define the 1930′s, full of depression, lack of accomplishments, poverty and just so dumb. (Most Likely to Die, Independence Day: Resurgence, The Crow: City of Angels, Centurion, Planet of the Apes)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (Avalanche Sharks, Catwoman, The Gunman, The Visit, The Fantastic Four)

0-19      Watching this movie resulted in one or more of the following: seizure, loss of brain cells, falling asleep/unconsciousness, feel you wasted your time/day, accomplished nothing for you, left the movie knowing less about it then you did going into it, constantly asking yourself why you came to see this movie, or near-death experience. In short, staring at a wall was just as entertaining as watching this movie. This movie deserved a sticker or a label that said, “WARNING: EXTREME AMOUNT OF SUCKAGE.” (The Coed and the Zombie Stoner, The Forbidden Dimensions, Cyborg, Outcast, Sabotage)

My score for Robin Hood: 51.

This isn’t a good review and that’s okay. Just getting started.

BVF Round 2: The Martian

This week’s feature is the second chapter of one of my ongoing projects, Book vs. Film. BVF was born out of necessity and birthed to coordinate a discussion of what truly is better: the book or the film?

Today, Andy Weir’s The Martian, a New York Times Best Seller, battles with the redemption and rebirth of one Ridley Scott.

A computer programmer by trade, Weir put together a novel that compartmentalizes character and legitimizes Martian space travel. He conducted extensive research to accurately summarize a vacation on Mars. This research has and very well should be applauded by critics. This is the type of intellectual material we don’t see too often in literature. Writers create and certainly do some fact-checking of their own but I would wager Weir spent as much time in the library as he did at the computer typing out his manifest.

Meanwhile, Scott had some bones to pick himself here. As I mentioned in my review of The Martian, Ridley Scott’s usual finesse with the directorial baton had lost its touch in his most recent products. In The Martian, we saw that deftness again. Scott has an array of talents in his quiver and critics, myself included, were concerned he was heading for a downward spiral. We’ve all calmed down since our return from space.

Where the book shines is in Weir’s attention to detail and praise of Watney. He clearly put a lot of time into the character, crafting a specimen unique to the environment he encounters and not just because he’s the first official inhabitant of Mars. As expected, the film can’t compete with a book’s thoroughness, though Matt Damon is a more than substantial comparison. I’ve always enjoyed Damon’s work and come to think of it, I can’t think of anything I disliked with him present. Portrayed admirably and with as much tenderness as the book suggests, Watney is a blunt, sees-it-as-it-is individual.

Weir is marveled by the scientific process, the engineering and the mechanical work that goes into space exploration. This is probably why he spends so little time painting his pictures on the page. He does a superb job explaining everything that’s going on, though I’ll admit to having to read some passages three times before being able to wrap my head around it. I only wish he had spared the same focus with his scenery.

The term “Schiaparelli crater” is a geographic coordinate correlating to a valley on Mars’ surface. It doesn’t mean anything more than that. It is a foreign term to an everyday person. The phrase doesn’t do it justice either. It’s a lot more visually impressive than a crater but we’re never gifted to that picture.

Where Weir’s amateur ability as a writer is demonstrated is in his lack of imaginative description. Having read all 369 pages of Weir’s novel, I know a lot more about astronomical technologies than I do about Mars. I feel that should be the other way around. I can’t tell you anymore about what Mars looks like than I could before I opened the cover.

This is why Scott was such a great choice for the director’s chair. He’s a visionary. Where Weir’s a novice in this regard, Scott is a former wunderkind and experienced cinematic magician, crafting portraits and narratives for decades.

The supporting characters are as submissive as they are in the film, a key change I was looking for but never saw. Watney’s personality certainly shines in the novel’s pages but the side characters are so far to the side I can barely see them in my peripherals. Even if I could see them clearer, there’s not much substance to really pull my attention when so much commitment and dedication has been invested in Watney. He’s highly personable, certainly more relevant and leagues ahead of any other interest I might have been able to gauge from the experience. The problem is he’s the only thing and as bright a light as he is for the novel, the lack of atmosphere is problematic. The film’s supporting cast, despite all the high-profile names on the list, is just as irrelevant aside from the casual punctuation of a joke or the service of a plot pusher.

At the end of the discussion, only one Martian can be at the top and in this case, I have to side with the film. Visually gratifying and an experience that garnered seven Academy Award nominations, Scott’s film held the necessary components of Weir’s novel while maintaining its own singularity.

BVF Round 1: I Am Legend

Movie Review: The Martian

Ridley Scott’s enshrinement as a household name in the film industry is warranted on many levels but lately, the British phenom seems to have lost his touch with The Counselor and Exodus: Gods and Kings. Need I say more?

Unlike Shyamalan, however, Scott has an established resume with many hits of both box office success and critical acclaim, such as Alien, Blade Runner and Gladiator. With Shyamalan, we all want him to retreat under the bed like the boogeyman and never show his face again. With Scott, we’re hoping he can rekindle the creative ember that got his career turning in the first place.

The Martian may be that fire. Adapted from the 2011 novel by Andy Weir of the same name, this 2015 exploration of Mars’ terrain is but another entry into the ever-growing Hollywood interest in space exploration, following 2013’s Gravity and 2014’s Interstellar. I, for one, am perfectly fine with this new trend. Something literally unquantifiable allows for the expansion of the imagination and in a decade where sequels and adaptations continue to overload the nation’s theaters, The Martian is heading in a new direction. The Martian really is alone in the spotlight like its main star, Mark Watney. Gravity and Interstellar may have found the field of play before it but in a field this wide, of extraterrestrial proportions, The Martian really is its own entity, searching its own themes of self-exploration, survival and ethics in a way that neither Gravity nor Interstellar ever focused their gaze. Both Gravity and Interstellar highlighted visual gravitas and while Scott, a visual extraordinaire himself, isn’t one to hold back on delighting the eye, The Martian‘s golden goose is its screenplay and cast without question. Scott’s manipulations astound and dazzle, illustrating wide landscape portraits and unearthly aesthetics but there’s little question what The Martian is truly focusing on here and that’s a great sign for Scott’s future endeavors. He knew what he wanted here and he went out and took it.

A stellar cast of Jessica Chastain, Kate Mara, Kristen Wiig, Jeff Daniels, Michael Pena, Sean Bean and Chiwetel Ejiofor is great both on paper and on screen in this vacation on Mars but the true applause of this film belongs to the weathered character of Mark Watney, portrayed so effortlessly by Jason Bourne…I mean, Matt Damon. Overzealous and clearly devoted to his survival and yet surprisingly flippant, Damon’s Watney expounds a character who refuses to give up and at the same time, feels obligated to make sarcastic remarks at his obvious misfortune.

What Gravity failed to do, at least in my viewing of Curron’s work, was establish a self-sustaining character. Damon’s Watney, on the other hand, is easily personable with his cynicism and blunt humor, attributes younger audiences can relate to. He holds a confidence in dire circumstances sure to rake audiences in droves and his unabashed approach in everything he undertakes leads to some amusing set pieces.

My only complaint with The Martian is that it’s so lighthearted. The deep drama we’re used to seeing from Scott isn’t here and partially due to the comedic character Watney symbolizes, we never get to the deeper and darker areas of living by yourself on a deserted planet.

Once again, if you’re new to my blog, I’ve always ranked movies on a scale of 0-100 (I don’t know why, I just always have). Here’s the grading scale.  

90-100  It’s a great movie and definitely one worth buying. (Avengers: Age of Ultron, The Avengers, The Babadook, Interstellar, Chappie)

80-89   It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (The Cable Guy, The Cabin in the Woods, Tears of the Sun, Edge of Tomorrow, The Amazing Spider-Man 2)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too. (Black Mass,Enemy at the Gates, Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues, Leon: The Professional, Enemy)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (Terminator: Genisys, Black Sheep, Twisted, Parker, House at the End of the Street)

50-59   This movie isn’t intolerable but it’s not blowing my mind either. I’m trying really hard to get some sort of enjoyment out of this. (Everest, Hercules, The Sentinel, Mad Max: Fury Road, Blitz)

40-49   This movie is just mediocre. It’s not doing anything other than the bare minimal, so morbidly boring that sometimes I’m actually angry I watched this. (The Lost Boys, Zombeavers, Crank, Erased, I, Frankenstein)

30-39   Definitely worse than mediocre, the 30′s ironically define the 1930′s, full of depression, lack of accomplishments, poverty and just so dumb. (Centurion, Planet of the Apes, Stonados, Redemption, Pride and Prejudice)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (The Visit, The Fantastic Four, The Boy Next Door, The Colony, In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale)

0-19      Watching this movie resulted in one or more of the following: seizure, loss of brain cells, falling asleep/unconsciousness, feel you wasted your time/day, accomplished nothing for you, left the movie knowing less about it then you did going into it, constantly asking yourself why you came to see this movie, or near-death experience. In short, staring at a wall was just as entertaining as watching this movie. This movie deserved a sticker or a label that said, “WARNING: EXTREME AMOUNT OF SUCKAGE.” (The Coed and the Zombie Stoner, The Forbidden Dimensions, Cyborg, Outcast, Sabotage)

My score for The Martian: 78.

The Martian grabbed $55 million at the box office in its opening week, meaning it may overtake Gravity for the largest opening weekend in October and should still be considered a success. Scott looks to be on the right track once again which can only lead fans of the theater excited for his upcoming projects.

Movie Review: Black Hawk Down

I was scrolling through my blog yesterday and I realized something: I hadn’t written a review on a good film in a while. The last time I reviewed a film that scored in the 70’s or higher? The Red Dawn remake on August 13. Today is September 12. A month of cinematic incompetence? “No,” I said to myself. “I will not go a whole month without writing at least one movie review with a 70’s or higher score.”

To be truthful, I did re-watch volumes one and two of Kill Bill but I didn’t want to write a review on those just yet. I want to keep some of the classics around for later.

I have some films on the shelf that have yet to be opened that I’m anxious to open up and throw in but I felt like something else. Despite all the wrongs Netflix has committed against me (although I admit partial responsibility), I continue to go back to it. Among the top picks for me was Black Hawk Down.

I saw some of this on TV once but I never got to finish. Based off what I saw, I wanted to see the whole product.

There are a lot of faces I recognized in this film, such as Josh Hartnett and Ewen Bremner from Pearl Harbor and Ewan McGregor, Eric Bana and William Fichtner. Tom Sizemore from practically any war movie but especially Saving Private Ryan, nice to see you. A young Orlando Bloom and Tom Hardy were aboard for the ride I see and Jason Isaacs a.k.a. Lucius Malfoy. You can’t hide from me behind that Texas drawl!!! I WILL FIND HIM!!!

Alas, this film might have had a minor case of OBCLD. For those of you who didn’t read my Expendables 3 review, that means Over-Bloated Cast List Disease. Thankfully, these aren’t all big-name stars so this film isn’t neglected or blanketed by the opening credits and familiar faces. I’m just saying I noticed.

With that said, I was expecting some stuff with Black Hawk Down. I’m a heavy war movie addict. The brotherhood/camaraderie features, world dialogues and brutal realism get to me. They’re not always “fun”. Sometimes they make you hate people, despise the world and wonder why you’re still in it. Other times, it’s about showing not everything can be done the clean way. Somebody needs to get down in the trenches and dig out the mud. Should it happen? No, but it does and while we will never be able to attain the experiences of veterans, the least we can do, in my opinion, is seek out ways to empathize with them. Cinematic carnage gives us a chance.

Somalia’s a corrupt, anarchist state run by one general who gains followers by starving them out. That’s some dark stuff. I’m a history buff but I can’t say how precise director Ridley Scott’s visual novella is. Setting aside its historical truths or inaccuracies, Black Hawk Down is about leaving no one behind and putting others before yourself.

It’s admirable stuff that could have been done better. The OBCLD is partly to blame here but there are so many faces, so many parties involved that trying to remember where everyone is location-wise and personality-wise can become an arduous task. I don’t think I can call them subplots because they all interact with the main problem, which is thousands of Somalians with AK-47’s and happy trigger fingers. That rather large ripple in this film’s metaphorical pond is a stalwart try but the film’s time in the oven leaves the attempt well-done. The same can be said for the overall piece in my mind.

Aside from the empathy bid, there’s not a whole lot of character here despite the many at Scott’s disposal. At the end of the movie, Eversmann (Josh Hartnett), which is a play on names (every man), says that we all changed. The context is understood but I still found myself asking, “Did you though? Did you really?” Keep in mind I’m speaking of the character, not the conflict and those who actually served in it. There isn’t any time set aside for character drama. It’s a war zone, yet war films usually incorporate these reflective character sessions into the story. Saving Private Ryan had them. Braveheart had them. We Were Soldiers had them. The Patriot had them. Fury had them. Every memorable, exceptional war movie has them. Black Hawk Down does not.

Coming from the same guy that made Gladiator, I was surprised. Ridley Scott has made portraits fine, great and exceptional. Among his previous sculptures, I’d consider Black Hawk Down in the greats but with a stronger leading arm could have been exceptional.

The Academy graciously awarded Black Hawk Down two Oscars for Best Film Editing and Best Sound but I found the action to be rather tame compared to some of the other bloodshed I’ve observed. I’m not saying it needed to be mind-bending brutality but I think this could have gotten heavier, darker and more representative of the burdens our veterans carry. War is no light matter. Black Hawk Down concurs with the previous statement but for an R-rated film, it edited itself far below the ceiling an R-rating incites. If you want to make a conflicted film all ages above 18 can enjoy, this is probably the way to do it without turning anyone off to the material. However, sometimes it is the things that spur debate that are the greatest, like Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech for example. If you let public opinion object your creativity, you’re doing yourself an injustice. People don’t know revolutionary until you put it in front of them.

Once again, if you’re new to my blog, I’ve always ranked movies on a scale of 0-100 (I don’t know why, I just always have). Here’s the grading scale.  

90-100  It’s a great movie and definitely one worth buying. (Guardians of the Galaxy, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Transformers: Age of Extinction, Jack Reacher, Godzilla)

80-89   It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (Tears of the Sun, Edge of Tomorrow, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Young Guns, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too.(Red Dawn(2012), Maleficent, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Transporter 2, Battle: Los Angeles)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (Rubber, Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, The Transporter, Speed)

50-59   This movie isn’t intolerable but it’s not blowing my mind either. I’m trying really hard to get some sort of enjoyment out of this. (The Expendable 3, Homefront, G.I. Joe: Retaliation, Vantage Point, The Starving Games)

40-49   This movie is just mediocre. It’s not doing anything other than the bare minimal, so morbidly boring that sometimes I’m actually angry I watched this. (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Billy Madison, A Haunted House, 300: Rise of an Empire, Cowboys and Aliens)

30-39   Definitely worse than mediocre, the 30′s ironically define the 1930′s, full of depression, lack of accomplishments, poverty and just so dumb. (Centurion, Planet of the Apes, Stonados, Redemption, Pride and Prejudice)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (The Grey, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Thor: The Dark World, The Sum of All Fears)

0-19      Watching this movie resulted in one or more of the following: seizure, loss of brain cells, falling asleep/unconsciousness, feel you wasted your time/day, accomplished nothing for you, left the movie knowing less about it then you did going into it, constantly asking yourself why you came to see this movie, or near-death experience. In short, staring at a wall was just as entertaining as watching this movie. This movie deserved a sticker or a label that said, “WARNING: EXTREME AMOUNT OF SUCKAGE.” (Gallowwalkers, Tucker & Dale vs. Evil, Safe, Watchmen, Clash of the Titans)

My score for Black Hawk Down: 77.

The story had a lot of potential but the normal cuts and jabs we expect from Scott don’t show up in Black Hawk Down. I’m not sure if it’s on Ken Nolan and the screenplay, book author Mark Bowden or on Ridley himself but this had more buzz and certainly more talent to be explored. I’m sure I’ll find my way back to this for another viewing but in no way does this even attempt to make the climb to war movie classics.