Robin Hood - Prince of Thieves (1991)

 When this film came out in 1991, dozens of films, TV-series, theatrical releases etc had been shown for decades about the hero of the Sherwood Forest (not to be confused with the Hundred acre wood). But now is not the only time when studios loved rehashing old stories for new money. Step up Kevin Costner in one of the most strangely casted films I can think of, and the evil combination of Bryan Adams and Michael Kamen

The story is a known one, and this take on it isn’t particularly original or clever. Perhaps at times even a bit daft, as the nineties seemed to be at times in the entertainment industry. But the story isn't particularly important here, to the director, actors, nor, presumable, the audience.

I teased earlier that the cast was strange here, and here's why: The film’s strongest point is also its weakest: Mastrantonio is very good, and Rickman mesmerizing in a role where he rewrote most of his dialogue, and practically made the sheriff his own. Brian Blessed is lovely as Locksley senior, Michael McShane a fine Tuck, and Nick Brimble a ditto Little John. And a true tip from the 90s: Always trust a Wincott to be much more than adequately menacing and sneering.

As for Costner, they really should have picked someone a little less American. His boyish charms don’t play well off Morgan Freeman’s Azeem, and is quite unnecessary next to the even more boyish and quite frankly, petulant Will Scarlett played by one of the least British actors on the planet, Christian Slater. And if you have a key pairing of actors who don’t have chemistry as well as a key supporting role, that’s just bad… Well, at least it means you are off to a rocky start. To Costner’s defence, his banter with Mastrantonio is much better than with Slater. And it’s hard switch between crestfallen, vengeful and playful every 3 minutes. Though that adresses one of the problems with the script: There is no real consistency as to what kind of mood it wants people to be left with. 

But it has a fitting tune of adventure, suspense, action and plenty of cheek, though the latter fails as much as it succeeds, mostly due to some lacklustre acting and chemistry. Some of the romantic scenes are a bit over the top though, and often accompanied by the theme from “Everything I do”, making you struggle to hold down your beverage.

Still. This film is curriculum for 90s adventure. And if that is not enough, you should still see it, just for Alan Rickman. Though he was stellar in almost every part he ever had, there never was more of a shifting, erratic and outrageously evil (and angry) horndog than his Sheriff of Nottingham. Too bad the film is too long at 143 minutes, meaning there is lot of film without him in it. Though we must never forgive this movie for the true evil, that is Brian Adams’ song that accompanied it.

6/10

Page Eight (2011)

 

So a largely overlooked British political spy drama starring a man normally cast in character parts. Can it be any good? Well, frankly, when has a largely overlooked British spy film not been?

Let's start with the actors: 

The cast is stellar. Nighy is his usual mumbling self, but with a straight back and a certainty about his person, fitting him and the film, adding to his highly intelligent demeanour. He is also obtuse in a most entertaining manner, towards most of his superiors. Sometimes open, sometimes more hidden. Always entertaining, and extremely British.

Fiennes plays the PM almost hateful, with an aggressive glare in most of his very few scenes. All the more dramatic effect when Nighy is able to make him have a brief moment of uncertainty and lose his footing.

The dialogue is spectacular, particular judging by todays depressing standards. The tete-a-tete early on between Michael Gambon and Saskia Reeves, particularly brilliant.

Director David Hare is very good at creating a suspicious viewer, making you doubt the sincerity of every character, including the protagonist (or maybe I'm just paranoid). He also leaves a couple of new questions every time one is answered, upping the ante, and keeping the chase, and the conversations, interesting.

Generally there are so many subtleties here, it makes you miss the times when that was a thing. From the look on Leonas face as Nighy kisses her on the cheek before leaving, to the importance of jazz. It adds to the authenticity of all the older men and women on cast, that there is an abundance of words not often used anymore. Also fitting the worlds view on Nighy's character to a t. Hare also refuses to avoid more boring subjects, like the details of a reorganization, when it is relevant to the story. Kudos.

A new touch for a spy movie, is the self-irony some of the characters have when it comes to what it does to relationships, also a nice backdrop for a joke or two. Hare has no difficulties portraying the toll a job like that would take on a man either. Not only by the often used divorces and estranged children (present here as well), but by the dialogue and acting as well.

There is a small problem here, and that is the relationship between Nighy and Rachel Weisz. It seems a bit too fast, particularly due to his complete distrust in her following their first encounter. The haste with which he befriends her, trusts her and ultimately becomes a traitor for her, is simply not very believable. And that hurts this film more than most, due to the minute details elsewhere in script and direction.

The last few rounds before the ending does take a couple of shortcuts (I would have loved for this film to be three hours), but as it should with an old and weary spy, there is always room for one more twist. Isn’t there?

I do love British spies, and when the dialogue is astute and the casting sublime, I would say I am somewhat smitten, despite the one flaw

8/10

A man called Otto (2022)

 So you take a Swedish bestseller (En mann ved navn Ove) made into a smash hit film, and you cast... Tom Hanks. That can't be bad can it? 

Let's take the good parts first. The original story is stellar, and the Swedish film captures it almost perfectly. The American film isn't entirely disloyal to either. There. That's the upside. 

Tom Hanks is of course an astute actor, and he isn't out of his depth here. But the problem is Rolf Lassgård did it better. Much better. I shall endeavour to explain. Hanks' Otto is depressed after the death of his wife, and this has made him grumpy. Hanks plays that as a bit of an homage to Walter Matthau's Max Goldman, though lighter on the comic side. Thankfully, as Matthau can't be topped there. Lassgård played Ove as a social awkward, who experienced life's joys much through his wife, and had his rougher edges trimmed by her. He did not really see the beauty of life without her. Hence he was misplaced, misunderstood and genuinely exasperated by his surroundings without her. The American Otto is a man with a temper, the Swedish Ove is gruff, but with an astute sense of fairness guiding him, as well as being generally extremely capable. That makes for a much better and more complex character. Hanks would probably be able to pull that off, so I blame director Mark Forster and the evil minions that re-arranged the script. 

For the problem here is really that Forster has taken a rather simple story, with very complex characters, and dumbed it down for American viewers. It's like marketers saw the original and thought: "How can we make this simple, and modern, enough for morons?" And ahead they went. The aforementioned changes are mostly hurting Otto, but they've done the same to all the characters. The support cast are all stereotypes of the worst sort, and bring nothing of anything. Jimmy (Cameron Britton) is the most useless of the lot, as he is so daft and moronic that when he actually gets an important scene, he has no credibility left to carry it.

Though Forster is rather loyal to the original content, he makes one extra blunder. Leaving the father more or less out of it. Otto's relationship with his father is pivotal to who he has become as an adult, and to his lack of ability to function properly without his wife. 

As this is an American versioned, the ending is abysmal and makes a mockery of all subtlety. But the source material is so good, and Hanks carries the film decently enough, so that when the driveway isn't shovelled one cold winter morning... You still care

6/10

Men in Black International (2019)

When you have a franchise that makes money, there's always a risk you at some time push things too far. That you move so far away from what made the original great, that it kills the franchise as such. If there are any intelligent people left on the universe, MIB International, is just that for its franchise. 

Let's try to start on a positive note, though. There is an aesthetic treat for the women in Chris Hemsworth. Unfortunately he's mostly obnoxious in every way but the funny ones. Hence bringing nothing but his looks to this film. Tessa Thompson is awful in a way I thought we'd be spared after Jake Lloyd. She's actually more frantic and daft than Shia in Transformers. And that, as he said, is saying something. There's hardly a single scene she's able to carry with any kind of believability. To have her in the same room as Emma Thompson would have been a shambles unless the latter had been so low on motivation. And since Hemsworth is so bad, and Tessa Thompson is  epically bad, their chemistry is non-existent. To make matters even worse, there isn't even a baddie worthy of mention.  

Tessa and her accomplices have no help from lacklustre directing and and utter failure in choosing a path. The first and third instalment were tongue-in-cheek (the second just shit), but they did have an adult tone. Director Gray seems to feel that if you can mix the original MIB with Lilo & Stitch and a bit of all modern ka-ching films, then all shall be well. So the tone of the film at times would fit a 9 year old. The problem is that the humour, for instance, is more fitted to teenagers. Only the dumbest teenagers, but still. Pawny is a perfect example. Coming in a close second to Jar-Jar in utter CGI uselessness. You have to be a complete film moron (or work in marketing) to develop that creature. 

The action sequences are mostly rip-offs low on creativity, quite astonishing for a film that doesn't have to adhere to current technology, gravity nor much else. Even the CGI is poor, particularly the scene in the desert. And the twists.. So daft it begs belief. If you want to make a cartoon, make a cartoon. Don't waste otherwise decent actors in buffooning around for two hours. 

So does it have any redeeming features? Well. Apart from Hemsworth's BEAUTIFUL car... No. It's almost as bad as Transformers, and as ruined by marketing as modern Star Wars. In short this is milking a concept of its very last drop of dignity. MIB now has none left, and will need Chris Nolan to rise from the ashes. This film is total nothingness on a huge budget, and it has no value other than being an example of how much can be done badly.

2/10

The King's Speech (2010)

Firth is off to a great start in the opening scene, visibly discerned by what's about to happen, and not noticing that everyone of his people can see it, thus trying to reassure him. Firth is a true old-school actor and excels at the opportunity of a role where he gets to work with the smallest details, as his face is front and centre. He does not disappoint. Whether struggling with expectations from his father or his people, or agonizingly reliving the worst parts of his childhood, this film is Firth at his very best.

But though Firth is truly excellent, Geoffrey Rush gives him plenty of help. That hard to point out quality some artists just seem to have, he possesses in abundance. His quirky self-assured portrayal of Lionel Logue a perfect match to the Duke of York's ill-tempered and frustrated figure.

The chemistry between two actors has centre stage, as it should. And they truly are remarkable in their best scenes. Particularly the epiphanies bestowed upon the Duke/King by the purposefully disrespectful and provocative Logue. 

Generally, the cast is astonishing. Some great names trying to make their mark on a film where the two aforementioned are given more or less all the juicy bits. Pearce, like his brother, talking with a particularly nasal voice during their formal speeches. More surprisingly, Bonham-Carter also comes out well in this close-up friendly film. She displays all the traits and expressions of a loving and supporting, yet worried, wife. There isn't really room enough for any of them, though. Both as a consequence of sheer screen time, but also the quality the two leads bring. As for Spall as Churchill, his role is so minor there is no real impression to make. 

As the war moves closer, as does the suspense of the film, and though it is a strange change of pace for just a couple of minutes, it doesn't feel unnatural or forced. 

Director Hooper uses his cast perfectly to demonstrate the disappointment and awkwardness that arises from the regent's lack of coherent speech in front of a microphone. And a big tip of the hat to him for making a scene where a grown man sings bad experiences from his childhood, making us all feel crestfallen for him. Firth's first speech in front of his cabinet is breath-taking as Hooper relies on total silence in a large, sombre room, with the wonderful music of Alexandre Desplat slowly building up. 

Despite the excellence of Desplat's score, Hooper's use of Beethoven's 7th during Firth's final exam is simply sublime. An awe-inspiring scene in every aspect. From a formal address to the people. Now, that is art. 

This film is a marvel to watch for slow and methodical acting after a perfect cast.

9/10

The Best Offer (2013)

One simply can, nor should, overlook the opportunity to see Geoffrey Rush and Donald Sutherland interact. 

Firstly, the scenography is stunning, putting Rush perfectly into his role. Mansion after mansion filled with priceless art, restaurants of the most immaculate kind, his wardrobe, and of course his auction house. Pristine. Whether it's the auction room itself or just the storage facilities. You'd do well to find a film with more meticulously chosen venues. 

Then there's the mystery. It starts off with little hints. One could imagine Rush's Mr. Oldman would take it a bit more in stride, but the character is a peculiar one. The mystery does evaporate as we move on, being replaced by the strange relationship between the highly successful Rush and the curious young woman behind the painting. 

Rush is his usual brilliant self. His growing infatuation slowing getting the better of him. As a method actor that excels at tiny details and expression, he gets to play a very wide array. But the mood of the film doesn't really invite a romantic notion in the viewer, and even less so how little we get to see of the object of his affection. Her erratic behaviour helps little in that regard, nor does the huge age difference. Hoeks plays her part very well, but her screen-time is a mysterious voice for half the time, and her transformation therefore feels less well-built than that of Rush. But perhaps that is by director's choice

The dialogue is naturally somewhat pretentious and of higher standard to accommodate Oldman and his hiding heiress. Higher classes will have long words. Though there is at least one hint in it all that's too obvious for the viewer, and definitely too obvious for Oldman to miss. 

Director Tornatore is at his best when allowing Rush his space, though he's also very apt at both creating an eerie atmosphere, and not half-bad at Lynchian quirkiness either. You do get the feeling he doesn't quite know where to go with his characters or the story as such. There are grand metaphors comparing love to art that are overly obvious (particularly the parts about forgeries) and many different threads. They do line up in the end, but unfortunately in the most lazy and tedious way. 

So it has some excellent acting, it does leave you wondering. But it seems my scepticism while watching was well founded. The main plotline and subsequent ending was just as obvious and lazy as I feared it would be.

And that was a disappointment

6/10

Short Cuts (1993)

Robert Altman always did have a way to build an amazing cast. And few better than here. But is the rest of the film worth it?

Director Altman wastes no time in showing us the fallacies of his characters, Tim Robbins' Gene Shepard a particularly big douche. Though he is giving up cigarettes, so I suppose he's partially excused. But not for hating his dog of course. Oh no, that's inexcusable. Generally, the men in this film are not very nice. 

As usual with Altman, all the characters are wholly or partly entwined with one another. In "Short Cuts" mostly either through an affair, or being the confidante to the person cheated on. Adultery and jealousy are the main themes, as even those not cheated on are paranoid about it. And those cheating on their spouses are insanely jealous at the spouses of the people they are cheating with. Not to mention everyone else, that they might be double-cheating with. Sounds exhausting? Well, not quite. Altman opts for slow pace and length (more than 3 hours), so there's plenty of time for all this to unfold. 

Naturally with a cast like this, and the best character-director of that time, everybody's good. But who really excels? Madeleine Stowe for one. Perhaps the female character with the most to work on in the script, though she does fade out towards the middle. Surprisingly, the most stellar of the males are Bruce Davison, trying to deal with a fragile wife and his comatose son, as well as his estranged father. The latter having lunch with him in the hospital cafeteria perhaps the best scene of the film, mostly due to Davison. And he hardly has a line in that entire scene. Another underappreciated actor was the late, great Chris Penn. Wonderful. 

Like a Bruckner symphony, you can feel Altman building for a crescendo. Every now and then he will toss you a little storm, but it always calms down again, while the build-up continues. You don't really notice it at first with his slow pace, but then it sneaks up on you, eerily. 

So there is ongoing conflict, plenty of nudity (mostly female, as was the custom at the time) and some of the finest casting of the decade. All topped with very realistically portrayed tragedy and some quirkery. At times it does go on a bit, and it is possible to get bored, particularly if you don't pay attention to all the details. But the crescendo does come, no worries. Later similarly used by Paul Thomas Anderson in Magnolia. And then. Life goes on. 

Oh, in case you wondered. The dog is fine

8/10