SmartRemarks

The critical reaction to the new movie Robin Hood, directed by Ridley Scott and starring Russell Crowe in the title role, has been decidedly mixed. It averages a mere 45% from critics compiled on RottenTomatoes.com, many of whom seem to have been cribbing from the same notes. They complain of the movie’s 140-minute length (apparently gleaned from a press kit rather than their own watches; the actual running time is just 130); they complain that the climactic beach battle evokes Saving Private Ryan; they complain that it’s an origin story seemingly designed to set up a “franchise”; most often, they complain that it’s not Errol Flynn, that it’s too short on swashbuckling merriment, that “the Robin Hood of myth and moviedom is for the most part AWOL,” as WaPo’s Michael O’Sullivan puts it.

Much of this carping seems to me not just wrong but fundamentally misguided. I’m a huge and unapologetic fan of Flynn’s classic 1938 Adventures of Robin Hood, but that movie’s already been made, and it’s out there on disc for anyone who wants to enjoy it again. This film isn’t an attempt to remake that, or the much more forgettable 1991 Kevin Costner version of the story, or any of the other literally dozens of film and TV adaptations to which the Robin Hood legends have been subjected. It’s not trying to give viewers the same old cereal in a new box. It’s trying to come up with a new take, a story different enough to be worth telling. In large part it succeeds, and taken on its own terms, it’s a heartily enjoyable film.

Neither the creative revisionism nor its success should be a surprise. Ridley Scott is the director who gave us such films as Blade Runner and the classic Thelma & Louise, not to mention—in previous work with Crowe—Gladiator, American Gangster, and Body of Lies. As for Crowe, those three films alone demonstrate his phenomenal range as an actor (nearly as much of a chameleon as Edward Norton), even without looking at his work in other roles as diverse as L.A. Confidential, his Oscar-nominated turn in The Insider, and his incredibly layered performance in the otherwise mediocre A Beautiful Mind. Both men are prolific, but neither is known for doing retreads of familiar work. Teamed with Brian Helgeland, the screenwriter behind L.A. Confidential and the recent and unjustly neglected Green Zone, Scott and Crowe have turned out a Robin Hood that does not attempt to cater, as Kenneth Turan observes, to “those expecting traditional Robin Hood satisfactions.” It’s more history than Hollywood—or at least a well-balanced compromise between the two.

[Spoilers ahead.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: history, movies, Ridley Scott, Robin Hood, Russell Crowe

Side note for my countless loyal fans (well, I haven’t counted ‘em, anyway):  today marks the one-year anniversary of my launch of this blog, and this is the 173rd post I’ve published in that time. Total cumulative visits to date are nearing 16,000. Not earth-shaking, but not a bad track record, I hope!…

—

Anyway. Today’s topic. As a matter of personal disposition I’m a humanist, so I tend to enjoy works of art and storytelling that dovetail with that philosophical orientation. I believe that in the long run, for all our foibles and shortcomings, human culture moves in the direction of justice over injustice, cooperation over selfishness, integrity over expediency, wisdom over ignorance.

Art is a wonderful means of reminding us of the enduring power of these values and principles. It should come as no surprise, then, that my favorite films include life-affirming works like Holiday, It’s A Wonderful Life, Casablanca, and Inherit the Wind. Such idealistic fare is perhaps scarcer than it used to be—we live in a cynical age—but it’s not yet extinct; I think the Lord of the Rings trilogy qualifies, for instance.

However, I said all that by way of preface for this:  two of the best films I saw this summer were, philosophically speaking, the diametric opposite of life-affirming. They were very different in subject matter, but both were terrific, superbly executed, deeply satisfying movies… and both will leave you with the conviction that “human intelligence” and “human compassion” are oxymorons, and indeed that humanity is a thoroughly despicable species in general. I’m talking about In The Loop and District 9.

[Beware: spoilers ahead!]

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: District 9, humanism, In The Loop, Iraq, movies, Neill Blomkamp, Peter Jackson, Sharlto Copely

My reaction to the new Star Trek movie led me to ask myself this unavoidable question. Yes, it’s certainly received a warm response—96% on the Tomatometer (which is phenomenal, even allowing that they inevitably mis-count some reviews like, e.g., the negative J.R. Jones piece I linked the other day) and a $76 million weekend box office—but I trust my critical sensibilities regardless of what the bandwagon says. My reasons for liking and valuing Star Trek have always been its intelligent storytelling and its social conscience—and this movie has neither. As Roger Ebert wrote,

The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action. Like so many franchises, it’s more concerned with repeating a successful formula than going boldly where no “Star Trek” has gone before.

The online discussion thus far among fans seems to have found an emerging consensus that the cast all did at least good and sometimes great jobs living up to their familiar characters, and that the production values admirably reflect the film’s $150 million budget… but also that the story is, to put it charitably, more than little flimsy. The real dividing line is between the majority who say that story problems don’t matter so long as it looks impressive and feels exciting… and the minority who say it doesn’t matter how much of an adrenaline rush it gives if the story insults the audience’s intelligence. I’m definitely in the latter camp. 

When everything is weighed in the balance, and all excuses and apologies set aside, this movie is crap.

What’s more, though—and this is what sparked the self-examination—the last Trek movie (Nemesis) was also crap. And the movie before that (Insurrection) was crap. And the last TV series (Enterprise), and the series before that (Voyager)—all crap. Really, there hasn’t been any reliably decent Trek on screen in at least a dozen years.

So why do I still call myself a fan? How can I still harbor any affection or loyalty for this franchise?

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Alex Kurtzman, Bob Orci, books, J.J. Abrams, movies, Star Trek, writers

Short version of my previous post:  I really didn’t like the movie. To me, it not only doesn’t work as Star Trek, it just doesn’t work as a movie, period. It has Big Stupid Summer Action Blockbuster in its very cinematic DNA. 

Lots of fans seem to be embracing it, though. Ironically, I could do worse to underscore my points than merely to quote a few bits from this review, which strains far too hard to be positive by way of excusing its myriad flaws:

“It’s clear there was something about Shatner’s Kirk, the very human but sometimes high-flown soldier-philosopher, which the filmmakers either couldn’t relate to or felt no longer spoke to modern audiences.”

“McCoy is in there pitching throughout the movie, often seeming to reprise every trademark line the Doctor ever uttered in the series—but he doesn’t get the kind of intimate, key scene with Kirk where he can truly function as the film’s conscience.”

“The one unfortunate artifact from the success of 1982’s The Wrath of Khan is the need to have a madman out for vengeance in every other Star Trek movie.”

“Nitpickers will have a field day with some of the movie’s science, tech and logic issues…. [and] may also wince at the amount of coincidence that drives the plot.”

Really, after making all those apologetic exceptions, what’s left? I’m particularly amused by the dismissal of “nitpickers”—as if plausible science were too much to ask for in a science fiction film, or coherent plot logic in any kind of film at all.

—

Meanwhile, while reflecting back on the movie and surfing the tide of opinions about it, yet another continuity snafu occurred to me:  has it struck anyone that Nero’s revenge plan actually guaranteed the destruction of Romulus in the new timeline just as in the old? It was the Vulcans who created the “red matter” that defused the supernova, but with Vulcan destroyed, there’s nobody left to do that. However, an altered timeline does nothing to change the internal processes of the star itself. It will presumably still explode on schedule, except this time with no way to stop it at all. 25 years cooling his heels, and yet it didn’t occur to Nero that he could save his race; instead, he doomed it.

And another, almost too obvious to mention (at least among Trekkers):  somehow Nero’s single initial time-change must have greatly increased the Federation’s contact with and knowledge of the Romulans. (In “Balance of Terror,” one of the best TOS episodes, Starfleet hadn’t encountered them in a century, had no idea what they looked like, and didn’t know they shared a heritage with Vulcans.)

And another, just a bit of sheer idiocy:  Spock’s claim that it’s “logical” for him to go aboard Nero’s ship because that “shared heritage” would help him decipher the Romulan computer systems. What, even though the cultures split two thousand years earlier? Really?

And another scientific whopper: the villain’s final defeat is achieved by opening yet another massive black hole, in Earth’s solar system. Possibly just a wee bit of danger in that?

There were so many of these little jarring moments in the film that it just wasn’t possible to keep them all at the top of my mind. But they keep bubbling to the surface again…

Tags: Alex Kurtzman, Bob Orci, continuity, J.J. Abrams, movies, Star Trek

Tonight was the opening of the new Star Trek movie. With IMAX tickets booked well in advance, my girlfriend and I and some friends went out for dinner and conversation, then joined an enthusiastic audience for the long-awaited and much-publicized film. It was a lovely spring evening, and overall we had a good time.

I just wish we’d seen a good movie.

I approached Star Trek (no number or subtitle) with cautious optimism. I’d had some cause for apprehension, as I’ve written about, based on the design aesthetic of the new Enterprise and the tone and style of the early trailers. A more recent TV spot tag-lined “Forget Everything You Know” wasn’t encouraging, either:  I’m a Trek fan from way back, and I’m showing up to see a new story set in the Kirk/Spock era because of everything I know, because of my affection for those characters and concepts, not despite it. 

But hey, most of those things could just be chalked up to marketing choices and visual sensibilities. They didn’t necessarily bode ill for the movie as a whole. Certainly the last few years of the Trek franchise under former producers Rick Berman and Brannon Braga had been fairly disappointing, on both the small and the large screen, so some new creative blood was called for. Screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman were reportedly sincere Trek fans:  the L.A. Times went  so far as to ask them about their favorite prose Trek novels, and they actually named four—and good ones, at that. So even if director J.J. Abrams admitted to not being a Trek fan, professing more of a Star Wars sensibility instead (anathema!), perhaps the story itself was in good hands. Leonard Nimoy’s willingness to be involved, reprising his role as Spock for the first time in 18 years, also seemed promising. Yes, as details leaked out it became clear that the film would not be a prequel to the original television series (as I would have preferred, all else being equal) but a reboot instead… but even so, it could be good on its own terms. It just needed to be handled thoughtfully and respectfully, with an understanding of the concepts and themes that had made Trek a success all along, and in numerous interviews the filmmakers assured us they were doing exactly that. So I was hoping for a movie I could like, maybe even love.

But Abrams and company didn’t hit the mark. What they delivered wound up meeting almost all of my fears and almost none of my hopes.

This was a big, stupid summer blockbuster, in the worst sense. It was a bad movie, plain and simple. 

[Ample SPOILERS below the fold.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Alex Kurtzman, Bob Orci, continuity, J.J. Abrams, movies, Star Trek

While it’s not a film that was really crying out to be made, X-Men Origins: Wolverine is at least a better picture than was 2006’s muddled and disappointing X-Men 3: The Last Stand. Hugh Jackman returns to his breakout role with evident sincerity, bringing every bit of actorly dedication the story and the character can support (given the somewhat tiresome human-vs-beast personality cycle Wolverine’s always been trapped in). Jackman was reportedly also instrumental in bringing Oscar-winning director Gavin Hood (Tsotsi) to the film, and he brought his dark and cynical sensibility with him. C0-screenwriter David Benioff, best known for writing the superbly unsettling 25th Hour, surely didn’t hurt either.

If Wolverine is not quite as ringing a success in terms of tone and dramatic impact as last year’s Dark Knight or Iron Man, neither is it as disappointing as one might have feared from its status as a prequel, burdened by the audience’s foreknowledge of where everyone ends up (I’ll just mention the name “George Lucas” in passing and leave the subject at that). It’s not as deliberately subversive and game-changing as Bryan Singer’s first two X-movies, but it’s entertaining in its own right.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Hugh Jackman, Liev Schrieber, movies, super-heroes, Wolverine, X-Men

In my personal opinion, naturally. YMMV. If this were in any way authoritative, it would have been carved in stone by a finger of flame.

But I have been pondering, of late, the sort of things I like to read and watch, and I find myself mulling over some commonalities. There seem to be four recurring characteristics that mark a piece of fiction for me as enjoyable, memorable, and (if it’s in serial form) worthy of further attention. None of these by itself is either necessary or sufficient to make a story effective, but the presence of at least two of them is usually enough to pique my curiosity, and the presence of three or four almost guarantees that I’ll become a fan.

What are these oh-so-crucial characteristics?…

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Aaron Sorkin, books, continuity, genre, humor, John LeCarré, Joss Whedon, Lost, Mark Twain, movies, Star Trek, television, Watchmen

Reviews of the movie Watchmen have been mixed: 65% positive on Rotten Tomatoes, for instance, and 56% positive on Metacritic. That’s not as uniformly negative as the secondhand buzz might indicate, but this is perhaps because the most prominent “establishment media” reviews have leaned toward the negative side:  e.g., Anthony Lane’s in The New Yorker, wherein he demonstrates his usual sarcastic derision for anything pop-culture-related, or A.O. Scott’s disdainful take in the New York Times. Many quite simply seem not to “get it”; they betray preconceived expectations of what a “super-hero movie” ought to be that obstruct appreciation of what this one actually is.

Reactions in”new media” seem generally more positive—e.g., Andre O’Hehir’s piece at Salon (“Dense, intense, tragic and visionary, this is the kind of movie that keeps setting off bombs in your brain hours after you’ve seen it”), or Keith Phipps’ in The Onion (“[it] keeps moving so assuredly, it’s nearly impossible not to get swept along… the film’s ambitious drive to create a dread-soaked alternate America and people it with flawed, recognizable heroes carries it along”).

However, by far the most interesting and informative opportunity to study the reactions to this film, both pro and con, inverts that pattern. Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: conservatism, movies, super-heroes, Watchmen

I followed Watchmen when it was first released, one issue at a time, back in 1986-’87, well before the collected edition appeared. It was must-read material at the time, and the month-to-month suspense was tremendous. In fact, I routinely ordered an extra copy or two just to pass around the dorm, as several friends of mine (not all comics readers beforehand) quickly got hooked on it.

It was groundbreaking then, and it still holds up today:  a formally innovative, intricately structured story, with a visual design that was painstakingly detailed and a backstory even more so. Self-referential, ironic, dark, and multifaceted, all its elements working together, both de- and re-constructing super-hero tropes in the context of real-world politics, psychological realism, and complicated moral themes. Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons set a high-water mark for what comics can accomplish.

And now, after a long and circuitous process of development stretching over 22 years, Watchmen has finally made it to the screen. I saw it last night.

Where are my socks? I think they got knocked off somewhere…

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: DC Comics, movies, super-heroes, Watchmen, Zack Snyder

Turns out that there really weren’t many surprises last night. My Academy Award predictions were correct for 19 out of 24 categories (which was enough to win the pool at the party I attended.  8-)  )  The only ones I missed were Foreign Film, Documentary Short, Animated Short, and both Sound categories. (Okay, those last two were a surprise. I really, genuinely expected Wall-E to take at least one of them.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: 2009, Academy Awards, movies, Oscars