Echoes in Eternity, Part III - "Gladiator"

SPOILERS ahead.

This is actually the movie that started me on the epic path that led to me also rewatching Troy and Alexander, but this is the last movie I’m writing about because it makes more sense chronologically (you’re getting a real glimpse at the complete lack of planning I undertake when I pick a movie to write about). Because of this, I actually have a lot less to say about Gladiator than the other two films. This is probably a good thing, though, as I tend to be long-winded with these articles, especially when I get on a philosophical kick. I just wanted to explain why my Gladiator article has the shortest Echoes in Eternity segment, even though the title of the series comes from this film.

Echoes in Eternity, Part III

If Troy and Alexander were partially about mythic and historical heroes slowly learning that glory doesn’t matter in the long run, then Gladiator is the logical conclusion because Maximus has no need for these lessons. Although there is little mention of the gods in Gladiator, it’s safe to assume that Maximus is aware of Achilles and Alexander. It’s possible that he learned from their tales and understands what is important in life.

Although Maximus spends most of this time away from his family, it is not for personal glory; he only wishes to serve Rome. He is dedicated to Marcus Aurelius, but he does not hold him above Rome itself. Because of this, Aurelius wisely chooses Maximus to become Protector of Rome upon his death, eventually returning the power of Rome over to the elected Senate.As with everything else in his life, Maximus reluctantly agrees out of a sense of duty.

For Maximus, a soldier’s life is about honor, not glory. He tells his soldiers at the beginning that, “What we do in life, echoes in eternity.” But he’s not telling these men that they will be remembered as Achilles and Alexander are. Instead, these men will simply play their part in events that will change the world. It is in the afterlife that they will find peace and happiness, but they must be brave and honorable to find that peace. 

A religious promise of future reward might be as empty as the glory sought by Achilles and Alexander, but at least it’s a bit more reasonable and possible. Certainly, if you were a foot soldier, you would be more likely to believe in the reward of a peaceful afterlife than in the possibility that you would become so famous in battle that stories are told of your exploits for generations to come. 

Gladiator is the more modern look at motivation during such times. It also leans more into nationalism than the other films do, which is more reminiscent of the modern era, as well. Serving in the military in today’s world is definitely more about serving your country than seeking personal glory. And religion plays a factor in most countries, as well, so the promise of a good afterlife due to your sacrifice for the greater good is still relevant.

That promise of the afterlife makes the “echoes in eternity” line make the most sense for this film. While Achilles offered “immortality” and Alexander claimed his men could “conquer death,” the eternity they both sought was not really infinite. They sought to be remembered, and eventually memory, even for the most famous of us, will fade. Maximus’s promise deals with the afterlife, which is supposed to be forever.

The ultimate goal of these three men, though, is the same: I want my men to fight for me with passion and hope. All of this talk of eternity is just motivation. The question is what is truly honorable. 

We live in a time in which people can support the troops but disagree with their mission. This is something the men in these films had to grapple with, too. Why should Achilles or his men care about Troy? Why should Alexander’s men care about pushing further into the unknown? Why should Maximus’s men care about Germania? Maximus, after all, is from Spain, not Rome. So why does he care?

Gladiator makes it clear that he shouldn’t. Marcus Aurelius tells Maximus as much, but Maximus cannot accept it because he has led men to their death during these campaigns. After Aurelius is killed by Commodus, however, Maximus must accept that his service may not have been as important or honorable as he had hoped.

After his family is killed, Maximus is as disillusioned as a person can be. He eventually begins to fight out of necessity in the gladiator games, but his spirit returns to him with the promise of revenge. His stint as a simple gladiator is soulless. There is no honor in what he is doing, and he is sickened by it. Only when the possibility of revenge comes into play does he regain the sense of purpose he had at the beginning of the film. And if he can also save Rome along the way, well, why not?

Maximus comes full circle in the end, and it’s hinted that he reaches the afterlife he promised his men. He finds his peace by fighting the honorable fight. Maximus’s actions have a direct effect on the world he leaves behind, but they will echo for eternity in the afterlife he has earned.

Extended Cuts Are Not Director’s Cuts...and Should Not Exist.

Director’s cuts can change films in major ways, and no director has proven this more than Ridley Scott. Blade Runner is the famous example, but his director’s cut of Kingdom of Heaven transformed that film from a mediocre historical epic into a truly great film. Any issue I had with the theatrical cut was addressed and fixed in his new cut. Because of this, I’m always on the lookout for new versions of Scott’s films. So when I saw the “Extended Cut” of Gladiator, I was intrigued. But I was tricked by the studio, and Scott even warned me about it.

When you choose to watch the extended cut, you can also watch an intro from Scott. He looks annoyed to be giving the intro in the first place, which is a bad sign, and he goes on to tell you that this extended cut is NOT his director’s cut. I should have stopped there.

Basically, an extended cut is just the theatrical cut of a movie with deleted scenes inserted back in. But, as anyone who has watched the deleted scenes on any DVD, those scenes were cut for a reason. You can look up all the differences here, but I wanted to point out my issues with the most noticeable changes:

*The German dude talks about how a gladiator can gain his freedom (how many fights and whatnot). The wormy guy who eventually pisses himself talks about how he can’t do that. 

My issue here is that we don’t need to know the specifics of gaining freedom. In fact, it’s better if we think these guys have to do this indefinitely. It adds to the plight of their situation. As for the wormy guy, I think the pissing scene in the theatrical makes it clear that this guy doesn’t have what it takes. We don’t need him to flat out tell us this.

*Proximo lectures Maximus about how he needs to entertain the audience rather than just win the match. This happens right before the famous “Are you not entertained?” scene.

This completely takes away from that moment. Instead of Maximus coming to the realization that the audience is getting bored with his skill on his own, he is now directly responding to Proximo. I find that much weaker. There’s already enough tension with Maximus and Proximo. I liked Maximus acknowledging the shitty audience, since the “mob” of Rome is referred to so often in the film. It’s further evidence that the commoners are simple and just want to see blood, and they need someone more than just an entertainer to lead them, which makes Maximus’s quest to unseat Commodus that much more powerful.

*There are multiple scenes in which the selling of grain reserves is discussed.

I’m all for a film acknowledging the realism of ruling an empire, but the goal here is to show that Commodus is a shitty ruler, and I think we understand he’s a bad person when he murders his father in one of his first scenes. Plus, talks of grain reserves reminds me of all the trade blockade stuff from The Phantom Menace (I actually love that movie, but I don’t give a fuck if Naboo is under a blockade).

*Commodus takes a sword to a bust of his father, then breaks down crying and hugs it.

Once again, the murder scene at the beginning already established that Commodus has...um...complex feelings towards his dad.

*The men who helped Maximus escape are rounded up and executed on Commodus’s order.

First off, I assumed this happened anyway. Secondly, we don’t need yet another example of Commodus being a brutal, shitty leader. It’s been well established at this point.

None of these scenes are bad. They are just unnecessary and mess with the flow of the film. They would be fine as deleted scenes, which is exactly what they are. It’s bad enough that the studios lure me in with director’s cuts, but these extended cuts are straight up bullshit. At least I know now...but I’ll still buy shit like this. At least the theatrical cut is still an option on the blu-ray.

Why Do I Own This?

I love epics, and this is the movie that led to movies like Troy and Alexander getting greenlit. It’s so fucking good. I’ve watched it at least a dozen times, and I revisit it every couple of years. I’ll just be staying away from that extended cut.

Random Thoughts

This section is shorter than usual because most of the notes I had concerned the extended cut additions. Plus, it’s an awesome movie, and I lost myself in it.

Ridley Scott gives an incredibly unenthusiastic introduction to the extended cut on the blu-ray. It’s the rare instance in which Scott approves of the theatrical cut.

Nice establishing scene showing Commodus is a badass with a sword while also generally being a sniveling pussy man who spends most of the movie trying to fuck his sister.

I like how Maximus just cucks Commodus in every aspect of his life. Commodus wants his father to love him, but his father loves Maximus more. Commodus wants to bang his sister, but she wants to bang Maximus. Commodus wants to rule Rome, but his father wants Maximus to take over. Commodus wants Lucius to see him as a father figure, but Lucius idolizes Maximus. Commodus wants the love of the mob, but they love Maximus. Can you blame Commodus for wanting to kill Maximus? Don’t get me wrong, he still sucks. But I get why he wants Maximus gone.

Omid Djalili was the go-to wormy Middle Eastern guy for a couple years with this and The Mummy.

I still love Maximus's speech to Commodus. It’s an all-time badass moment for Russell Crowe.

..

"Man of Steel" Is No "Superman Returns," for Better or Worse...

Directed by Zack Snyder, written by David S. Goyer, story by Goyer and Christopher Nolan, starring Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburn, Kevin Costner, Russell Crowe, and Michael Shannon - Rated PG-13

 

The Kurgan is not a fan of humanity, but even he didn't kill this many people with his collateral damage...

 

 

 

 

Superman has had a rough (and strange) go of it in Hollywood over the years.  The promising start in the late 70s quickly fizzled out into arguably one of the worst movies ever made with Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.  In 2006, the franchise was revisited with Superman Returns, director Bryan Singer’s ode to the Richard Donner films. Returns was a critical and commercial success but somehow was not good enough to spark the franchise.  So here we are again with Man of Steel, a, for lack of a better word, grittier and more sci-fi influenced entry.  My gut reaction to this new version from Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen, Sucker Punch) is positive.  Man of Steel is a big, action-packed summer movie and it never slows down during its lengthy 140+ minute running time.  So if you want the short review, quit reading after this paragraph.  Man of Steel is worth the price of admission.  Now, if you want to know how it stacks up in the series (or you’ve seen it and you want to see if we agree or disagree about certain elements), keep reading, because that’s a trickier issue.

 

I referred to Man of Steel as a “gritty” movie above, and that’s a good starting point.  I didn’t want to use that word because it has become so unoriginal in modern cinema.  Gone are the days of a hero wearing a costume simply because that’s what he wore in the comic books.  Now we need a “realistic” hero that wears a uniform almost solely for its utility.  I’m actually okay with this approach if done correctly.  The best example of this is the recent series of Batman films.  I just don’t think this is completely necessary for every hero.  Superman has always been that squeaky clean hero (he still is, for the most part) that stood apart from the rest.  Man of Steel does not make Superman stand apart in the cinematic world; he is on the same level as Batman.  That’s not a bad place to be, but it’s not a different place, either. 

 

The grittiness of Man of Steel isn’t that major of a problem, and a squeaky clean version might have been a disaster.  But I can’t help but look back on Superman Returns and think that that is Superman done right.  No big deal, though; if I want that version of Superman, I have a DVD player. 

 

Man of Steel’s more realistic look is simply awesome, however.  Zack Snyder and his team (including Dark Knight director Christopher Nolan serving as a producer) have crafted detailed and interesting worlds.  From a purely visual standpoint, this film is far and above the best of the series.  That goes for the action as well.  While some of the sequences bordered on exhaustion, they were all impressive and showcased both Superman’s and his enemies’ incredible power.  That showcase of power might leave you feeling a little troubled, though (more on that later). 

 

Great action and visuals can be enough for some people (it certainly goes a long way for me) because of the entertainment value therein, but the casting of Superman and his opponent can also make or break a film like this.  Henry Cavill (Immortals) does a great job as both Clark Kent and Superman.  He is believable, looks natural in the uniform, and, most importantly, he’s likable.  Michael Shannon as General Zod is equally impressive.  I’ve been a fan of Shannon’s for years, but this is most likely the first time many viewers have seen him in a major role (although fans of HBO’s “Boardwalk Empire” are already aware of his talent).  Shannon brings his usual intensity to the role.  This is an actor who can convey so much with a stare.  He’s not going to get an Oscar nomination or anything like that, but at least Man of Steel will showcase his talents to a larger audience.  The rest of the cast is just as strong, just in more limited capacities.  Amy Adams turns in yet another good performance as Lois Lane.  Russell Crowe holds the first twenty minutes of the film so well that I almost wished that had been its own movie.  Diane Lane and Kevin Costner provide the emotional impact of the film, most notably Costner in some scattered fatherly advice scenes (perfect timing, by the way, releasing this film on Father’s Day weekend).  Maybe it’s the memories of the father-son moments from Field of Dreams, but I found his scenes to be very effective.  And Laurence Fishburne provides some much-needed comic relief as Perry White, the editor of the Daily Planet.

 

I haven’t mentioned the plot yet because, well, it’s not terribly important to a film like this.  Like most, if not all, superhero movies, the safety of the entire world is at stake.  General Zod wants to turn Earth into a different planet that can sustain life for his nearly extinct race, and Superman must stop him.  Pretty simple, really.  Although there are quite a few moments and elements that might confuse you, it isn’t that big of a deal because it’s all done so well.  Of course, if you don’t care for the movie, then nitpicks about character motivation and inconsistencies will bother you much more.  I enjoyed the movie enough to lose focus on those elements and say, “Well, it is a comic book movie…”

 

Man of Steel does stretch a bit into the science fiction world, though, and that might be an issue for some.  I was surprised by how far into Krypton the movie went.  The portion of the film that takes place on Krypton is actually my favorite part, so I was definitely okay with seeing this new world and its technology brought to life.  It might be too much for some viewers.  But hey, The Avengers had an alien invasion and that was popular, so maybe audiences in general dig sci-fi more than I give them credit for.

 

The alien element in general was fine with me, but whenever a powerful enemy to earth is introduced, destruction must take place.  In the past, superhero movies were mainly about preventing death and destruction.  Now, it seems like killing unseen thousands (maybe millions) of people in a film is okay.  Not to spoil anything, but mass amounts of a large city are destroyed in this film, and it’s ridiculous to imagine that everyone made it out safely.  Multiple skyscrapers topple to the ground, yet we only see Superman get upset about humans dying when he has to actually see people in harm’s way.  I know that the audience doesn’t technically see any death happening in these action sequences, but anyone who thinks about it a little is bound to be troubled by what is happening off camera in these scenes.  I don’t know…I know these summer movies have to keep upping the ante with the destruction, but it leaves a bad aftertaste when that destruction involves buildings filled with innocent people.  This is where that “It’s just a comic book movie” line should help me out, but this part was just too much.

 

I’ve come to the conclusion that I like the Superman of Superman Returns a little more.  There was less collateral damage in that film, and it’s a feel-good movie, which is what a Superman film should be like.  Man of Steel is cooler, more action-packed, and more entertaining, but it doesn’t feel any different from all the rest of the superhero/summer movies out there.  This is not to say it’s a bad film.  I’m glad I watched it, and I plan on buying it on video and watching it many times again.  It’s just that it didn’t blow me away.  Perhaps this is simply a result of hype.  Man of Steel is the movie of the summer, what with all of the random product tie-ins (“Try the Super Bacon Burger at Hardee’s!  And be sure to check out Man of Steel!”).  I just got my hopes up way too high.  So I didn’t love Man of Steel.  I merely liked it…a lot.  Nothing wrong with that.  It is just a comic book movie, after all.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

 

As always, the IMDb boards are a minefield of lovers and haters of the film, and they've covered any complaints I might have with the film.  But I still feel like airing some of my grievances here.

 

I had no clue if the Kryptonians were automatically superhuman when they got to earth or if they had to be exposed to the air.  I know that Zod changes when his mask is off, but the others who weren't exposed still seemed to possess Superman strength.  So was it the suits?  It's not that big of a deal because all the fights would suck if Superman just knocked them out with one punch, but it still left me a bit confused.

 

The biggest question I had after the movie was over was why Lois Lane was asked to board Zod's ship.  Someone on the boards said that it was because she could lead them to the codex.  I'll have to watch it again to see if that's ever stated or implied, but at the moment it seemed like she was just there to make sure Superman got out of a jam and he would've been screwed had she not been there. 

 

Speaking of the codex, all that business of genetic engineering and no natural births on Krypton had to be explained a bit too quickly, which is why I would love to see more of the story from Krypton.  That first part of the film is great, but soooooo much is going on that I feel like I need to watch it a few more times to pick up on everything. 

 

Back to the destruction.  Between this and Star Trek into Darkness, I've seen millions of people killed this summer.  I just don't understand why skyscrapers and entire cities have to be demolished in all of these movies.  Is everyone drinking the Roland Emmerich Kool-aid? 

 

I was hoping the whole Clark Kent wears glasses and Superman doesn't gimmick wouldn't come into play with this incarnation, but I guess some things are sacred.  Can't take Batman out of the Batcave, right?  (Although that facility he was in in The Dark Knight wasn't much of a cave, per se, and people love that one more than all of the others...but whatever.)  I just figured they would abandon that because it's supposed to be a bit more realistic.  I mean, it took Lois a day or two to figure it out?  How hard could it be to identify him in this world they have created?  At least make Superman grow a beard or something when he's Kent.  Speaking of which, anyone else notice that when Clark saw the suit in the ship he had stubble, but he was clean-shaven the very next scene as he was flying around?  So can he grow and discard facial hair at will?  Was there a Bic on the spaceship?  (Or a Gillette?  Is that the tie-in for this?)  All joking aside, there should be more to it than just glasses and a slightly different hairstyle.  If everything else gets the gritty new realistic upgrade, then this aspect should too.

 

Finally, just because I prefer Returns doesn't mean I think Routh is a better Superman.  (Honestly, the goofiness of Returns and Kevin Spacey's performance is what put me over the edge.)  I think both Routh and Cavill are great as Superman in their respective films, but neither would work as well in the other film.  Routh is better for the goofy Clark Kent stuff while Cavill makes for a more believable powerhouse.  Perhaps Cavill could work in Returns, but no way would Routh fit in Man of Steel.

You Should Watch "Anna Karenina" and Skip "Les Miserables." Hear me out on this...

I know this is the opposite of what most critics would tell you, but having watched both, I cannot understand how someone could tell a moviegoer to watch Les Miserables (the accent over the e is not worth the trouble, by the way, so I'll just go with unaccented throughout) when Anna Karenina goes all but ignored by nearly everyone.  Both are films that depict a story from classic literature told in stylish, ambitious ways.  The difference?  In Anna Karenina, the characters speak to each other…like normal humans in films do.  In Les Miserables, the characters…sing…everything.  Okay, you got me; I do not like musicals.  Unless it’s funny or on a stage in New York or something, I don’t want to hear the characters sing their dialogue.  I couldn’t stand Chicago, barely got through Sweeney Todd, and I cringed through Les Miserables.  So if you like musicals, don’t listen to me.  You’ll undoubtedly love Les Miserables (I refuse to shorten the title, by the way) if you enjoy any other musicals.  It’s long, it’s expensive, and it has a lot of star power.  Almost all of the other critics are salivating over it, but I don’t get it.  I am not really going to review the musical, but I have to put this out there: Russell Crowe cannot sing.  He can’t.  He sounded weird, unnatural, and generally terrible in this film.  I would call it laughable, but I found myself to perplexed by his voice to actually laugh.  Okay, on to Anna Karenina, and why, if you’re on the fence about musicals or hate them as I much as I do, you should watch this film when you get the chance.

 

First, for those of you who hear all of the hoopla over the musical (as I will refer to it from here on out) and think, “I don’t really like musicals, but everyone says it’s soooooo good,” don’t lie to yourself.  If you don’t like musicals, there’s no way this one will change your mind.  If you find it silly for someone to sing lines of dialogue describing exactly what you are watching them do, then you will still find this film silly.  It looks great, don’t get me wrong, but they still sing.  Anna Karenina (or AK as I will refer to it hereafter due to my difficulty in typing Karenina over and over) provides all of the melodrama and visual flair that the musical provides, but it doesn’t leave you asking yourself, “Why were they singing the whole time?” 

 

AK takes a classic tale of forbidden love and injects it with the amazing style that director Joe Wright is known for.  I began to truly pay attention to this director after his last effort, Hanna, because he uses style perfectly.  It’s not in your face, yet it’s still impressive.  The style calls attention to itself, but feels natural.  If he can take a dense Russian novel and turn it into a stylishly entertaining film, then this is a director worth paying attention to. 

 

I don’t want to get into the story all that much, even though playwright Tom Stoppard did a fine job condensing the novel into less than two hours, while also keeping the tragedy and depressing comedy of it all intact.  I want to focus on Wright’s take on this film.  He sets it up as if it is all happening on a stage, even to the point that there are set changes from scene to scene at times.  It was the perfect way to tell this story.  Is AK not a story meant for the drama of the stage? 

 

I acknowledge the contradiction of hating one film because it is meant for the stage and praising another because it was filmed as if it was on a stage.  I am not being unfair, though.  The musical is meant for the stage and it should stay there.  AK would work on the stage, but it is endlessly more entertaining to see it filmed as if it were on the stage.  AK is meant for the stage in that it is melodramatic and there is an inherent musical quality to the proceedings.  Musical in the strictest sense of the word in that classical music is utilized amazingly well, and the characters never feel the need to join in with the music. 

 

If I haven’t convinced you to check one out over the other at this point, I highly doubt that I will.  But perhaps a bit about the performances will help.  Keira Knightley, of course, is great as the title character.  She was simply born to play the miserable character of a Russian novel.  Jude Law was impressive as her cuckolded husband.  Aaron Taylor-Johnson (of Kick-Ass fame) continues to show his range as Vronsky.  And Matthew Macfadyen was a bright spot in a supporting role. 

 

The true star of the film, as you may have guessed, is the director.  I have not been very specific with any of the “style” of the film, but that’s because it is better seen with very little knowledge.  I had no idea what I was in for specifically, so when I saw it the first time it impressed me and kept me hooked throughout.  If you want a musical story without all the nonsensical singing, then Anna Karenina is definitely the movie for you.

"The Next Three Days"

The Next Three Days - Written and directed by Paul Haggis (based on a script by Fred Cavayé and Guillaume Lemans, starring Russell Crowe, Elizabeth Banks, Olivia Wilde, and Brian Dennehy - Rated PG-13

Hey America, wizards are cool and all, but Russell Crowe deserves some attention, too.

Russell Crowe is a refreshing rarity in the cinemas these days: he consistently makes movies for adults. While the masses clamor for an aging action star (a la Stallone, Willis, Neeson), Crowe has chosen roles in films that feature minimal action (even Robin Hood was light on the action as far as historical epics go). Unfortunately this means almost no one will watch movies like The Next Three Days. A very small percentage of the movie-going public wants to see a slow moving thriller these days and Crowe isn’t the draw he used to be. I’m glad he still makes movies like this, though, and hopefully a bigger audience will develop soon.

The Next Three Days is about John Brennan (Crowe), a Literature professor enjoying a quiet life with his wife, Lara (Elizabeth Banks), and their young son. They’re enjoying breakfast one morning when the police barge in and arrest Lara for murder. Cut to two years later and Lara has been convicted and is most likely going to die in prison. John decides to take matters into his own hands and break her out.

You may be thinking, “All right! Action packed prison break movie!” That is certainly not the case. This is a realistic movie about what it takes to break someone out. It’s not just about the logistics, though. It’s more about determination and just how far someone is willing to go to save someone they love. At this point, a good question might be, “Is John’s wife guilty of the crime?” In other words, is she even worth breaking out? The Next Three Days is interesting in the fact that all we have is John’s belief to convince us of Lara’s innocence. The pieces of evidence we sporadically receive seem to point towards the guilty verdict.

Planning and determination doesn’t scream entertainment, sure, but it works for character development. It really works when Russell Crowe is that character. I find Crowe utterly convincing in nearly every role and he continues to impress in The Next Three Days. He’s great at showing intense determination and it’s easy to get on his side in a film. He’s the only one who believes in his wife’s innocence? Good enough for me, I believe him.

Believing in a character is important, but when it comes to prison break movies, the plot must be just as believable. The Next Three Days, as far as I can tell, is very realistic…or at least it seems realistic. Now, I don’t know how hard it is to actually get reliable fake passports or anything like that, but this movie at least makes it seem more difficult than most films. Usually it’s a phone call and the documents are there. In a film like this, it’s a bit more complicated than that.

The entire process of how to possibly break someone out is set up early on in a cameo with Liam Neeson (don’t be fooled by the preview, Neeson is only in the film for a couple of minutes). He talks about how difficult it is to break out and how luck is a major factor. While this film is realistic, it also relies on luck quite a bit. I didn’t find the good or bad luck to be ridiculous, though.

Because an entire process is set up in this film, it might start to feel long. I didn’t really mind watching the planning stages, though. It was nice to see a movie about the “how” of an event rather than the event itself. That’s not to say this film doesn’t have any action. There are some very tense chase sequences and a great scene in a drug dealer’s house. The Next Three Days also includes a surprising and visually impressive scene featuring an out of control car. I don’t want to give the details, but I imagine you’ll be impressed when you see it. Director Paul Haggis (In the Valley of Elah, Crash) seems to be growing as a filmmaker with this one.

Haggis also adapted the script, from the French film Pour Elle, though I can’t say if it’s a faithful adaptation or if he even made it his own because the original film isn’t very available. Either way, I felt that he wrote a well thought out film. Whenever a new character showed up, like Olivia Wilde as a potential new love interest for Crowe, I asked why this character was wasting screen time. But the questions were always answered. In fact, one might say that the film answers too many questions. The film answers the question of Lara’s guilt. I thought that was questionable. I liked the ambiguousness of Crowe’s quest.

I call it a “quest” because Crowe mentions Don Quixote earlier in the film and questions the idea of the quest and what kind of world the hero lives in. Crowe is obviously a quixotic character in that he is a common man attempting to commit an ambitious crime even by veteran criminal standards. I found this connection very interesting and it tied into the whole theme of determination in the face of seeming uselessness.

The Next Three Days leaves something to ponder, provides an emotional punch, contains some tense action, and tells the story of a determined man planning a nearly impossible task. It feels long and gives a few more answers than I would like, but I was still very impressed with it. It was good to see a slow film that builds character and suspense. Even though I’m in the minority, I hope Crowe keeps this up…and I hope the studios keep putting the money up for it.

Random Thoughts

It was great to see Brian Dennehy in this. He seemed wasted for most of the film, but his quiet performance really pays off in the end.

I didn't mention it above, but Banks does a very good job in this film. She worked well alongside Crowe in their prison visit scenes.

Of course, Kevin Corrigan as...the drug dealer. It's great to see Corrigan, but he plays the five minute scumbag role far too often. I really hope he breaks out in some bigger roles soon.

I acknowledge that this film is completely implausible at times (the tennis ball to unlock a car is a bit whacky), but it works. When compared to Law Abiding Citizen, this movie is a documentary, so I give it a pass for the minor transgressions.

"Robin Hood"

Robin Hood - Directed by Ridley Scott, written by Brian Helgeland, starring Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Mark Strong, William Hurt, and Max von Sydow - Rated PG-13

I'm quite the Ridley Scott fan, so I'm glad I didn't have to give this film a Commodus.

Do we really need a new movie about the legendary Robin Hood? It’s been done countless times, even to the point of parody (remember Robin Hood: Men in Tights?). Well, it turns out that Ridley Scott and screenwriter Brian Helgeland didn’t want to tell the same old story again, either. The previews for the film proclaim that this film is the story behind the legend, not the legend itself. That story, as it turns out, is extremely interesting and, more importantly, entertaining.

Robin Hood takes place at the turn of the 12th century. Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) is among the crusaders following King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston in an amusing, though short role) as he plunders his way through France on his way back to England. Robin is just a soldier, but fate throws him in the middle of a potential war between France and England.

This is not a movie about Robin hiding in the woods, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. This is the story of how he became that man. We get glimpses of his sense of honor; upholding a promise he made to a dying knight, helping a village keep their grain, etc. They are just that, though, glimpses. The full focus of Robin Hood is actually the situation that created the legend.

The political landscape concerns King John and his need to collect taxes from the barons. He lets loose Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong) to basically terrorize the countryside. But Godfrey is in cahoots with the king of France and he’s using French soldiers to collect the taxes and turn the barons against the king. The tax collection is the main thing, though. No one likes paying taxes, but people turn violent when taxes are demanded yet they have no representation in the government, or in this case almost no basic rights at all. So, yeah, Robin Hood is fighting a war on taxes. When put like that, this movie might sound boring, but I assure you, there’s some action.

Ridley Scott has proven himself time and time again when it comes to battlefield action. Robin Hood is further evidence that Scott knows what he is doing. People are comparing this film, unfairly, to another Scott film, Gladiator. Those looking for action on that level are going to be disappointed. The more apt comparison would be to Kingdom of Heaven, Scott’s 2005 crusades film. In fact, you could make the argument that this film is almost a sequel to that film since Richard the Lionheart appears at the end of the film on his way to his crusade. The main difference, and my only real issue with this film, is that Robin Hood is rated PG-13. This basically means that the blood is taken away from the battles. This may seem trivial to some, but I had an issue with it because it’s Ridley Scott. The guy paints a battle with beautiful splashes of blood. Take away that ingredient, and he’s left to make battle scenes where someone gets hit with a sword and just falls over.

The action is great, but there’s not an abundance of it. I was fine with that because I enjoy history and Scott created a great historical world for this film. Others might be bored by the scenes with Marshal (William Hurt) as he discusses political issues within the country. That stuff interests me, though.

Of course, it’s easy to maintain interest when the cast is good. First off, Crowe does a fine job as Robin. He doesn’t give an iconic performance or anything, but he handles the hero role well. Cate Blanchett holds her own as Marion, the strong willed protector of the village. Mark Strong is impressive as usual as Godfrey. It’s only a matter of time before he wins an Oscar.

It’s too bad this cast won’t be coming together for round two. I usually don’t clamor for sequels. I don’t have issues with them, but it seems like a movie is more substantial if it’s a standalone story. I would like to see another Robin Hood because the characters and the world are set up so effectively. The problem here is that if Ridley Scott made that movie, then it would go against the entire point of this film. This is Robin Hood’s origin story because that is a part of the legend that gets the least attention in the other films. I wasn’t interested in seeing the same old story again, but now that I’ve seen what Crowe and Scott have done with the origin, I wouldn’t mind seeing what they could do with the rest of the legend. But Ridley Scott doesn’t make sequels (the closest he has come so far is that he has signed on for an Alien prequel), so I’ll probably never see his version of it. That’s no big deal, though, because Robin Hood stands on its own quite well.

"State of Play" / "The Spirit"

State of Play - Directed by Kevin Macdonald, starring Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams, and Helen Mirren - Rated PG-13

State of Play, based on the BBC series of the same name, is a complicated movie. There are multiple storylines to talk about, so I'll try to stick to the main two: a lead researcher for a congressional sub-committee threatening a major private military contractor is killed, bringing forth the information that the Congressman who appointed her (Affleck), was having an affair with her. This leads to questions about who might have killed her, was it suicide?, how connected is this military contractor corproration?, and (the second plotline) where do newspapers fit into all of this in the internet age? That second plotline brings in Cal (Crowe, still in his "look how unkempt I am" phase), Della (McAdams), and their mouthy British editor (Mirren). Cal is an old college buddy of the Congressman, so he has a personal interest in the story, or police case, depending on your perspective. To complicate matters further, he has to work with the young Della, the newspaper's blogger.


When Crowe and McAdams are sharing the screen early on (they work great together, by the way), there is usually a tension in the air as the old dinosaur Cal, still using a 13 year old computer and sticking to the old reporting style of getting away from the computer and hitting the streets, clashes with Della, the neat and tidy young reporter who is able to submit new material every hour from her safe computer. There is only slight tension, though, as the movie wisely decides to make their arguments short and relatively tame. The whole issue of whether or not newspapers are still relevant is interesting and it works as a subplot. But the real meat of the story is Congressman Stephen Collins and his battle to take down Pointcorp (the privatized military contractor) and Cal's quest to find the killer and figure out who's really pulling all the strings, all while trying to be a reporter and a friend at the same time (hint: this leads to scenes of Crowe and Affleck yelling at each other).

Does any of that above make sense? I could go on and make it worse, but if any of the synopsis above sounds interesting to you, then this is definitely worth checking out. There's a bit of style in the camera movement that makes things a bit more hectic (in a good way) and Affleck (who gets a bad rap these days) holds up well against Crowe. This movie isn't a masterpiece or anything, but it's one of those good, complicated investigative reporting movies that has a timely question concerning how news is spread today. And most importantly, it's fun to watch. There's some comedic relief here and there (Jason Bateman shines in his brief role) and the story seems realistic, but still stretches reality enough to make it much more interesting than any true story. So that's it for State of Play, but I do have one more paragraph in me concerning the newspaper vs. internet debate.

For the record, even though I write my reviews on a blog, I think that newsprint is still extremely important. A newspaper offers legitimacy to a story and when I do write an occasional review for the Perry County News I feel a bit more professional than I do when I upload a new post here. The words are usually the same, and if anything, my reviews on the internet are of higher quality (I add pictures!), but the paper is something I can pick up and feel. I think along the same lines when I read the newspaper every day. The important news is printed and you know it's from a reliable source if it's in the paper. If you read an article on some random website, how can you be sure if any of it's true? You could always check the newspaper and see if it's in there.


*Note: I'm going to start doing one review a week over a movie that I think is unfairly trashed, or is simply unpopular. This week, that movie is The Spirit, which came out on DVD last week. I'm still trying to think of what to call these reviews, so if you have any ideas, leave a comment. For now, I'm going to call these my "Forgotten and Crappy Classic" reviews. Stupid title? I think so, but here goes anyway.


The Spirit - Directed by Frank Miller, starring Gabriel Macht, Samuel L. Jackson, Eva Mendes, and Scarlett Johanssen - Rated PG-13


My first crappy classic (it's not old enough to be forgotten yet) is an adaptation about the old comic strip series by Will Eisner from the '40's and '50's. It's about the crime fighter The Spirit (Macht) and his battle with the Octopus (Jackson, hamming it up and loving every minute of it). Along the way he tries to be a ladies man with almost every woman he comes across. This sounds cheesy, I know, and you know it's kind of stupid if you've seen the previews featuring such lines as, "I'm gonna kill you all kinds of dead." (Which I think is hilarious, by the way.) But this is supposed to be cheesy. Remember the source material, this is what that old comic was like. Sure, some of the violence is amped up and Jackson's character goes off the reservation (even though you only ever see Octopus' hands in the comic) but it's all in good, cheesy fun. This may look like Sin City (Frank Miller did direct this) but the story is a bit more light-hearted.

The Sin City reference is a little unfair because this movie does have it's own style, but it is very much like the style of Sin City. That doesn't mean it's a complete copy, though. The visuals are great all around and even a few of the critics who hated the movie admitted that it was interesting to look at at least. I'm just asking for people to give this movie a chance. Just realize that this movie is supposed to be funny. Miller wasn't going for grittiness in this, he was going for a visually impressive and, most importantly, fun movie. Accept that and you may end up liking this.

A warning, though. I can understand why people would hate this so I'll list a few of the dumber things in the movie. Jackson's henchmen are all clones and all appear to be nearly brain dead. They say stupid things throughout the film and are extremely goofy. I thought they were hilarious, but I can see where some people might find them just plain stupid and unfunny. Jackson himself might turn people away, too. He is overacting more than ever here and if he gets on your nerves in his more eccentric roles, then you might want to avoid this. He also talks about how much he hates eggs on his face, or likes eggs, or something...it made no sense to me and I still can't figure out what that reference is about (I will check out the commentary on the DVD, that might clear it up). If the so-called negatives sound like something you might enjoy (as I do), then at least rent this movie. If anything above raises a flag, though, you should skip it.

Oh, and fans of The Wonder Years should at least check it out because the dad from that show (Dan Lauria) is hilarious as the commissioner. It also helps (for the male viewers, anyway) that every woman in this movie is ridiculously beautiful. The dad from The Wonder Years and beautiful women? What more did anyone want from this movie? Seriously, though, worth a watch for most people, I imagine and it is certainly nowhere close to being the worst movie ever, as some critics and message board trolls have been saying.


Next week - Definitely another crappy classic, and probably something on DVD, I'd say there is no way whatsoever that I'll be going to the theater until Wolverine comes out on May 1st.