A Knight's Tale (2001)

I never loved A Knight's Tale. I figured that I should start with that confession, mainly because I have always found it slightly bewildering to be reminded of how beloved it is by many. I'm really not sure why. There are things that work very well (the main cast members being a big plus), but many other things reflect some poor decision-making from writer-director Brian Helgeland.

Things start with a death. Despite winning his latest joust, a knight has succumbed to some mortal wounds. There's still some money on the line, however, and that leads one of his squires, William Thatcher (Heath Ledger), to don the armour and do well enough to win the much-needed prize. Getting a taste for it, and knowing he could become very good, Thatcher decides to maintain his charade, travelling between tournaments with Roland (Mark Addy) and Wat (Alan Tudyk). They pick up a couple of strays on their travels, in the shape of the verbose Geoffrey Chaucer (Paul Bettany) and a female blacksmith named Kate (Laura Fraser). There's a fair maiden to impress (Jocelyn, played by Shannyn Sossamon) and a mean nemesis to be conquered (Count Adhemar, played by Rufus Sewell). That's about all you need to know. Oh, and the soundtrack was/is praised for being enjoyably anachronistic.

Ledger is the main selling point here, providing a lead performance that is charming, adorable, and impossible to be impressed by. Poised on the very edge of greatness throughout the 1990s, this 2001 feature allowed him to fully showcase his charisma and presence in a way that declared him a fully-fledged star. He's helped by the fun performances from Addy and Waltz, but things step up a notch when Bettany joins the fun, the actor relishing the opportunity to deliver such great dialogue with a consistent selection of theatrical flourishes. Fraser doesn't get to do as much, but she's a good addition to the team in time for the third act. Sewell makes a fine villain, really just in that position because of his talent for jousting, as well as his attitude to the rules and rigid social hierarchies that he prefers to rigidly adhere to. The only one who doesn't really work is Sossamon, who remains one of the very worst model-turned-actress individuals to have ever been given big roles in some big hit movies. She's absolutely awful here, although admittedly not helped by the screenplay not knowing how to best treat her character. Imagine this film as it is though, but replace Sossamon with someone like Rachel Weisz, and tell me it isn't immeasurably improved.

For as much as he gets right, Helgeland must also be held responsible for what he gets wrong. The use of a huge Queen hit at the start of the movie works really well. The rest of the song choices aren't as good, due to them being less attuned to a primal beat, and also not incorporated quite as seamlessly. There's also that big failing when it comes to the romantic element, messed up by the casting and the writing. Last, but not least, it's worth considering that, unless you're at a live event, jousting . . . isn't really that exciting, certainly not in a cinematic sense. It's two people covered in metal trying to hit one another with pointy poles. And if they aren't fully in your vision at all times, as happens when a film sequence is edited, then you might just struggle to remember who you're supposed to be rooting for.

And yet, despite the mis-steps, and despite the convenience of plot points converging in time for the expected final battle (thanks, in no small part, to a very enjoyable performance from James Purefoy), I enjoy A Knight's Tale more nowadays than I ever used to. It feels more old-fashioned and cute now, a film based around a simple enough concept and one star turn, and I can see why many would happily revisit it when they want a sweet escape from the wild world around us. I still don't understand ALL the love it gets, and I don't think I'll ever view it as a great movie, but I am pleased that I gave it a rewatch after all this time (I'm pretty sure my first, and only, viewing of this was on a VHS copy rented from my local Blockbuster). It may not rock me, but it's worthy of being more than just a one knight stand.

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing. All links are HERE.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Down To Earth (2001)

Chris Rock stars in this remake of Here Comes Mr. Jordan, a film already revisited a couple of times before this outing, with sadly underwhelming results. The material has some added jokes about race, and creates potential for some bigger laughs by making the main character a struggling stand-up comic, but it ends up falling flat far more often than it succeeds.

Rock is Lance Barton, a young, funny guy who just can't seem to transfer that humour to his stage act. Yet he keeps trying. His main venue is going to be closing soon, which makes him desperate for one last shot to win over the audience there. Unfortunately, his plans are thrown into disarray when he's hit by a truck. It's all a big mistake, which an angel named Keyes (Eugene Levy) only realises when Lance is already in heaven. While they try to resolve the situation, Lance is offered a "loaner" body by King (Chazz Palminteri), another heavenly being who seems to be in charge. That body ends up being one that belonged to a wealthy, white businessman named Charles Wellington, III (Brian Rhodes). Lance has to use the body to pursue his quest for a spot at the upcoming stand-up event, while avoiding the dangerous scheming of Wellington's wife (Jennifer Coolidge), and his assistant (Greg Germann). And things become more complicated when he falls in love with Sontee Jenkins (Regina King), who hates him.

Down To Earth is a very frustrating film to watch. You can see moments when it might be able to step up a notch or two, when it could let Chris Rock rant and make the most of his power as a comedian. Sadly, those moments do nothing more than get close to something good before sinking back down to mediocrity.

The cast includes some great performers, especially in the supporting roles. Levy and Palminteri are both great fun as the angels trying to correct a terrible mistake, Coolidge does well with her usual mix of ditzy and wannabe-sexy, and Germann works very well alongside her. Mark Addy does okay as a perplexed butler, while Wanda Sykes steals a couple of scenes as a housekeeper who does very little to hide her disdain for her employer. Even John Cho raises a smile or two, despite his role amounting to little more than a cameo. Regina King is easy to like, and Frankie Faison is very likable as the manager who continues to see the best in Lance. The weakest link, unfortunately, is Rock. He seems neutered, at best, and just stilted and awkward, for the most part.

Directors Chris and Paul Weitz don't seem to put in any effort at all, while the script (co-written by about four people, including Rock and Louis C.K.) reeks of similar laziness during the many moments that aren't comedic. The love story angle just never feels real, despite the efforts that everyone goes to in order to make viewers forget that Regina King is supposed to be enjoying time with an elderly, white businessman.

It's actually a shame that this was such a missed opportunity, a star vehicle created around someone who never seemed comfortable as a leading man. I love Chris Rock, but I don't think his style and energy work when being forced into a package like this. Thankfully, we can always revisit him in the greatness that is Osmosis Jones.

5/10

http://www.amazon.com/Down-Earth-Chris-Rock/dp/B00005JH9O/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1406542627&sr=1-2&keywords=down+to+earth

Robin Hood (2010)

So I thought I knew what I was getting into when I went to see Ridley Scott's take on Robin Hood at the cinema. I was in safe hands, surely. Russell Crowe in the central role (who does well but provides a strange Geordie/Glaswegian accent for the part), Cate Blanchett as "Maid Marion" (excellent), the fantastic Mark Strong as the baddie, other roles given to the likes of Max Von Sydow, Oscar Isaac, Eileen Atkins, Léa Seydoux, William Hurt, Matthew Macfadyen, Danny Huston, Kevin Durand, Scott Grimes and Mark Addy amongst others. All of them are at least very good, most of them are excellent. A screenplay by Brian Helgeland. It all seemed so good. I mean, good grief, there isn't one Ridley Scott movie I can think of from the past 30-40 years that I've actually disliked.

Which makes it all the more disappointing that this movie was a bit of a misfire. Its greatest strength (the talent behind and in front of the camera) proves to be its biggest drawback. This movie coming from anyone else would have been alright. But coming from people I expected so much from means that, despite one or two great moments here and there, it just doesn't cut it. No sir.

The story, for those unaware, is all about how the man we came to know as Robin Hood actually became the famed outlaw we all love to this day. This is not a tale of daring archery contests, no cocking a snoot at some panto baddie here, this is an origins tale.

Which is a great shame because when the movie gets close to some swashbuckling fun it then pulls back just when things are about to get entertaining. Does this make me a shallow audience member or am I simply suffering because Ridley Scott wants to have his cake and eat it in so many ways? He wants the "reality" of the story yet laces it with wonderful, cinematic moments. He wants actual characters instead of caricatures and then makes the decision to portray Marion (after such a good number of scenes pitching things perfectly) as a much-too-progressive spirited fighter. Not to mention the bizarre inclusion of "the lost boys" for reasons best known to himself.

As good as it gets in places, and it does get very good, it all feels like a movie that had to be made just to get a greenlight for the sequel, a film featuring all of the antics and swashbuckling fun we love about Robin and his men in tights (surely).

It's definitely not the Gladiator 2 that many lazy critics tagged it, neither is it an actual, fully fledged, Robin Hood movie. Ironically, this feels very much like Robin Begins.

NB. The Bluray, as expected, is a nice package. While there's not enough in the mix to make it worth a purchase if you hated the movie, there's plenty to enjoy if, like me, you liked parts of the film, and wanted to like it more.

6/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Robin-Hood-Extended-Directors-Blu-ray/dp/B003DZ1328/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1388850998&sr=8-2&keywords=robin+hood+blu+ray