Mubi Monday: Thelma & Louise (1991)

It's very easy to remember parts of Thelma & Louise, particularly that ending that someone somewhere in Hollywood still thought could be reworked to provide people with a sequel, but it's also easy to forget a number of big positives.

Although directed by Ridley Scott, this is a film that feels impressively in tune with the female leads, helped mainly by the performances of Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon, as well as the screenplay by Callie Khouri. It also has an enjoyable selection of male actors happy to provide a snapshot of the range of men that our leads deal with, and any film that has "The Ballad Of Lucy Jordan" gets a bonus point from me.

Davis is Thelma, Sarandon is Louise. The two head off on a road trip. Thelma is happy to get some time away from her uncaring and self-absorbed husband, Darryl (Christopher McDonald), and Louise wonders how her Jimmy (Michael Madsen) will cope without her around. Unfortunately, the trip takes a serious turn for the worse when Thelma becomes a victim of the abusive Harlan (Timothy Carhart). One quick decision turns both women into fugitives, soon to be pursued by a cop (Hal, played by Harvey Keitel) who senses there's something more to the story than what the evidence will tell them. Things soon become more serious, and more desperate, but Louise can at least ask Jimmy for some help. Meanwhile, Thelma makes time for some fun with a hot young hitch-hiker named J.D. (Brad Pitt)

I've always liked both Davis and Sarandon, and both have done great work throughout their entire film careers, but there's no denying that Thelma & Louise is the film that took their careers to another level. One may have continued to get more onscreen work than the other, but both women remain hugely impactful figures in the industry to this day. The fact that they both have such great chemistry here, with one another and with others they interact with, is a vital part of the film's success. I'm sure others could have made this work, but Davis and Sarandon make it all easy to believe, and be invested in. Their performances being so light and enjoyable also helps when it comes to sugar-coating the bitter pills that the film forces viewers to swallow down.

While men are very much the root of the main problems here, and many women will agree that the film reflects reality in that main thematic strand, it’s also a pleasant surprise to revisit this and remember how many of the men are shown in quite a good light. Keitel wants everything to end as quickly and safely as possible, Madsen shows, perhaps a little too late, how much he really loves Sarandon, even if that means having to watch her leave his life, and Pitt plays a real charmer who just happens to have a very bad habit that ruins any of the chemistry between himself and Davis. Carhart is suitably loathsome, and horrendous enough to make his fate feel satisfying, while McDonald is loathsome in a different way, and always does so brilliant in that kind of role that I would love to meet him in real life one day and be shocked by how nice I am sure he actually is.

No performance hits a wrong note, and there are still too few films like this to this day. Not comedic, not trying to be cool and sexy, not balanced perfectly with the good and the bad. This is just two strong women who have had enough of the crap heaped upon them by a patriarchal world, and the ending manages to be as equally uplifting and sad as anything in the rest of the film.

9/10

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.
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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Prime Time: Gladiator (2000)

It all seems so obviously destined for success now. An action epic directed by Ridley Scott. A lead role for Russell Crowe. Joaquin Phoenix as the second main character. Support from the likes of Connie Nielsen, Djimon Hounsou, Oliver Reed, Richard Harris, and Derek Jacobi, as well as numerous other familiar faces. Fantastic practical effects enhanced by some top-notch CGI. Gladiator was a huge success when it was released, but it's worth remembering that it was actually considered quite a gamble, especially because the "sword and sandals" movie seemed to be a thing of the past (or, more accurately, a thing now just used to fill up the schedule on the SyFy Channel).

But it's hard to find people who hate it, and, while it may not be a film that many have rushed to revisit in recent years, it's been able to retain a place in our collective consciousness thanks to some memorable lines of dialogue and a rich and full-bodied Hans Zimmer score.

Crowe is Maximus, a successful military man who does his best in the service of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris), but his situation changes drastically when the Emperor dies, to be succeeded by his son, Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix). His life ruined, although somehow not ended, Maximus ends up enslaved, which leads him to be pitted against others in fighting competitions. Showing a knack for combat tactics, as well as self-preservation, Maximus is soon on his way to becoming a bit of a celebrity on the gladiator world, a violent system that could lead to his freedom. Maybe he doesn't need his freedom though. Maybe he just wants another chance to be within sword-slashing distance of Commodus.

Starting with a grand battle scene before moving into a series of more personal fights, Gladiator is a genuine crowd-pleaser that works all the better for having no trace of concern about the whole thing being a mish-mash of familiar elements and top-quality ham. The fact is that everyone commits to their roles, as well as to the tone of the material, and they enjoy the ham with such lip-smacking relish that it becomes absolutely glorious. The script, written by David Franzoni, John Logan, and William Nicholson, helps with a good selection of great lines of dialogue, and Scott does all he can to ensure that the 155-minute runtime practically passes by like a light breeze through the fields of Elysium.

Crowe has rarely been better, giving a performance that puts his character in strong contention for a place in the cinematic heroes hall of fame, and I would say something similar about Phoenix, especially when we all know that a good hero needs a good villain to make the whole thing worthwhile. Harris is effective in his brief supporting turn, Oliver Reed livens up a character, a trader/gladiator trainer named Proximo, that could easily have been left to fade into the background, and Djimon Hounsou is one of two other main gladiators onscreen that we get to stay invested in throughout. Connie Nielsen has to repeat lines about living in fear a bit too often, but she also does well enough to be memorable in her role (Lucilla, sister of Commodus), and Derek Jacobi, David Schofield, John Shrapnel, Tomas Arana, David Hemmings, and Tommy Flanagan are all uniformly excellent in their respective roles.

Brilliantly bombastic, full of spectacle without feeling overstuffed or overdone, and reworking the essence of classic epics into something that somehow feels both comfortingly old-fashioned and enjoyably updated, Gladiator is superior blockbuster fare. And if you are watching it with anyone who hasn't seen it before then you get the added pleasure of jumping up while the end credits roll and shouting "are you not entertained?"

9/10

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Prime Time: The Counsellor (2013)

After all of these years hearing about The Counsellor, about how awful and bonkers it is, I finally got around to watching it. It is certainly bonkers, but it's also consistently entertaining throughout, simply giving viewers a great combination of a director and cast having fun with material that always seems poised to go in a dozen different directions at any one time.

Written by Cormac McCarthy, best known for writing the novels that both No Country For Old Men and The Road were based on, this is the tale of a counsellor (obviously) who decides to get involved with a potentially-lucrative drug deal. Things don't go according to plan, however, and the counsellor soon finds out that some actions can never be undone. He had been warned by people around him, but he assumed that there weren't any risks. How wrong he was.

Directed by Ridley Scott, this is a wild ride that clocks in with a runtime just shy of two hours. It doesn't need to be that long, a 90-minute movie would probably have worked just as well, but there's nothing here that isn't either intriguing or visceral and brilliant. I wanted to rewatch this as soon as the end credits started rolling. Although sometimes messy, it's always ready to show you something nasty in the most cinematic way possible, whether that is by keeping certain elements offscreen to make everything more palatable or by showing you some imagery that feels like it hasn't been depicted in movies before.

It also helps that the cast are very game in their performances, with Cameron Diaz seeming to have the most fun she's had in a long time, playing a character who is always a number of steps ahead of the other main characters around her. She's also involved in the weirdest and wildest scene in the film, as Javier Bardem's character watches her "make love" to his car windscreen, and I have to give kudos to her for committing to a script with that moment in it. Bardem is hilarious in that moment, as well as being fairly amusing in many of his other scenes. Fassbender plays the titular counsellor, excellent at being all cool and confidence until things start to unravel, and Penélope Cruz is perfectly fine in the rather thankless role of his unwitting partner, Laura. Brad Pitt has a decent little role, someone who is also involved in the drug deal, but who seems much more aware of the high stakes, and there are excellent moments for Rosie Perez, Sam Spruell, Richard Brake, and some other familiar faces.

I can't quite explain why I loved this so much though. The script isn't great, not in terms of the actual dialogue anyway, and the randomness detracts from what should have been a coiled spring of a dark thriller, but it all worked. Maybe my low expectations helps (I try to keep things balanced, but it's difficult when a film has a solid reputation already, good or bad), or maybe the majority of people just didn't recognise this for the slice of brilliance that it is. Yeah, it must be that. There's no other possible explanation. I'm not sure I would recommend this to others, but I hope some people give it a chance, and maybe they'll unexpectedly love it as much as me.

8/10

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.
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

Mubi Monday: Legend (1985)

Yet another film that has been revisited and tinkered with by director Ridley Scott (who just cannot ever seem content with his films as originally released), Legend is a sumptuous fantasy flick that is almost non-stop style over substance.

Tim Curry is Darkness, determined to destroy daylight and turn the world into something dark and cold. He sends out some of his small denizens to set his plan into motion, which involves removing a horn from a unicorn and killing off those majestic creatures. A dark and cold world would be a more difficult one for Jack (Tom Cruise) and Lili (Mia Sara), especially as the former has professed his love for the latter. Do you know what a dampener it puts on new love to have Darkness turn your world into a landscape of night-time frost.

You can accuse Ridley Scott of many things, but you can never accuse him of skimping on things when it comes to creating a believable cinematic world. Love or hate the movies he has done over the years, they all take place in environments that feel 100% real. That also goes for Legend, a film with every scene looking ready for the viewer to step into. It's a shame that there's nothing else to it, beyond the visuals and the practical effects.

Writer William Hjortsberg, possibly familiar to horror fans as the writer of the novel that Angel Heart was adapted from ("Falling Angel"), has distilled things down to the most basic fairytale elements. Good, bad, magical creatures, and very little else of note. The dialogue is sparse, and what you do get isn't usually very good, unless uttered by Tim Curry. The plotting is slim, and the ending makes it all even slimmer.

Cruise and Sara do what they're asked to do, but it's just a case of them being in the right place onscreen, opposite some of the impressive creations. The best moment that Cruise gets is one in which he faces Meg Mucklebones (a green hag played by an unrecognisable Robert Picardo), but Sara gets to have a bit more fun in a sequence in which she is bewitched, and potentially turning evil. Billy Barty jumps around, David Bennent acts wide-eyed and mystical, and Annabelle Lanyon plays an oddly amorous fairy named Oona. The real star of the show is Curry, as unrecognisable under the make-up and prosthetics as many of the other performers. But there's always that voice, this time given a deeper timbre to convey the voice of Darkness. Curry really steals the show, thanks to the blend of the physical performance and practical effects.

Considering what it could have packed into the runtime, Legend is a dull film. It's also bloody gorgeous, and has a nice Tangerine Dream/Jerry Goldsmith score accompanying the visuals (delete as applicable, depending on the version you're watching). Not one to watch over and over again, I'd still tentatively recommend it to those who just want to sit back and let a visual experience wash over them.

6/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Alien Covenant is BAD and Ridley Scott should feel BAD.

It's been over a year since I added something to my blog, much to the relief of some (I am sure). I have, basically, given up writing reviews to allow myself more time to watch the actual movies. Which is all well and good, but there are still occasional moments when I need to have a good bloody rant. And this is one of those times.

Did any of us watch Alien (1979) and find ourselves wondering just how the deadly xenomorph came about, or why the eggs were all waiting there in the first place? Okay, some people may have wondered just that, and there was a LOT of speculation about the figure referred to as the "space jockey", but part of the appeal was not knowing. All that mattered was that the alien was a fucking shark, covered in tougher material, with acidic blood, and rampaging through a ship crewed by people we started to care about.

Skip to Aliens (1986), a film that shows how to expand a simple premise without spoiling the wonder of the first film.

Alien³ (1992) was seriously flawed, and even the newer "assembly cut" fails to fix everything, but it tried something different in throwing a familiar character into the path of an alien without the advantage of any of the weaponry or handy tech available in the previous film. And then we have Alien: Resurrection (1997), a film with a director picked for his unique vision and dark humour, that was then lambasted for the unique vision and dark humour. Look, I'm not all that big a fan of the newborn either, or even the bland performance from Winona Ryder, but that cast retains Sigourney Weaver, while adding Ron Perlman, Michael Wincott, Brad Dourif, Dominique Pinon, Dan Hedaya, and a few other greats. So I can't hate it.

Prometheus (2012) is, as we all know, when things seriously started to diverge from the previous pattern. Some still love it, you damn weirdos, but some were a bit pissed off. It didn't help that Ridley Scott seemed to flip flop between declaring it a continuation of the series and stating that it was just a film that shared the DNA of its predecessors. Prometheus is a film of explanations. Explaining creation, explaining that "space jockey", explaining the first stages of the xenomorph evolution. And explaining that, yes, Charlize Theron and Michael Fassbender can help to make anything watchable. Seriously, do they just wake up every day and try to run past mirrors to avoid looking adoringly at their own reflections while reciting dramatic soliloquies?

I was fooled. I wanted to believe the best. And I left disappointed. Which is a shame, because Prometheus isn't really that bad a film, if you can ignore some of the staggeringly dumb actions committed by certain characters. It just didn't have enough to feel like an Alien film.

Which brings us to Alien Covenant (2017). Be warned, some SPOILERS are likely to follow.

Ridley Scott seems to have listened to criticisms of Prometheus. He seems to have held his hands up and said "okay, I get it, I will give you what you want." Seems being the main word there. Because Scott can't resist looking back. He can't resist undoing the mysterious origin of the creature that arguably provided the cornerstone for his successful film career. Which leaves Alien Covenant stuck between an airlock and dead space.

This isn't an entire review of the film. I am not going to recap the plot, and I am not going to rattle through the main cast members (although Danny McBride pleasantly surprised me while Katherine Waterston remains a perplexing choice for any lead role). No, I'm just going to moan. About missed opportunities, about the muddled screenplay, and about CGI aliens that were eye-searingly awful. I am not going to say that the graphics were on a par with the awesome Alien³ videogame on the SEGA Megadrive, but at least I remember those images with fondness.

Let's look at what could have been explored more deeply in Alien Covenant, and these things were certainly touched on (but entirely mishandled).

1) Science and faith. This is characterised by both the acting Captain of the crew (Billy Crudup), and also the major chasm separating Walter and David. The opening scenes of Alien Covenant hint at an interesting look at someone heavily involved in science also battling with what he is told by his faith. Things then quickly move on to show that the two don't have to be working against one another. And then it's all dropped because you need alien action. Walter and David have opposing views on the human race, the value of life, and how to help facilitate the whole essence of "survival of the fittest" throughout the universe. There are some stilted conversations about it, and then it's all dropped because you need alien action.

2) The right of life to bear more life. Even more frustrating than the above theme, this was where I thought Alien Covenant was going to actually be brave and prove me wrong for just wanting a rehash of the first few movies in the franchise. David has spent what must feel like an eternity waiting to hatc his plan (no pun intended), and it all stems from the fact that he believes himself better than his creator, who specifically ensured that he could never procreate. You could say that David is driven mad by being told what to do with his own body. You could even say, at a stretch, that the grand finale is all a backlash from someone rebelling against a "pre-exisiting condition" he doesn't believe should hold him back. David is a man shouting up into the eaves of an empty church, raging at a dead god he knows he can improve upon. He's a slave wrecking and burning his workplace now that the master has disappeared. He's a pro-lifer taking things to extremes to make up for the fact that he was created and used as nothing more than a sterile companion (although I am sure there's a LOT of fan-fiction out there saying otherwise). But you know what? It's all dropped because you need alien action.

3) Nativism. Let's not forget that none of the events in Alien Covenant would have happened if the team hadn't found a signal from a planet, recognised a song snippet, decided to explore, and moved quickly to the thinking of "actually, how did we miss this? This could be a perfect place for us to inhabit." It just so happens that, this time around, the disease was waiting to be received by the settlers, rather than vice versa.

4) Androids make "human errors" during moments that are expected to feel sombre and poignant. Yeah, not a big thing, I know, but this bugged the hell out of me.

The fact that these elements were discarded in favour of some of the worst CGI I have seen in a major movie in years is incredibly disappointing. Okay, I was disappointed by Prometheus but, you know what, at least it had the balls to keep moving on a different tangent, with an end coda to try and placate fans of the franchise. And it looked gorgeous.

There are shots here that certainly remind you of how great Scott can be at creating art. There are also some good gore moments. If you can make them out. Yes, that CGI is running around amidst a mess of choppy ending and whipping camera moves, as if Scott knows how bad the final result will be and is wanting to do whatever it takes to distract your eyes from it. 

Which leaves me with very little else to say. It seems churlish to list everything else wrong with the film, although it would be remiss to write about the film without mentioning one of the most mistimed shower scenes in the history of cinema. 
"Hey, most of our colleagues have been killed by a scary space beast and we are in quite a bit of trouble. Wanna shower and make out like we're in a fucking Friday The 13th film?"

No, no, no, no, I will stop there. Honest. And that doesn't just go for this rant. That goes for my faith in any future Alien movies with Ridley Scott at the helm. Because he can surely hear the fans scream, but he's mistakenly thinking that is a good sign.

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.
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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Sci-Fi September: Blade Runner (1982)

It's maybe not best for me to start my review of Blade Runner by declaring that I don't think it's a perfect movie, and don't rate it as the best sci-fi movie of all time. It's probably worse to declare that it MIGHT not even make my personal Top 10 Sci-Fi Movie list. It might, but it might not. Yet that doesn't stop me from praising the film as an amazing piece of cinema. It immerses viewers in a world that feels so realistic you can almost feel the near-constant rain dripping on your head.

Harrison Ford stars as Rick Deckard, a blade runner who must find and execute four runaway replicants. Replicants are humanoid robots, with some of the latest models being so advanced that they're getting harder and harder to differentiate from real people. The nominal leader of these runaways is Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer), a replicant who has spent a lot of time considering his life and what he has been privileged to see throughout the universe. The movie focuses on Deckard as he does his detective work, yet it also allows plenty of time for all of the main characters to ponder just what makes humans so unique in their efforts to live a long, fruitful life.

Based on a novel by Philip K. Dick (entitled "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?"), this is sci-fi used in a way to look at our own humanity. In a world in which humans can, essentially, be built, it looks at what, if any, differences there are between life and artificial life. The script, written mainly by Hampton Fancher and David Peoples, spends as much time piecing together the motivations and fears of the various central characters as it does on the standard detective aspect of the tale.

The fact that all of these ideas and moments are set in a world so detailed and realistic is due, in no small part, to director Ridley Scott, who seemed intent on delivering a cerebral, beautiful, modern classic to cinema audiences. The visuals are often sublime, the soundtrack (famously created by Vangelis) is a delight for the ears, and the central performances don't ever give any sign of the famous troubles that plagued the production; let's just say that it was a baptism by fire for Scott working on his first major American operation.

Ford is great in yet another iconic role, and he must look back on his career as one amazing stroke of good luck after another, considering how many movies that he starred in didn't seem destined for greatness. He's suitably world-weary, cynical, and also able to empathise with anyone who just wants left alone to live their life in peace. Hauer may have a lot less screentime, but he makes a lasting impression, mainly thanks to his last scene opposite Ford. Sean Young also makes a lasting impression, playing Rachael, a young woman who doesn't realise exactly what her background is. Brion James, Joanna Cassidy, and Daryl Hannah all do well as the other replicants on the loose, M. Emmet Walsh has an enjoyable small role, and Edward James Olmos breathes down Harrison Ford's neck at the most inconvenient moments. There's also a superb, moving performance from William Sanderson (the second-best in the movie, behind Hauer), playing a "toymaker" who seems to empathise more than most with the creations that he's had a very small role in helping to build.

Books have been written about Blade Runner. Well, if they haven't then they should be (but I'm pretty sure they have). It's layered, it's full of many wonderful little touches, the tech on display feels very grounded in reality, it ruminates on science and the possibility of human souls by finely mixing the two, and much more. My main problem with it, the only reason that I don't rate it as the perfect sci-fi movie so many others see, is that there are scenes that bring the whole thing grinding to a halt. Scenes that feel unnecessary in the grand scheme of things, especially when they get in the way of the momentum that is being built by the strong central strand. Of course, the fact that there are (at least) five different versions of the movie to choose from nowadays probably serves as a reminder of just how many options Scott made available to himself as he tried to capture what he'd envisioned in his mind.

Despite not quite rating it as highly as other fans, I still recommend that everyone gives this a viewing at least once. It's iconic, it's cool, and it's almost fully deserving of the reputation it has.

9/10

http://www.amazon.com/Blade-Runner-Anniversary-Collectors-Blu-ray/dp/B008M4MB8K/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1411245021&sr=1-2&keywords=blade+runner

You know what you can do if you liked this review, or any of the other reviews here at For It Is Man's Number? If you share and share then every additional reader helps. Connect through Google or Blogger or any way you can, and rest easy in the knowledge that you've made little ol' me a very happy man.

And/or you could also buy my e-book, that has almost every review I've written over the past 5 years. It's very reasonably priced for the sheer amount of content.

The UK version can be bought here - http://www.amazon.co.uk/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1395945647&sr=1-3&keywords=movie+guide

And American folks can buy it here - http://www.amazon.com/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395945752&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=TJs+ramshackle+mov

As much as I love the rest of the world, I can't keep up with all of the different links in different territories, but trust me when I say that it should be there on your local Amazon.

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