Tag Archives: mark strong

The Public Movie Defender – “Robin Hood”

by

35

MOVIE DEFENDER ROBIN HOOD

The idea behind The Public Movie Defender is to take up the cause of a particular movie that I believe is better than the majority of reviews it has received. These are movies which I feel are worth either a second look or at least a more open examination considering the predominantly negative opinions of them. The films chosen are ones that I like so therefore I’m taking their case and defending them before the court of negative opinion. Let the trial begin…

DEFENDANT # 1 – “ROBIN HOOD”

ROBIN HOODOccasionally I like to take the time to focus on a particular movie that I really like but many others didn’t. Call it my unnecessary yet obligatory sense of personal duty or some warped affection for getting blasted by my fellow movie fans. Whatever it is, I find it fun defending movies that I appreciate but many others may not. One such film is Ridley Scott’s 2010 period adventure “Robin Hood”. Lingering at an undeserved 43% on Rotten Tomatoes, “Robin Hood” has faced a variety of gripes from its slow, plot-heavy narrative to its historical inaccuracies. These things didn’t bother me at all and the movie went on to be one of my favorite films of that year.

I still remember when I was driving to the theater to first see Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood”. I couldn’t help but wonder if I had set my expectations so high that it would be impossible for the movie to reach them. After all, this is Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe, the same team who brought us “Gladiator”, a true favorite of mine. Could one of my favorite working actors and one of my favorite working directors come close to matching the success of their previous Oscar winning period film? The answer is yes, for my money they did come close. While overall “Robin Hood” isn’t as grand or as seamless as “Gladiator”, it does well in many of the same areas that made “Gladiator” such a strong film.

This isn’t your standard Robin Hood that we’re all familiar with. This is considered a prequel to the ‘steal from the rich, give to the poor’ story that’s been told numerous times before. It follows Robin Longstride (Crowe) as he goes from being an archer in King Richard’s army to the most wanted man in all of England. Along the way he witnesses the death of King Richard in battle and the rise of King John (Oscar Isaacs), Richard’s younger brother. King John isn’t a likable leader. His arrogant, self-serving approach to governing and his burdensome heavy taxes have turned the people against him and it couldn’t be a worse time for that. An invading French army is knocking on England’s door but the people need unifying.

Robin 1

Meanwhile Robin and his three new but merry men find themselves in Nottingham where secrets to his past may lie. Its here than he runs into the proud and spirited Marion (Cate Blanchett). I won’t give anything away but anyone even remotely familiar with the Robin Hood story knows that they eventually hit it off. But violence and war comes to Nottingham which catapults Robin right into the center of the tumult. The story takes its time getting to this point. It deliberately moves through several plot points and it lays out a lot of story along the way.

This is what turned off a lot people. They found it all flat and plodding. Personally I loved the slow and calculated buildup. I loved the clear focus on the characters, the politics, and the strategies behind the events taking place. I loved that it wasn’t just another period film focused almost exclusively on the action. For me the intentional time spent with character development worked fine and it fed the action sequences giving them more meaning and weight. With the exception of a couple of needless inclusions, I was wrapped up in this story and while it might have been too slow for some, I found its proficient script in the hands of this truly great cast made for some wonderful entertainment.

ROBIN2

Now when it comes to making an epic-scale period piece few can do it better than Ridley Scott. Here his amazing attention to detail, extravagant set pieces, and gorgeous cinematography create a believable and stunning 13th century England. From the film’s opening sequences to it’s furious finish, the realistic feel and old English atmosphere is one of the reasons the film worked so well for me. As alluded to above, Scott also brings just the right amount of action scenes. The frantic, gritty camera work and carefully executed CGI allows for the small battles and huge epic scale war sequences to maintain an undeniable energy. But again the film doesn’t totally rely on them. There’s a very deliberate tale that unfolds in an effort to set up the legend of Robin Hood. Scott takes his time and adds a fresh depth to these very familiar characters.

Then there’s the strong lead performance of Russell Crowe. He has always been able to take a character and combine stength with a genuine humanity. Crowe’s Robin Hood is possibly the most human of any previous portrayals showing a sad but strong man in the dark about his past and uncertain about his future. It isn’t loud or showy work but it fits nicely with the tone that Scott is looking for. I also have to mention the performance of another favorite actor of mine. Mark Strong takes on another “bad guy” role and he’s able to create yet another delightfully despicable villain. He’s such great fun to watch. Cate Blanchett puts together a very different and intriguing Marion. She’s strong and independent and Blanchett certainly holds her own amid the slew of male performances. There’s tons of great supporting work from Max von Sydow, Oscar Isaac, William Hurt and more.

“Robin Hood” is an entirely different look at the classic character that does lend to a more serious telling of his legend. That, mixed with the slower plot-thickened narrative, clearly didn’t work for those with much different expectations for the film. It not only worked for me but it impressed me and I found it easy to be absorbed into the story. I’ll admit there are some moments that could have been cut and there are bits of silliness in the big finale. But they never came close to ruining my experience and after several viewings I still believe this is one of the best films of the Scott/Crowe collaborations. That’s my defense and I’m sticking to it.

THE VERDICT : “ROBIN HOOD” – 4.5 STARS

“Zero Dark Thirty” – 4.5 STARS

by

26

ZERO POSTER

Kathryn Bigelow may be the boldest and gutsiest director in the business. One things for certain, she’s not scared to jump head first into a part of the film industry sandbox normally dominated by male directors. I think that’s the main reason I like her so much. Bigelow doesn’t allow others to define what type of director she is or what type of movies she’s going to make. She makes the movies she wants to make and lately they just happen to be gritty and realistic military pictures. But what’s really cool is that she does it better than almost anyone else. She doesn’t bow to gender trends, political positions, or industry traditions. She tells powerful and mesmerizing stories and does it her own way.

Bigelow’s latest film is “Zero Dark Thirty” and it didn’t take long for the cries of controversy to begin. This is also a movie that’s received a lot of praise even garnering several Oscar nominations including Best Picture. But Bigelow herself received what I think is the biggest snub of the Oscars when she was passed over for a best director nomination. This has brought speculations of gender bias from some while others believe it’s Academy backlash for what they perceive as bad politics from Bigelow. I don’t know about any of that but it’s an inexplicable snub. Bigelow has crafted a dense and thrilling film that surpasses her previous movie, the Oscar-winning “The Hurt Locker”.

ZERO1

“Zero Dark Thirty” is an edge-of-your-seat procedural that follows the decade-long manhunt for Osama bin Laden. This isn’t a paper-thin conventional Hollywood action picture. This movie follows the CIA’s taxing search through evidence, information, and leads in order to find the terrorist mastermind. It’s an arduous and toll-taking mission that weeds through enhanced interrogations, misdirections, and loss of life. Bigelow manages to condense this decade’s worth of investigation into a gripping and concise 2 1/2 hours. She stops at critical points during the manhunt, some where we made important progress and others that were disastrous.

Bigelow once again teams up with writer Mark Boal and, as with “The Hurt Locker”, they aren’t out to make political points or deliver a heavy-handed statement. Regardless of the “pro-torture” accusations from the left and the “inaccuracy” claims from the right, Bigelow and Boal throw out a lot of information and allow the audience to sort through it, process it, and come up with our own conclusions. I like that. Unlike so many Hollywood productions of this kind, I wasn’t beaten over the head with a political slant. Instead I was allowed to view the events through my eyes and interpret them accordingly. That’s one of the reasons there has been such a range of reactions and I think it’s a sign of brilliant filmmaking.

ZERO3

Before I move on let me address the “pro-torture” debate that surrounds this film. I think “pro-torture” is a self-serving term that doesn’t do the film justice. Yes the movie shows several scenes of enhanced interrogations and it does say bits of important information were gathered through them. But it also shows the heavy personal and emotional toll it takes and it asks the question ‘Was it worth it?’ Bigelow doesn’t gloss over the harsh and disturbing nature of the torture and it’s impossible to view those scenes in a “pro-torture” light. On the flipside, just when you’re questioning the at-all-cost approach to the search for Bin Laden, Bigelow injects a scene of savage terrorist violence that reminds you of the barbarism at the heart of the enemy. These scenes, along with the brief but sobering opening featuring 911 calls from the 9/11 attacks, really hit home with me and reminded me of the ruthless reality of terrorism. But I had to decide if the ends justified the means and the film makes that decision a challenge.

2012 has been the year of ensemble casts and “Zero Dark Thirty” may have the best of them. It’s a veritable ‘Who’s Who’ of actors that I love. It all starts with Jessica Chastain. She plays Maya, a brash and determined CIA operative whose entire career has been devoted to finding Osama bin Laden. Early on she is assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan where she grows tired of the political wrangling and red tape. She may at times look like a supermodel but she’s really a firebrand who will stir things up to get results. Maya is devoted to her mission and at times she seems like the only one interested in succeeding. But as the movie progresses we see the physical and emotional toll the manhunt is taking on her. Chastain is simply phenomenal. There’s not one disingenuous moment in her entire performance and while 2011 was a great year for her, this was superstar making work.

ZERO2

And speaking more of that ensemble cast, there are several other standout supporting performances. Jason Clarke is fantastic as a tough and slightly unhinged CIA interrogator. Kyle Chandler is wonderful as Maya’s CIA boss in Pakistan. Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt are perfect as members of the Navy SEAL team tasked with pulling off the final mission. I loved Edgar Ramirez as a skilled CIA ground operative. The great Mark Strong plays a CIA head caught in the middle of Washington politics and the mission at hand. James Gandolfini is a lot of fun as a heftier Leon Panetta. I also enjoyed Jennifer Ehle as Maya’s co-worker who starts as a rival but ends up a good friend. This is just an enormously strong cast from top to bottom.

Everyone knows how “Zero Dark Thirty” ends but that doesn’t keep it from being an intense edge-of-your-seat thriller. The story starts with the frustration of bad leads and dead ends but the intensity is ratcheted up to crazy levels once the first big break comes through. I was absorbed in what I was seeing. And then there is the finale, possibly the best 20 minutes of military action ever put on screen. Bigelow never Hollywoodizes the sequence. She makes it as grounded in reality as possible. But when it comes down to it Kathryn Bigelow likes to make movies about people. This is a movie about women and men who sacrificed their skills, their lives, and some may argue their humanity to accomplish a greater good. It’s a movie that’s not afraid of asking tough questions or of challenging popular sentiments. It’s also a movie made with impeccable filmmaking  style and skill which all comes back to Bigelow. So Academy, you’ve got explaining to do!

“TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY” (2011) – 4 STARS

by

11

Bringing “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” to the big screen was a pretty tough challenge. The movie is adapted from John le Carre’s complex 1974 spy novel of the same name. In 1979 it was adapted for television in the form of a seven part mini-series. So trying to condense the story down to two hours while maintaining its tense spy thriller feel was quite an undertaking. But hats off to director Tomas Alfredson and screenwriters Bridget O’Connor and Peter Straughan for not only pulling it off but for delivering a deep and enthralling picture.

I was first attracted to “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” thanks to its stellar cast. The film features a veritable who’s who of british actors. Any movie that features the incredible talents of Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, Mark Strong, John Hurt, Toby Jones, and Ciaran hinds (who is actually Irish) is automatically off to a good start. Some of my favorite actors are in this bunch and here they really shine. Each perfectly relay the antsy Cold War paranoia that this type of movie calls for. Not one performance is disingenuous or fake. In many ways you can call this an acting clinic.

The film takes place in the early 1970’s. George Smiley (Oldman) is called back to British Intelligence, also known as “The Circus”, to root out a high level “mole” who is believed to be leaking highly classified intelligence to the Russians. One year earlier Smiley along with his boss Control (Hurt) had been forced out after a botched assignment caused the capture of an agent (Strong) in Hungary. Since Control has been removed, the Circus is being run by Percy Alleline (Jones). Working alongside Alleline is Bill Haydon (Firth), Roy Bland (Hinds), and Toby Esterhase (David Dencik). Smiley puts together a team to help find the mole. An important piece of the puzzle is an agent named Ricki Tarr (Hardy). Tarr is the one who made the allegation of a mole and may have even more information that could bring everything to light. Smiley must sift through the misdirections and false leads to find the identity of the mole and the four Circus higher-ups are prime suspects.

“Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” rewards patience. It’s a story that unfolds through a slow leak of clues and cleverly timed flashbacks. It’s a complex and layered story that requires a lot of attention and that could be what attracts many people to it (myself included). On the flip side I can see where some may be dissuaded after seeing the story as a muddled, convoluted, and almost laborious exercise. I’m not going to lie and say I completely grasped everything I was seeing. It did take a few rewinds and a little research to really put everything together. In some ways that did take away from the experience but on the other hand everything was presented. While it’s deliberate and sometimes dry, O’Connor and Straughan’s script is tight, structured, and clearly intends to make the audience work right alongside of Smiley.

Another thing you will instantly notice is the careful attention to the look and presentation of the movie. Alfredson’s direction is quite good and the mood and tone is just right. The movie is saturated with blues and greys that creates a cold, sullen atmosphere. The steel-faced agents are in a constant state of seriousness to the point that any smile automatically evokes suspicion from the audience. Oldman’s understated performance is pitch-perfect. Smiley is tired and worn but committed and resolved. His weathered poker-face hides his thoughts and intentions from the other characters and from us. Even Tom Hardy’s strange-looking blonde wig seems perfectly in tune with the picture.

This isn’t a spy movie in the same vein as James Bond or Jason Bourne. I’m certainly no expect of being a secret agent but this feels as real and grounded as any spy movie I have seen. It’s slow-moving and sometimes difficult to navigate but it’s also smart and completely engaging. It’s top-tier cast makes things even better and the movie would be worth seeing just for the wealth of acting talent involved. “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” isn’t a film for everyone. But I found myself completely invested even if it did take a little work to get the full thrust of the story.

“JOHN CARTER” – 4 STARS

by

3

After seeing the mixed reviews for Disney’s $250 million “John Carter”, I wasn’t sure what to expect. It’s the kind of movie that you automatically expect to receive some unfavorable reviews. It’s a large-scaled science fiction epic and they simply don’t appeal to a certain group of people. I’m a pretty big sci-fi fan but even I had concerns going in to “John Carter”. Being someone completely unfamiliar with the source material, could the movie pull me into its enormous, sprawling world? Could Taylor Kitsch headline such a huge, ambitious project? Let me just say I was thoroughly drawn in right from the start of the film and Kitsch, while certainly not profound, does enough to get the job done.

“John Carter” is based on of the Edgar Rice Burroughs novel “A Princess of Mars”, the first book of the 11-volume “Barsoom” series. The movie starts with Edgar Burroughs (Daryl Sabara) arriving in Richmond, Virginia after inheriting the estate of his recently deceased uncle, John Carter (Kitsch). Edgar hasn’t seen his uncle in years but he’s always cherished the wonderful stories he used to tell. Edgar is given a private journal that John Carter said was to only be read by his nephew. It’s through Edgar’s reading of the journal that we’re whisked away on the interplanetary journey that makes up the majority of the story.

In the journal John Carter writes of his time prospecting for gold in the Arizona Territory after the Civil War. He’s taken into custody by a U.S. Calvary officer (Bryan Cranston) who wants to recruit him to join their fight against the Apache. Carter finds himself caught in the middle of a shootout between the Calvary and the Apache. He takes shelter in a cave where he finds not only gold but a mysterious medallion that ends up transporting him to what he later finds out to be Mars. He quickly finds that the planet is inhabited by a race of four-armed aliens called Tharks. Their leader, Tars Tarkas (Willem DaFoe) takes a liking to him and is especially intrigued by Carter’s newfound gravity-manipulating leaping abilities. We also learn that two humanoid cities, Helium and Zodanga, are at war with each other. At the center of the conflict is the beautiful Princess Dejah (Lynn Collins). Her father and Helium leader (Ciaran Hinds) is pressured into giving his daughter in marriage to an evil Zodanga general (Dominic West) in hopes that it will bring peace between the two groups. Dejah wants no part of it and of course John Carter finds himself right in the middle of it.

The movie puts together a solid supporting cast of quality actors. In addition to DaFoe, Hinds, West, and Cranston we also get Mark Strong  as the leader of the god-like Holy Therns, a sinister group of shape-shifting eternals who have been manipulating historical events on several planets. Strong is good here and he adds yet another solid “bad guy” performance to his resume. Thomas Haden Church has a lot of fun playing an evil Thark who desperately wants to overthrow Tarkas and gain power over the Alien tribe. But the main focus is on Taylor Kitsch. The first thing you notice is that he has all the physical attributes needed to play John Carter. He’s quite believable and he certainly knows how to handle a sword. The one thing I noticed is that he didn’t have a very wide range of emotions. The character is intended to be cold and reserved. But there are scenes that call for more emotion and Kitsch doesn’t add much to them. He’s not bad, but he doesn’t have a lot of charisma. I did buy into the chemistry between him and the lovely Lynn Collins. While her character is given a few pretty cheesy lines, she’s still pretty good and she shares some really fun scenes with Kitsch.

While Kitsch may not necessarily stand out, the special effects certainly do. “John Carter’s” assortment of creatures look impressive and its alien technologies are a cool cross between futuristic and archaic. I was blown away by the detailed structure of the solar-powered air ships. I also really liked the CGI design of the Thark creatures. Director and co-writer Andrew Stanton, better known for his work at Pixar Animation, creates a planet that’s full of life yet that looks barren and on the verge of death. And while the landscapes do look fitting, they resemble an Arizona desert far more than what you would expect Mars, The Red Planet, to look like.

Stanton’s Mars is also a place of a strained but structured social order. There are a lot of politics at work between the two humanoid cities and we even get a bit of rather corny social commentary along the way. Mars also has its system of theology that ends up helping Carter and Dejah along the way but I would be lying if I said I understood exactly how. But together, the politics and theology of the planet do make it more than just a wasteland full of monsters and little green men. It makes it’s inhabitation feel more structured and complex and I actually bought into it (with a slight bit of suspension of disbelief).

“John Carter” is the first big blockbuster of 2011 and it’s already been viewed as a “flop”. It’s mediocre opening weekend at the box office did little to cover the film’s $250 million price tag. But I have to say that I had a lot of fun with the film. I enjoy good science fiction and I feel this qualifies. “John Carter” isn’t without its faults but it overcomes them by creating a huge new world that I had never experienced. I’ve never read Wright’s books but I think I could, and I certainly wouldn’t mind seeing “John Carter” become the full trilogy it was intended to be. I’m certainly not calling this the best movie of the year. But I’m also not calling it the terrible movie that some are. For me it was a creative and entertaining motion picture experience – the type of thing that makes the movies fun.