Robin Hood: Not the hero you remember

When you hear "Robin Hood" what do you think? An outlaw who steals from the rich and gives to the poor, lives in the forest with a band of outlaws, is an extraordinarily good shot with a bow and arrow, loves Maid Marian, is a sworn enemy of the Sheriff of Nottingham, and dresses in green, perhaps? No exaggeration: NONE of these happened until the last 5 minutes of the movie. In fact, he wasn't known as "Robin of the Hood" until one of the very last lines in the movie. I'll venture to say that this is not the Robin Hood everyone loves.

I understand that this was meant to be a prequel of sorts, as at the end of the movie it says "And the story begins" or something of the sort. Nothing wrong with a prequel to a much-loved story, but, unfortunately, this wasn't a very good prequel. too bad.

I'll start with the positive: Ridley Scott did a fantastic job directing this movie. It had just the right amount of shaking, exciting camera movements and beautiful, depth-of-field "artsy" shots. I'm one to usually care, but the color correction was fantastic, as was the composition. Unfortunately, movies are more than pretty views.

What this movie had in execution, it lost in premise. The story was unclear, the characters undefined, and the conflict blurred. It made it clear that the chief adviser to the King of England was actually working for France, and that the King had to restore a nation turned against himself. That's all very nice, but what exactly does this have to do with Robin Hood? Answer: nothing. Robin Hood escapes from a battlefield, takes the crown of the dead king to his brother, tries, and then succeeds, to kill the false adviser, pretends to love, and then falls in love with Maid Marian, unites the country with a stirring speech, wins the climactic battle, and all seemingly without a motive.

As I said before, this movie had NOTHING to do with an outlaw stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Instead, it had to do with a fugitive in disguise running around with small group of friends winning battles for the King, without ever agreeing with or being recognized by the king. That's all very nice, but as I said, he had NO MOTIVE. at first, he ran from the battlefield to escape from confinement, he took the crown to the king so it wouldn't fall into the wrong hands, took a sword to Maid Marian's father because he promised his dying friend he would, fell in love with Maid Marian because he was pretending to be her dead husband (to evade taxes, may I add), won battles for the king for NO apparent reason, and was in the end outlawed for pretending to be a knight. Where's the personal conflict? there is none. he wasn't even outlawed until the very end of the movie.

Also, throughout the movie, there was a band of masked, seemingly outlawed, vagabonds that wreaked havoc on Maid Marian's storehouse. They came up throughout the movie, but never actually did anything past the opening scene. Maybe this is a setup for the sequel, but it just didn't make sense to have them throughout the movie.

About the acting.... hm.... Russel Crowe is very good at looking mournful and sad, I'll give him that, but he never had a real reason to be mournful and sad. I've said it before, but it's worth repeating that this movie had little to no personal conflict.

His father had taught him the phrase "Rise and Rise again. Until Lambs become Lions" and he found it written on his sword, but it never really had significance in the movie. There's no explanation as to what it actually means. another vague part of the movie.

Is it just me, or did Kevin Durand (Little John) grow about 2 feet taller?

Also, Robin Hood never had a defining characteristic. He wasn't a particularly good shot (as is the basic premise of the real Robin Hood story), he never stole from the rich to give to the poor (although he did steal from a church to give to his love), and he wasn't even outlawed until the very very end.

This is the kind of movie that would be good to be the first 15 minutes of the real Robin Hood story. Take for example Lord of the Rings. The very first scene when it tells how the ring came about, shows how the other races fell, and how Gollum got the ring? While this summary "could" have been made into a full-length movie as a prequel to Lord of the Rings, prior to even the Hobbit,  it doesn't merit a complete movie.  The same could be said for this movie. It is really more of the back story to Robin Hood than the actually story of Robin Hood, and while there were a lot of little things that a summary wouldn't have been able to capture, the little things could have easily and comfortably cut out. In short, this movie could have been reduced to the 15 minutes at the beginning of the real story, and it would have been very nice.

On the whole, while this movie isn't a complete waste of time (although it was a little to long), it is unfortunately unclear, undefined, and without complete definition. Why is it worth the time and money to see? it really is beautifully directed, and I think Ridley Scott would do good to direct more "artsy" movies. It has some good action, good acting, wonderful directing, but no real plot, conflict, or momentum.

Iron Man 2

Who doesn't love a good guy movie? Explosions, violence, action-while these things don't appeal to the classy type, they are staples of box-office hits. Most action movies, unfortunately, rely on only these devices to make their point. That's the bad news. The good news? Surprisingly, considering the writer (Justin Theroux) has virtually no track record as a writer (his ONLY other movie being Tropic Thunder,) Iron Man 2 actually had a decent plot.

By "decent," of course, I mean "completely unimpressive." The story itself wasn't half bad, but the dialogue was. I was sincerely hoping to hear some clever, quipping lines that the wonderful Robert Downey Jr. delivered so flawlessly in Sherlock Holmes, but I was just as sincerely disappointed. While there were some lighthearted laughs hidden in the movie, there was no chemistry between the characters. And by "no" chemistry, I mean "none at all." But not to be to harsh on Mr. Theroux, after all, it is only his second real production. Which begs the question... why on earth would Favreau hire him?

Luckily for Mr. Favreau, the writing wasn't this movie's only saving grace. While most of the actors did an average job, Downey Jr. delivered a better than expected--although quite falling short of his work in Sherlock Holmes--performance and is in my mind, the only good actor in the entire movie. What on earth happened to Terrence Howard? I thought he played his role in Iron Man 1 very well, and I was angry to see him replaced in the sequel, especially by Don Cheadle, who I thought butchered the part.

Acting aside, this movie had some wonderful graphics as well as some of the best action I've seen in a long time. Thankfully, Favreau cut down a lot of the sex and language from the first Iron Man, making this a more widely-appealing movie. Scarlett Johansson's action sequence was superb, as well as the final Iron Man vs. iron men battle.

The only flaw in the filming-particularly in the action-was how the camera stopped from time to time in order to present extended views of product placement and, lets face it, Scarlett Johansson. Favreau should have known better than to pollute his beautiful work with product placement.

Speaking of Scarlett Johansson, the biggest flaw in the plot was the Stark\Potts\Rushman love triangle. While it made it clear that Tony Stark was attracted to Rushman (as denoted when he remarked "I want one" after seeing her beat up his boxing trainer) it certainly didn't give it time to allow it to grow into anything more than physical attraction. Potts and Rushman didn't really either get along, or not get along, so there was no real definition emotionally.

In fact, almost the entire movie lacked emotional definition, as Tony never really started coping with his death, struggling with his relationships, or loosing his faith in himself. Come to think of it, there was no real emotional conflict in the entire movie. Remember what I said about Justin Theroux?

On the whole, this movie was not very impressive. The action was excellent, the graphics were what's to be expected, but the plot, acting, and dialogue (aside from Downey jr) was deplorable. If you're looking for a good time, this is your movie. If you want a content-based, character-driven movie like Dark Knight or Sherlock Holmes, I'm afraid you're going to have to keep looking.