'Robin Hood' misses the mark

"Robin Hood"

Starring: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Mark Strong
Directed by: Ridley Scott
Rating: PG-13 for violence including intense sequences of warfare, and some sexual content.
Running time: 2 hours, 20 minutes.

“Robin Hood” is like the Little Engine that Can’t.

When you’re not struggling to understand the marbles-in-their-mouths accents, you’re wading through endless scenes of swordplay in the hopes that you might find something to connect with.

It tries to be an epic masterpiece. Kind of. I mean, it has all the fixin’s for a truly delectable experience.
So what’s lacking?

Heart, for one. If you’re any sort of a “Braveheart” watcher you’ll know at once what I mean by being moved by and invested in a story.

Characterization, for another. How is it possible to have a 2 1/2 hour movie and only really know about a handful of characters? And even of those handful, little justice is given to any.

It’s simply impossible (for me, anyway) to not compare this movie to “Braveheart.” It’s a medieval piece starring a scruffy vigilante who rebels against authority for the greater good. But where “Braveheart” was a drama first and an action movie second, “Robin Hood” spins the genres around — to its misfortune.

Director Ridley Scott must have been aware that such comparisons would be made by the general audience. And though it’s expected, it is a bit unfair. “Robin Hood” is a perfectly decent movie with an adequate plot and plenty of (albeit not excessively gory) action.

Russell Crowe stars as Robin Longstride, an archer in King Richard the Lionheart’s army who is caught up in wars of which he wants no part. Robin and some friends (including Little John) sneak away soon after the king’s death on the battlefield in the hopes of returning to normal lives in England, but a promise made to a dying knight sends Robin on a quest that will lead him to Nottingham where he meets the Lady Marion Loxley (a great performance by Cate Blanchett).

And while Robin would like nothing more than to enjoy a quiet life with Marion, death and mayhem come to him in the form of Godfrey (an oh-so-good-at-being-bad Mark Strong), who is threatening all of England with his aggressive methods of tax collection and a subtle threat of French invasion.
The English may have no problem repelling the French if they were united, but Richard the Lionheart’s brother, King John (Oscar Isaac), is a greedy, power-hungry dictator who excels at isolating his angry subjects.

It’s very sad to see this movie not be what it so badly wants to be. Scott should have loosened up on the reins, cut back most of the pointless action sequences and allowed “Robin Hood” to be what it is at its core — a character-driven tale.

The few performances that were actually given a decent amount of screen time were done expertly by the actors. Mark Strong is simply amazing, and Max von Sydow is one of the more stirring as Sir Walter Loxley.

As for Robin Hood’s band of Merry Men, their superficial personas and scant screentime left little the actors could build on. Too, the Sheriff of Nottingham (Matthew Macfadyen) is a mere nod to the legend and his character has little involvement in the film — a shame.

Scott tries to throw emotional viewers like me a bone with Robin discovering who is father was with the help of a “rise and rise again until lambs become lions” inscription — but the “revelation” isn’t at all surprising and you never really feel that empathy with Robin because you were never allowed the chance to connect with him.

It’s not a bad movie. But with a high budget, a respected director, a renowned cast and a storyline that just begs to be great, “Robin Hood” just never seems to hit its target.

Send movie suggestions or comments to rcrofut@fltimes.com.

3 of 5 stars

* * *

All good things must come to an end.

And so it is that LOST, the best television show ever (yes, I did just use a sweeping generality that most people won’t agree with), is wrapping up its entire series from 9 to 11:30 p.m. Sunday on ABC.

Personally, I have no idea how they’re going to do it. It seems like too much is left to be answered. And I’m more than a little sad that this is the end, but I’m also very excited to see what J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof have thought up.

So check in next week to see my thoughts on the finale and on the series as a whole.

Also, if you’re a humongous LOST fan like me, we’d like you to contact our reporter Amanda Folts at afolts@fltimes.com or 789-3333 ext. 257 to talk about the finale.

‘Benjamin Button’ falls flat (3/5)

 The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Starring: Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Taraji Henson.
Directed by: David Fincher.
Rating: PG-13 for brief war violence, sexual content, language and smoking.
Running time: 2 hours, 46 minutes.

Director David Fincher (“Fight Club,” “Zodiac”) takes on an ambitious task in “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”: Capturing the alienation and perplexity surrounding a man who ages backward. Fincher and screenplay writer Eric Roth (“Munich”) put forth incredible efforts that, unfortunately, fall flat of their potential.

The movie — now out on DVD — is based on a short story of the same name by F. Scott Fitzgerald. “The Great Gatsby” author was allegedly influenced by Mark Twain’s quote, “Life would be infinitely happier if we could only be born at the age of 80 and gradually approach 18.” Fincher adapts a more plausible, tender scenario than Fitzgerald’s talking, bearded, 5 foot 8 inch “baby,” in part due to the sensitivity and introspection portrayed by Fincher’s Button, played by Hollywood superman Brad Pitt.

“Benjamin Button” tells the story of a child who is born with the ailments and appearance of an elderly man. When Button’s mother dies in childbirth, his father abandons him on the steps leading to a nursing home. There the infant is found by Queenie (Taraji P. Henson) and Tizzy (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali), a couple who works at the home. Unable to have children herself, Queenie takes the baby in against Tizzy’s wishes and raises him as her own.

Button has the same tendencies and personality as a person of his respective age but with an appearance resembling the opposite end of life’s spectrum.

When prepubescent, yet feeble-looking Button is introduced to a girl near his biological age, Daisy (Elle Fanning), they develop a fast friendship which draws reprimands toward Button from Daisy’s grandmother, who is unaware that Button is merely a few years older than her granddaughter. This encounter prompts Queenie to tell her adopted son that people just won’t understand him.

As Button ages, thus appearing gradually more youthful, he sets out to travel the world on a tugboat. Despite his journeys, he never forgets Daisy, who grows to become an accomplished ballerina. Their meetings at various points in time highlight the effects of Button’s aging on himself and those around him.

A main component missing from the story is the lack of questioning Button’s circumstance, which is at times mourned but seems simply accepted overall. In fact, many of the characters are unaware of Button’s condition. Here Fincher and Roth missed an opportunity to solidify the film’s themes beyond that of aging. Even Button’s father, Thomas (Jason Flemyng), who makes brief and unsatisfactory appearances, is a character who lacks believability.

Along with Button’s father, Daisy’s daughter Caroline (Julia Ormond) is flat and irritating, at times begging the question of what were they thinking? These are not the only characters to suffer from inaccurate casting. Cate Blanchett’s inherent composure makes her an unrelatable adult Daisy. The character’s connection with Button is lost as Blanchett and Pitt seem to compete against each other on the screen.

Despite the erroneous cast, Taraji Henson fully deserved her nominations for best supporting actress as the practical, faith-driven Queenie.

Although “Benjamin Button” won 14 various awards and was nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, it seems that the critics were too busy caught up in the superficialities of the film (the stars, the director, the cinematography and makeup) to notice the dead and dreary substance. The film that sets out to examine and challenge preconceptions about life turns out itself to be rather lifeless.

But while the movie may not be deserving of the hype it received, its fresh plot and the admirable performances by Henson and Pitt make it a movie to consider watching. The themes are timeless and the serene cinematography noteworthy. It has an oddly hopeful quality that may be the source of its appeal.

3 of 5 stars