Robin Hood *1/2

Director: Ridley Scott
Cast: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett
Mark Strong, William Hurt, Matthew Macfadyen, Oscar Isaac
Danny Huston, Mark Addy, Kevin Durand, Scott Grimes
Eileen Atkins, Max von Sydow

What do you get when you combine Batman Begins, Gladiator and Lord of the Rings but take away anything that was good about them? The answer is Robin Hood.
Ridley Scott's retelling of the English folk tale is a conflicted attempt at updating the basic story for modern audiences and keeping faithful to its roots.
It's the 12th century and rebellious soldier Robin Longstride (Crowe) decides he's had enough of the Crusades. He's been fighting along Richard the Lionheart (Huston) for a decade and his patience just runs out one day.
After learning the king has died (which he obviously hasn't as anyone with the slightest inkling of world history would know) Robin and his, not so, Merry Men (Addy, Grimes and Durand) run into an ambush planned by the wicked sir Godfrey (Strong).
Godfrey plans to steal the crown, create civil war in England and help the French invade the country but Robin botches his plan and inadvertently ends setting the way for a farce which has him travel to England and pretend to be the deceased sir Robert Loxley (Douglas Hodge) who before dying made him promise he'd deliver his sword to his estranged father sir Walter (von Sydow).
Before Robin even leaves France we have ourselves the possibility to make at least four different movies but Scott and screenwriter Brian Helgeland seem to think that more is more and keep on stuffing the plot.
Back in British territory, the spoiled Prince John (Isaac) is wreaking havoc, bedding French women and making his mom (Atkins) quite pissed. Like a villain out of Shrek the young man simply succumbs to his whims and jeopardizes his kingdom and the movie's attempt at being coherent.
He's convinced by Godfrey to tax the hell out of his people, while he's secretly plotting to create a distraction for the French to take over the country, and paves the way for Robin to earn his hood.
Robin meanwhile is on his way to Nottingham where the evil Sheriff (MacFadyen) is executing the crown's orders with mean delight. There he meets sir Walter and Marion Loxley (Blanchett), no longer a maiden but a widow. Walter immediately takes a liking to Robin and requests that he pretend to be his son officially and stay living with them.
He obliges and soon is robbing grain from the Church, traveling at the speed of light to be in war councils, plowing the fields, saving England from the French invasion, creating the Magna Carta, solving daddy issues and courting the reluctant Marion.
There is so much going on in Robin Hood that it makes total sense how it's only when the film ends that we learn that "so the legend begins". Precisely, how would this man have time to become the Robin we know about, when Scott forces him to be so many things?
The hero's lack of identity determines the disunity that characterizes the entire film which amounts to little more than a wasted opportunity.
With that cast, which is rather impressive, one would at least expect the movie to deliver moments that evoked The Lion in Winter, instead the performances range from the hammy (Strong) to the confusing (Hurt).
Crowe, varies his accent from scene to scene and really shows no commitment to the role he's playing. This is obviously not his fault, entirely, given how the screenplay shows no regard whatsoever for any dramatic background.
In a way it's strange that Robin Hood in a way repeats the Gladiator formula yet fails so miserably.
As in the previous film, Crowe plays a troubles soldier adopted by a great actor, who changes the course of history. But while Gladiator had an almost Shakesparean aspect to it, Robin Hood is more unintentional Monty Python.
The film's major issue is probably the lack of clarity about what it wants to be exactly. Scott is known for his gritty realism and wondrously crafted action sequences but he also can do stupendous fantasy.
Here though he tries to do both at the same time without any cohesion, therefore we have Robin being all "Robin" and seducing the tough Marion (who honestly never seems to be into him) and a few minutes later he's behaving like an actual historical figure delivering grandiose speeches.
The story sometimes moves by inertia (it's never explained why the Merry Men actually follow Robin and the sudden "I love you" he says to Marion is ludicrous), then stalls, then throws in a random action sequence.
We never know for sure if we're meant to take anything about the movie seriously, is it trying to demythify the character? Is it trying to mythify history? What about the political undertones? Is it actually saying something about socialism and human rights?
It's ironic to say so but this is one Robin with no aim.

The Countess *1/2

Director: Julie Delpy
Cast: Julie Delpy, William Hurt, Daniel Brühl
Anamaria Marinca, Andy Gatjen, Sebastian Blomberg

You gotta give it to Julie Delpy; few actors who direct themselves, would choose to play a deranged, blood thirsty noblewoman who's not always lit in the best way.
Then again, it makes total sense that she would choose to play someone who can be called monstrous, as opposed to a heroine, because of the challenge they would represent to act and direct.
Delpy plays Countess Erzebet Bathory, who lived in the 17th century, she's the most powerful woman in the empire (even the king owes her money).
When her husband dies, she falls madly in love with Istvan Thurzo (Brühl) a man two decades younger than her. He's the son of Gyorgyo Thurzo (Hurt), a rich man Erzebet refused to marry and who's after her fortune.
Infuriated by the fact that she spoiled his strategic allegiance, more than his male pride, he stops the affair and makes Erzebet believe Istvan is no longer in love with her.
Heartbroken she believes he dumped her because she looks old and decides the best way to regain her youthful looks is to kill virgin girls and bathe in their freshly squeezed blood.
The real life Bathory allegedly inspired the creation of Dracula and her deeds have haunted the imagination for centuries. Delpy seemingly wanted to capture the complexities of this woman and prevent her story from becoming a folktale.
But as movies go, they really don't come as stale and incoherent as this one. Despite the quality of the cast, they all move and talk as if they were rehearsing for a high school Renaissance fair.
Their affected speeches are funnier than powerful and when they are made to utter lines like "there is beauty in letting time do its duty" what should come out as elegant, becomes camp potential.
The main inconsistency in the film is Delpy's narrative device and how it ends up contradicting everything Bathory thinks about herself and everything the filmmaker wants us to think about her.
The movie is narrated by Istvan, which in itself makes for a digested version of whatever the "truth" is. This feels wrong mostly because when the film begins we are told that Erzebet never felt she was inferior to males.
In fact, a splendid scene, has her demean a Catholic bishop by comparing his jewels and garments to those of a luxurious noblewoman. With this she takes an aim at men and Catholics, two of the things she felt she had no need to fear.
Later in the movie we have her saying that she only kills women because "god created [boys] in his image".
Where is the woman we met at the beginning who even intimidated the king?
The logical thing would be to think she lost her mind out of love and now has assumed the biases given to her sex (witches were constantly being burnt at the stake during these days).
But she has moments of lucidity where she sends a powerful feminist message and questions the morals and values of her society.
"Your fable will keep the populace occupied for a very long time, they will be terrified of the blood thirsty myth you have made of me and forget about evils that are indeed very real" she says condemning those who judge her.
Delpy tries to make Countess Bathory both a romantic figure and a Gothic avenger, with results that don't make justice to either point of view.
Even if it tries to be profound about something that deals with the superficial, "The Countess" is ironically nothing more than a vanity project.

Big Emmy Love...

Color me surprised about the fact that this year's Emmy nominations don't suck (the winners always make sure to screw that up though...).
I'd remained skeptical about the fact that they expanded their top categories to fit six, or more, nominees. Because like Oscar, Emmy always makes sure to fill the slots with the stuff they love despite sanity and good taste ("Two and a Half Men"...really? It's finally gone though!)
As expected "Mad Men", "30 Rock" and "Grey Gardens" led the nominations in the Drama, Comedy and Made for TV movie respectively.
Now on to my favorite bits!
-"Flight of the Conchords" gets nominated for Best Comedy! Jermaine Clement gets in for Best Actor! Awesome!
-My favorite TV drama, "Damages" gets in for Drama Series and William Hurt gets a Supporting Actor nod! Glenn Close and Rose Byrne also get Actress and Supporting Actress nods...but where'e the fabulous Marcia Gay Harden?
-"30 Rock" supporting players and usual MVPs Tracy Morgan, Jack McBrayer and the brilliant Jane Krakowski get Supporting nominations! Why don't I get sick of the love for this show? Emmy has showered it with millions of nominations since it started and for once they feel appropriate!
- Drew Barrymore and Jessica Lange get Actress nods for their fabulous work in "Grey Gardens". Go Drew!
- Jeanne Tripplehorn gets a Supporting Actress nomination for her limited, but pseudo iconic, work as Jackie O. in "Grey Gardens". I truly loved her scenes.
- Elizabeth Moss gets nominated for "Mad Men"!
- Vanessa Williams, the only actor still doing great work in "Ugly Betty" gets nominated for Supporting Comedy Actress. Lead star isn't and with reason, she's been getting from dull to duller.
- Jon Hamm and Tina Fey get double nominations in Lead and Guest categories. May they win them both!
There sadly was no love for the campy "True Blood", the fantastic "Battlestar Galactica" and more love for "United States of Tara" besides Toni Collette's nod.
May the best and NPH win!

Double Take.

By an odd chance last night I ended up watching two films which dealt with the exact same themes. I was in Meryl Streep mood (make that me trying to watch all of Meryl's Academy Award nominated performances) so I got "One True Thing". I had a basic idea of what it was about: mom (Meryl) gets sick, hotshot daughter (Renée Zellweger) comes from the city to take care of her and make amends, all leading to a melodramatic assisted death thing.
After that was over I watched "The Barbarian Invasions", Denys Arcand's follow up to "The Decline of the American Empire", which had a plot I didn't know about. To my surprise it deals with an ill father (Rémy Girard) whose hotshot son (Stéphane Rousseau) comes from the city to take care of him and make amends, all leading to assisted death.
What made these events happen for me in the same night? I do not know. But the night ended up being a film lesson of sorts about do's and don'ts when it comes to family dramas.
Streep's film, yet it's hers, handles things in a slightly contrived way. It's all about the revelations and hidden feelings, instead of flowing naturally.
Zellweger has some trouble throughout the film not acting and you can see her figuring out what should her character do in the next scene. William Hurt plays her dad and while he's brilliant as usual, his character suffers the same problem most of the movie deals with and is the fact that they feel pretty aimless.
The film can't hide its tricky sentimentalism when it comes up with a rather unnecessary subplot involving a police investigation dealing with the whole suicide thing.
Of course Meryl rises up and makes the entire film seem less like a Lifetime flick of the week and more like an existential meditation of compromise and love.
She suffers with such dignity that every single attempt to turn her scenes into a cornucopia of corniness becomes testament to someone who can do it all, and does!
Arcand's film on the other side doesn't take itself too seriously. Before long there are subplots with heroine junkies, corrupt hospital unions and "Empire"'s array of literate, vicious characters who cheer up the dying man with their sexcapades, erudite conversations and wicked sense of humor.
You can't really feel death looming over this movie in the way you feel it in "One True Thing". Does this mean that one is in a denial of sorts while the other deals with things more straightforward? Or is perhaps death, in a Bergmanian way, something that should be received with as much fear as humor?
All this made me wonder what would it have been like if Meryl was part of "The Barbarian Invasions"' ensemble.
For one Marie-Josée Croze would've said goodbye to that Best Actress award at Cannes (I don't see what they saw in her, especially not in the year of Nicole Kidman in "Dogville" at the festival...) Streep does dry humor-and all humor-like no other thespian and she would've known exactly how much tears to put into the sentimental moments.
She would've been perfect, but alas she can't be in every movie.
Have you seen these two movies? If so had you seen the similarities? And do you prefer one over the other?

The Incredible Hulk **1/2

Director: Louis Leterrier

Cast: Edward Norton, Liv Tyler

Tim Roth, Tim Blake Nelson, William Hurt

Last time we saw Hulk he had left the United States in order to learn to control his powers without hurting those he loved and to escape being used as an army guinea pig.

He was also being played by Eric Bana, directed by Ang Lee and had more psychological backstory to it than a patient at Betty Ford.

All of those elements were apparently too much, or not enough, and "Hulk" has gone down in history as a bizarre example of a very good film, with adequate box office, being deemed as a flop.

Five years later comes "The Incredible Hulk" which in a nutshell is everything the original Hulk was not: loud, big and mindless.

Because a complete reboot would've been a waste of time, a summary of what happened before serves as opening credits, Bruce Banner (Norton) is now living in the slums in Brazil where he's trying to learn to control his anger and find a cure to avoid transforming into Hulk.

He takes lessons with a breathing specialist, is careful never to let his heartbeats reach 200 which sets off the transformation and shares information with a New York scientist (Blake Nelson) trying to develop an antidote.

He is being hunted by General Thaddeus Ross (Hurt) who wants to create a whole army of Hulks using Banner and tries a sample of the formula on bloodthirsty bounty killer Emil Blonsky (Roth).

After a forced return to the States, Banner seeks help from his sweetheart Elizabeth Ross (Tyler) who unlike others believes inside the Hulk lies a human conscience and is constantly threatened by General Ross and Blonsky who becomes a creature known as the Abomination.

With an action setpiece around every corner, director Leterrier's film is everything a summer blockbuster should be, but definitely not everything a good film should amount to.

Even when he tries to remove every trace of character development his cast makes this a difficult feat.

Norton, buff but with a geeky, longing attitude, gives Banner a little bit extra despite the fact that the plot insists we should disregard this soulsearch and demand more explosions.

Hulk has never been a superhero in the full sense of the word because Banner wants to get rid of his powers and everyone else fears him.

He has a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde dynamic which forces a protrait of him to be an internal battle, while Leterrier doesn't care for any of this, Norton gets away with a few moments of great acting, especially in his scenes with the lovely, but dull, Tyler who bats her eyelashes and screams "no!" more often than she has something important to do.

When the film puts their relationship as the epitome of chaste love, Norton gives it a twist during a moment where Bruce can't take his hands off Betty, but his heartbeat starts increasing forcing him to stop.

As many size jokes and "Gamma ray poisoning as birth control" comments as you can come up with, the truth is that this is the only moment in the film where you will feel a connection to these people, the rest of the time they're being treated like Ann Darrow and King-Kong at Skull Island.

Roth and Hurt have delicious star turns as the villains. Roth as the maniac, pure evil one and Hurt as the villain with a chance to undo his wrongs.

But in the end what makes this film bearable is the recent interrelationships take on movies mastered by Marvel Studio, it has to be said that this film ends up being stolen by someone who isn't even billed among the cast, but without who this Hulk would've had nothing really incredible.

It seems we are coming to a completely new era of filmmaking in which for once people will feel the need to return to theaters and live the film experience as it was meant to be lived.

Marvel is starting, but who knows how long will it be before this take is used with different genres and styles?

The idea that a movie, despite its quality as cinema, is able to ellicit gasps and real excitement from audiences comes off as a double edged sword; will it make people think less or will it inspire in them a spirit that demands real quality?

Never before had a film been saved so much by its sense of possibility.