Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.

Review #2376: Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.

Cast: 

Kevin Costner (Robin Hood), Morgan Freeman (Azeem Edin Bashir Al Bakir), Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio (Lady Marian), Christian Slater (Will Scarlett), Alan Rickman (the Sheriff of Nottingham), Geraldine McEwan (Mortianna), Michael McShane (Friar Tuck), Brian Blessed (Lord Locksley), Michael Wincott (Guy of Gisborne), Nick Brimble (Little John), Harold Innocent (the Bishop of Hereford), Walter Sparrow (Duncan), Daniel Newman (Wulf), Daniel Peacock (Bull), and Jack Wild (Much) Directed by Kevin Reynolds (#1081 - Waterworld)

Review: 

Okay, so Kevin Reynolds did other movies besides Waterworld (1995). Actually, the San Antonio native got his start in film with co-writing the script with John Milius for Red Dawn (1984). His first film as a director came with Fandango (1985), which actually sprung from a film he had made when at USC Film School that was inspired by his experiences at Baylor University. The production, featuring a young Kevin Costner as the star, wasn't a hit, but Reynolds found further work with The Beast (1988). Reynolds later served as a second unit director with Dances with Wolves (1990)*, significantly with the buffalo hunt scene. Naturally, the two united for a movie that sprung from British people. Well, okay, British writer-producer Pen Densham wanted to do a Robin Hood movie that went on with the idea of not just being a rerun of the famed 1938 film of the tale in adventure, instead billing it as "Robin Hood a la Raiders”. He wrote an outline with John Watson that attracted attention and getting Reynolds basically meant getting Costner involved. Reynolds apparently wanted to avoid making "Indiana Jones" with the tone. With a rushed production schedule to try and make sure they were not beaten out by a rival Robin Hood movie and not be stuck in England winter, the result was, well, funny. Apparently, preview screenings had people say that Rickman's sheriff was their favorite character rather than Costner. They then replaced editors with a team that trimmed and beefed-up certain scenes that saw Reynolds leave the production prior to the final editing/scoring. Interestingly, a 2003 DVD of the movie has an extended version of the movie that runs at 155 minutes (i.e. 12 minutes of restored footage, most notably showing the parentage of a certain character).

Sure, the tales of Robin Hood is a folktale of British origin. Sure, there is no straight-to-the-point version of what the myth is beyond a man who can use arrows and/or swords. There is no one person that inspired folks to talk about a bandit that dealt with the rich beyond people who were outlaws in some way. The movies did their own thing, suffice to say. Hell, people even made ballads about Robin Hood. The only ballad people will make of this movie is how ridiculously all over the place it all is. Sure, I got a kick out of the movie more often than not, but its flaws are evident to even those who don't care about a certain degree of violence or the tone of the whole thing. The fact that Kevin Reynolds elected to work with Kevin Costner again with Waterworld (1995) after this means that people really do have plenty of patience to share with each other. I have no time to really quibble about Costner *the American* playing Robin Hood, because freaking Errol Flynn was an Australian (incidentally, did you know James Cagney was supposed to play the role before Flynn?). I will, however, quibble about the fact that someone thought it was a problem that Rickman overshadows him in the movie. What the hell was his performance before they did the edits, a stronger block of wood?** To be clear, I don't really care that much about if Costner varies in trying to do an accent, because, well, meh, but I will quibble with the fact that he barely has any charisma in the first place. I think he just coasts better with alleged classics like Bull Durham (1988) when he has some sort of actual breath of fun with actually doing something besides looking into the distance and doing a hobby shop Clint Eastwood impression. And yet...the movie does what it does in spite of his okay qualities. I at least see the interest that comes with a lead that sees the Crusades and all that comes from it and decides, no, life isn't about chasing glory. Freeman accompanies this with a zest to play with the idea of enjoying this quest and sticking out like a sore thumb (as one does when being referred to as a "Moor") in staid charm. And then of course there is Rickman, who saw the script and proceeded to come up with (read: enlist the help of writer friends such as Ruby Wax and Peter Barnes) better lines for himself (the "cancel Christmas" line, for example). His menace in chewing the scenery and zeal for doing exactly what he feels is both damn funny and also absorbing in a way that saves the movie in showing energy beyond just doing the same adversarial bit. What can I say, I like ham (for reference, the Sheriff in the 1938 version was played by Melville Cooper, but it's easy to forget when Claude Rains and Basil Rathbone play the real threats of that film), particularly when sharing time with the amusing hack mysticism of McEwan. Mastrantonio has exactly one interesting scene: her introduction, when she fights under a mask for a bit. She then coasts along as just an adequate observer to the growing absurdity (except for the climax, which has her wail while Rickman aims for extra-cooked ham and Costner sifts into "sword" mode). Slater basically pops in and out to play a brat with the most evident twist necessarily, but McShane and Brimble at least make the merry band of men (okay, not all men) have energy to make these people seem like you would actually want to be there in the British countryside (insert your own British joke here, guv'nor). The movie does strain in the credibility of an okay (read: generous) lead backed with a far more capable cast (read: one really good actor and a few names to like here and there) and some action that I'm actually okay with. Some will find it joyless, some will find it a pleasure they can roll with in the sheer bombast that comes through for some useful adventure that I can appreciate. It's the ultimate "love it or hate it" kind of movie that you might find worth stumbling onto or stagger away from.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*That would be the *overrated* Dances with Wolves, released in 1990. Sure, fine movie, but I will never understand how Costner's efforts with a movie outdone by, well, pick a random Eastwood Western, was the best movie by a certain Academy.

**And who wanted to see his bare ass? 

Redux: Die Hard.

Redux Review #014: Die Hard.

Cast: 

Bruce Willis (John McClane), Alan Rickman (Hans Gruber), Alexander Godunov (Karl), Bonnie Bedelia (Holly Gennaro-McClane), Reginald VelJohnson (Al Powell), Paul Gleason (Dwayne T. Robinson), De'voreaux White (Argyle), William Atherton (Richard Thornburg), Clarence Gilyard (Theo), Hart Bochner (Harry Ellis), and James Shigeta (Joseph Takagi) Directed by John McTiernan.

Review: 

From my review on December 22, 2010: 

This film brings exuberant joy and all the fun and bang in a 2-hour action packed film set on Christmas Eve. The acting is alright considering this an action film an all, with fine action and some decent suspense. Willis is the standout with a decent performance that would jump-start his career. This film would begin a franchise, which I will attempt to cover soon.

It's one of the best action films ever made. How much is there to say about Die Hard in the 35 years that have passed since its release? How many times can one watch the film and find new ways and things to examine? Well, you would be surprised. I actually can't believe I only thought the film was just a 9/10 as a teenager, particularly since it was one of those films that endure in the memory for quite some time. Probably one thing that didn't come to mind the first time I saw it is that it was actually based on a 1979 novel called Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp (a writer who also dabbled in a detective agency in his youth). The author had written the book as a follow-up to his previous procedural novel in The Detective, with this being inspired by a dream he had about men chasing each other through a building...after he had saw the 1974 film The Towering Inferno. I'm sure you can see those similarities and differences pop up: an aging ex-NYPD detective is being chased by terrorists (led by a man named "Tony the Red" Gruber) and tries to save his daughter (a Ms. Gennaro) through stunts such as crawling through ducts while LAPD cops can only listen to him on the radio (the book is told all in POV of the detective). Jeb Stuart was tasked to write a screenplay with that in mind (as proposed to him by Lloyd Levin, who had been trying to get development done for it at 20th Century Fox), which would be pitched as "Rambo in a building". Of course, for Stuart, the real big thing to making it a useful screenplay was as he put it, "about a thirty-year-old who should have said he’s sorry to his wife and something really bad happens.” Written with undertones of thriller and the Western genres, Fox went right in with this for a target of Summer 1988, although Steven E. de Souza was tasked with doing a few re-writes as an experienced writer of blending action and comedy. de Souza (a Philadelphia native) went from story editing in television to producing TV to film writing with stuff such as Arnold's Wrecking Co. (1973), 48 Hrs. (1982), and Commando (1985). Lawrence Gordon and Joel Silver produced the film and had such a good time with John McTiernan when he did Predator (1987) for them that he was brought in to direct this film, provided that he put "some joy in it". It was the third theatrical film for the director and a hit that he returned to for the third film of what became a franchise: Die Hard 2 (1990), Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995), Live Free or Die Hard (2007), and A Good Day to Die Hard (2013).

Everywhere you look and listen with this film is a success on every level, particularly for its genre. 132 minutes never has seemed so swift for a fun thriller that is so crisp in its execution that it could be watched on any day of the year. You could just make a list of people to give credit for it being a success that would seem like a laundry list that goes from McTiernan to the cinematographer in Jan de Bont (himself a future action director) to music cues from Michael Kamen (who initially resisted the idea of McTiernan to have Beethoven's Symphony No. 9) to Stuart & de Souza to a well-rounded cast from top to bottom that grows upon every viewing. Willis (born in West Germany but raised in New Jersey) had exactly two film credits: Blind Date (1987) and Sunset (1988) to go with his most prominent role as an actor at that time in the TV show Moonlighting, which had run from 1985 to early 1989 (the production of the film and the last episodes of the show were an ordeal to film back-to-back for Willis, obviously). The laundry list of people who rejected the lead role before Willis could make its own comedy: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Burt Reynolds, Al Pacino, etc, etc. Willis is basically playing a Western hero that would be right at home for those who like High Noon (1952), complete with that interesting sense of vulnerability that comes through in all of the obscenities and observations. He does kick ass, but he is also one man left to dig out of the mud, and this makes for a compelling action thriller. If it was only him, the film would be pretty good, but having Rickman there to counter Willis with his composed nature of cutting charm and style is the best thing imaginable. He was a Tony Award-nominated actor in his forties that had to get over his doubts of having this serve as his debut into film. Can you think of a better background to go with a film debut like this? I sure can't think of many. He walks through the film with such sharp timing and dress sense (standing out from the others, which includes a former ballet dancer-turned-actor in Godunov) that can even make a solid attempt at an American accent. The highlight scene is a tough one to nail down, because he maneuvers the thriller angle with no sense of drying away from what could've just been nailed-down cliches from lesser actors so well. I think the scene where he is listing "demands" involving freeing a bunch of prisoners as if he was reading them off a magazine that he happened to glance at is probably him at his peak in terms of commanding presence and illusion without turning it into just a routine. Sure, there are plenty of action films to enjoy when it comes to the routines of slam-bang things or choice phrases, but one cherishes those character-driven ones so much more when you really do care about how it all goes down in stakes and in execution. With such time spent to praise Willis and Rickman, it might be easy to say they dominate over the other cast members. But they prove just as special in support when it comes to that specific nature of balance with Willis (and because of the nature of filming and in general when it comes to the rewrites). VelJohnson and Gleason make watching the terror down below matter in perspective when it comes to doubts and fears. One needs those vocal interactions between VelJohnson and Willis to accentuate the struggle that comes in "one vs. the world" to make it all matter just as much as seeing Bedelia react to the dread building around her or a blowhard in relief with the immeasurable Gleason and Atherton. Simply put: you might be able to assemble an entertaining film of some kind even if you split the cast in two. Like an inferno, it burns to a fever pitch that can't be extinguished easily or copied so easily. The irony of a pitch of "Rambo in a building" for this film is that its success would see other films being likened as "Die Hard on a [X]" when it came to an everyman dealing with terror on say, a bus or a battleship. In the end, this is a wonderful film for the season of anytime because it is timeless and effective on every level required, from its lead actors to its director to its sense of scale and sense of timing that makes you remember why you find the need to go back to it every now and then as you would expect from a classic.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

Movie Night: Galaxy Quest.

Review #237: Galaxy Quest.

Cast
Tim Allen (Jason Nesmith), Sigourney Weaver (Gwen DeMarco), Alan Rickman (Alexander Dane), Tony Shalhoub (Fred Kwan), Daryl Mitchell (Tommy Webber), Sam Rockwell (Guy Fleegman), Enrico Colantoni (Mathesar), Robin Sachs (Roth'h'ar), and Justin Long (Brandon) Directed by Dean Parisot.

Review
When you think about it, this one of those parody ideas that could work or fail, depending on the right hands selected for the job. And...The right hands were selected perfectly. Allen and-no scratch that, the whole dang cast fit well into their respective modes, with some good wit (It is always nice to see Rickman in a role not involving being a villain) And I have reviewed a few of these films (3 in fact, #009 - Star Trek (2009), #225 - Star Trek V, #226 - Star Trek VI) Good wit, good characters (I imagine now that this would be William Shatner's greatest dream, to be in space and all those aliens...), and good charm. Truly this film works for anyone who wants a good laugh.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2.

Review #124: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2.

Cast
Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Ralph Fiennes (Lord Voldemort), Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore), Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Evanna Lynch (Luna Lovegood), Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid), Matthew Lewis (Neville Longbottom), Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange), Maggie Smith (Minerva McGonagall), Bonnie Wright (Ginny Weasley), Ciaran Hinds (Aberforth Dumbledore), Jason Issacs (Lucius Malfoy), Julie Walters (Molly Weasley), James and Oliver Phelps (Fred and George Weasley), Mark Williams (Arthur Weasley) with Gary Oldman (Sirius Black), David Thewlis (Remus Lupin), Adrian Rawlins (James Potter), Geraldine Somerville (Lily Potter), and Warwick Davis (Filius Flitwick/Griphook). Directed by David Yates.

Review
This film is the final one for the week and the series of Harry Potter, and it ends with a bang, as we get closure in terms of legend in sorts. The acting takes a slight sidestep to the action, as it should be for once given the circumstances. We get some revelations and all, even if (as usual) some of the book is omitted, such as Pettigrew, Potterwatch, and some others, but that does not matter too much as the film makes sure that all the stops have been put out in a great climatic end to the films. It all ends with a farewell scene, years later, and it is rather touching, making you remember back to the first book and the wonder that it had then and now. Looking back on all eight films, it has been fun. From 2001 to 2011, (2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011) there was a sense of magic and fun in the films, with a plentiful cast of good actors and all. Now that it is over, what happens now? We shall look back on the films and everything as the others hopefully go to other roles. It reminds me of another film series, The Star Wars Saga. Those actors (and the films) filled the air with wonder and adventure, as some of those actors went to fame for other roles, while others did other roles, yet they will be remembered for their roles in that series. Harry Potter will also be remembered for being a great film series, and it will live on for time to come.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

Review #122: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

Cast
Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore), Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Jim Broadbent (Horace Slughorn), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid), Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange), Maggie Smith (Minerva McGonagall), Evanna Lynch (Luna Lovegood), and Warwick Davis (Filius Flitwick). Directed by David Yates.

Review
This film is the last of Harry Potter's school years, as all is not well in Hogwarts, and the film is darker and better for it. The acting is good again, with Gambon, Broadbent, Felton, and Rickman being the standouts in all of this, as the film intrigues you with not just magic and wonder, but a sense of mystery and tragic nature. I think it's better then Order of the Phoenix and Goblet of Fire, just tying itself with Sorcerer's Stone. The film doesn't have much light-heartedness, as it omits the lightness to make a better film, as we get closer to the past of the wizard known as Tom Riddle. A good film that set the tone for the final parts in this great series...This ends Part VI of Harry Potter Week. Stay tuned for Part VII...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

Review #121: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

Cast
Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Imelda Staunton (Dolores Umbridge), Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore), Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Ralph Fiennes (Lord Voldemort), Matthew Lewis (Neville Longbottom), Evanna Lynch (Luna Lovegood), Gary Oldman (Sirius Black), Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid), Jason Isaacs (Lucius Malfoy), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange), and Warwick Davis (Filius Flitwick). Directed by David Yates.

Review
This film tries to do the longest book in the series justice, and it...shortens it to be the second shortest film in the series. But is it still a good film? Yes, yes it is. The acting again is superb, with Stauton, Lewis, and Carter being the main standouts (Other then the main three) The plot at least lasts 2 hours (given with the long 10 minute credits), but 20 minutes is used to have a trial scene which only makes us have one thing useful: The Order and the other characters, with the trial of course being good for Harry (I've seen more fairer Trials, but that Trial had someone called the "Boneyard", I believe) Anyway, the film omits some things and cuts into other scenes to have a faster climax. I wonder why they needed this to be the shortest, they could have made it just the same length as the others, but maybe it makes a better film by having not so much of the book. At least there is some characterization for some as this film might not be the best one, but it is not the worst by a long shot (There's no real worst), as we get close to the end. This ends Part V of Harry Potter Week. Stay tuned for Part VI...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Review #120: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Cast
Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Brendan Gleeson (Alastor Moody), Robert Pattinson (Cedric Diggory), Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore), Ralph Fiennes (Lord Voldemort), Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Jason Isaacs (Lucius Malfoy), Miranda Richardson (Rita Skeeter), and Matthew Lewis (Neville Longbottom). Directed by Mike Newell.

Review
This film is good, as it differs from the others in its opening, finally not having the Dursleys, getting to other things, and being a bit darker then the last, going in a pattern that would set the pattern (feels familiar...) The acting is decently good as usual, with Gleeson being the standout (With David Tennant also doing well, and...Robert Pattinson does a decent performance) The plot's decent as it tries to jam things in to make it not overlong or too short, even if it cuts things a bit (Such as in the World Cup sequence in which it just cuts out of the game) The series is now half over, we get darker and darker...This ends Part IV of Harry Potter Week. Stay tuned for Part V...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

Review #119: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

Cast
Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), David Thewlis (Remus Lupin), Gary Oldman (Sirius Black), Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore), Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Emma Thompson (Sybill Trelawney), Timothy Spall (Peter Pettigrew), and Matthew Lewis (Neville Longbottom) Directed by Alfonso Cuaron.

Review
This film is a departure from the previous two films, getting darker in tone and in the color (Seriously, look at the color, it looks like they made it grey-ish), and it's an alright film, setting the tone for the rest of the film series, introducing things that won't be seen in the rest of the series while introducing things that do (Werewolves + Time Travel and Lupin and Black, respectively) The acting is good as usual, with Oldman and Thewlis being the standouts. The main three characters get better and better as the film proves we didn't need a villain in a movie to make a Harry Potter film (And to keep torturing Longbottom rather then make him a character...) This ends Part III of Harry Potter Week. Stay tuned for Part IV...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

Review #118: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

Cast
Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Kenneth Branagh (Gilderoy Lockhart), Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid), Richard Harris (Albus Dumbledore), Jason Isaacs (Lucius Malfoy), Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Toby Jones (Dobby), Warwick Davis (Filius Flitwick), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Richard Griffiths (Vernon Dursley), David Bradley (Argus Filch), Bonnie Wright (Ginny Weasley), and Matthew Lewis (Neville Longbottom) Directed by Chris Columbus (#038 -  Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, and #117 - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)

Review
The film has good acting and an alright story, filled into...2 hours and 40 minutes. The lesson is that a film does not need that much time to make a film unless you have an excuse (Ben-Hur), or else you get an overstuffed film. My point is that this film is a bit overlong (The longest in the series next to Goblet of Fire), with a weird and partially grating character that is Dobby. The film is decent as it follows the book as usual. The reason that this film is not better then the first is because it feels similar with partially different things with longing length that still has a bit of charm. It's a good film, just not as great, but it at least sets the tone for the next film...This ends Part II of Harry Potter Week. Stay Tuned for Part III...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

Review #117: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

Cast
Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid), Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Ian Hart (Professor Quirrel), Fiona Shaw (Petunia Dursley), Richard Harris (Albus Dumbledore), John Cleese (Nearly Headless Nick), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Richard Griffiths (Vernon Dursley), John Hurt (Mr. Ollivander), Harry Melling (Dudley Dursley), and Warwick Davis (Filius Flitwick) Directed by Chris Columbus (#038 -  Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief)

Review
The film is of course based off the highly popular book series by J.K. Rowling, this being the first. As such, the film is a bit light hearted in tone for bits of the film, with some allright action, as it then gets dark in the later parts, where it gets better, with good acting along the way (A rare sign of good child acting) The film has a sense of wonder, with a bit of magic in the first scene (Rule of films to have something big in the beginning scenes) to help get the film started. The film omits a bit of the book, but it does a good job overall. This film begins The Chosen O- I mean Harry Potter's years of his tales and such. This begins Harry Potter Week. Part I is done. Stay Tuned for Part II....

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.