'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.

‘Green Zone’ director takes brave risk (3.5/5)

Green Zone

Starring: Matt Damon, Brendan Gleeson, Khalid Abdalla
Directed by: Paul Greengrass
Rating: R for violence and language
Running time: 1 hour, 55 minutes.

“Green Zone” is an exceptionally risky film for director Paul Greengrass (“Bourne Ultimatum,” “United 93”) to take on so soon after the Iraq invasion.

Make no mistake, Greengrass doesn’t shirk from accusing the United States government of fabricating the Weapons of Mass Destruction.

In fact, that’s pretty much the point of the whole movie.

Based on the 2006 nonfiction “Imperial Life in the Emerald City” by journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran, “Green Zone” focuses on Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller (Matt Damon in his traditional comfort role of a butt-kicking rogue seeking the truth). Miller is getting just a little miffed that the WMDs he is searching for with the government’s intel just don’t seem to be there.

When Miller dares to voice his doubts about the questionable intel at a debriefing, much to the chagrin of his superiors, he catches the eye of CIA Baghdad Bureau Chief Martin Brown (Brendan Gleeson) who also doubts the intel and motivation of the United States.

An outstanding addition to the movie is the character of Freddy (Khalid Abdalla), an Iraqi who risks his life to aid the American soldiers and, he hopes, to save his country from sinking even further into death and despair. Freddy often serves as the voice of the film’s moral points.

An unnerved Freddy leads Miller and his team to the hideout of “Jack of Clubs” Al-Rawi, a senior Iraqi government official, and what they uncover pushes Miller’s doubts in his own government even further.

A particularly poignant moment comes when Freddy tells Miller, the traditional protagonist and character whom the audience is supposed to want to see succeed, that it is not up to Miller and the Americans to determine the fate of his country, combating our “American” drive to “fix” everything.

An important but forgettable character, Washington Post journalist Lawrie Dayne (Amy Ryan), shows the media’s role in getting caught up with the faulty intel themselves but realizing, perhaps too late, the obscene lack of evidence. Dayne consistently aggravates her government source, Pentagon Special Intelligence officer Clark Poundstone, who tells her repeatedly that access to Iraqi intel source “Magellan” won’t happen.

Another driving scene is the Iraqi’s response to “American puppet” Ahmed Zubaidi attempting to petition for the country’s leadership, and Poundstone’s realization that such a move will not be as easy as he and others had expected.

Despite its political wrappings, however, “Green Zone” is an action movie at its heart, complete with good guy vs. bad guy charisma; long, pointless chase scenes; and a very, very hefty amount of vertigo-inducing shaky camera scenes reminiscent of the “Bourne” films.

But the appeal of this movie comes from its absolute relevance to today’s world. “Green Zone” is a highly thought-provoking film that dares to thrust into the fore the nearly taboo thought (to some) of fabricated intel as a basis for a war which has cost so much.

3 1/2 of 5 stars

‘Locker’ focuses on people (4/5)

The Hurt Locker

Starring: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty
Directed by: Kathryn Bigelow
Rating: R for war violence and language.
Running time: 2 hours, 11 minutes.

One of the wonderful things about “The Hurt Locker” is that it isn’t used as an opportunity to spout politics. It’s about the people there who are trying to do their job and not get killed doing it. It’s about the people learning to get along with one another in an unbelievably intense, alienating world. It’s about the people finding out who they truly are. It’s about the people.

You might not expect such an acute war film from a woman director, but Kathryn Bigelow pulled it off spectacularly (as evidenced by all of the “potential Best Picture of 2009” chatter).

What took this movie from great to superb, however, was the camera work. The documentary-style feel that was injected into the film by cinematographer Barry Ackroyd will really throw you into the movie and put you at the edge of your seat (or hiding in it, if you’re anything like me).

The main focus of “The Hurt Locker” is Staff Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner), who is the team leader of an Explosive Ordnance Disposal unit in the U.S. Army’s Bravo Company in Iraq around 2004.

James is assisted by the protective Sergeant JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and the unnerved Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty).

With the aid of a special bomb suit (which doesn’t seem to protect nearly as much as I would want it to), it is James’ responsibility to disarm the deadly, often hidden bombs that pepper the streets of Iraq.
As Sanborn and Eldridge quickly find out, their new team leader isn’t as scared of the bombs as he maybe should be, instead approaching them with confidence and zeal. This drive for adrenaline quickly puts James at odds with his team.

Renner shines as the rebel-without-a-cause James, striking the perfect balance between the morally ambiguous hero and the courageous but troubled regular guy.

While Renner is the obvious star of the film (and I hope he gets nominated for best actor for his role), I really loved Eldridge. His unsettled feelings and talks with the base psychologist truly connect the audience with the squad. I only wish that the filmmakers had spent more time on him, being the youngest and most impressionable and therefore being the one with the most innocence to lose.

“The Hurt Locker” was written by freelance journalist Mark Boal, who spent time traveling with an American bomb squad in Iraq. Boal compiled his experiences and observations into a screenplay, hoping to give a soldier’s perspective on the war.

The movie does a wonderful job of showing Iraq as not only a war zone, but also a place where many civilians live. The soldiers’ stress, frustration and fear are palpable during their interactions with the Iraqis in their attempt to sort out the civilians and the insurgents.

Sometimes they’re right. Sometimes they’re not.

While I can’t vouch for how realistic the film is (having never been in the Army or been to Iraq myself) I can tell you this: It sure feels real. Some critics have complained about the movie’s “lack of plot,” but how much of a plot is there in your life? Sure there are bits you can thread together, but isn’t life more of a moment-to-moment experience?

That’s how you’ll feel when you watch “The Hurt Locker.” And I hope you do.

4 of 5 stars