LukeStay.com

Hollywood sure has a jonesing for origin stories these days. This isn’t your typical Robin Hood movie of merry thievery and peril at the hands of the Sheriff of Nottingham. You don’t even see Robin holed up in Nottingham Forest with his band of righteous robbers until right before the credits roll. No Errol Flynn here, Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood” is a mix of origin story, political chicanery, and some deft battle sequences.

Scott and his screenwriters play fast and loose with British history, and by extension French history. However, if Tarantino and his fabulous “Inglourious Basterds” can be praised to the skies even as it completely redraws the facts to the most important years of the 20th then surely this can be forgiven as well (that is not to say that this is nearly as good as IB). Fairly convoluted plot made short: disenchanted with political leaders after a decade of foolish decisions in the Crusades, peasant archer in King Richards army Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) serendipitously finds his chance to leave the army and return home. That chance leads him and his core of merry men to become ensnared in medieval identity theft, political intrigue and evil-French machinations. Action and romance ensues.

Crowe is effective as Robin; and he and a characteristically superb Cate Blanchett have a believable, mature romantic chemistry. Crowe does dial back his typical imposing physicality a little and plays Robin with a bit more mirth than I was used too in a Crowe role. (Which doesn’t mean that he doesn’t exhibit his signature reluctant-hero-taking-up-the-noble-cause mannerisms.) However good these Oscar winners may be, the movie is completely stolen by an intellectually feral Mark Strong. As a devious member of King John’s court, Strong prowls the movie with a magnetic menace. Each time the movie deviated from him I wondered what his character was doing when we weren’t seeing him.

Overall, I enjoyed this movie far more that I thought I would. It does drag in parts (especially the overtly political gobblydegook about free states or some such preaching). But my main quibble comes with the climactic battle sequence, minor plot spoilers ahead, but if you’ve seen trailers I’m not blowing anything you haven’t seen already. The last battle takes place on a beach while the French invade by sea. For some reason Scott and company decided to stage a medieval D-Day. I was mildly uncomfortable with the fact that the invasion is filmed like the opening of “Saving Private Ryan.” It’s so similar it completely displaced me from the film. From underwater up shot of soldiers drowning in the water to the disembarking soldiers getting mowed down as they spill over the sides of their vessels. It just felt cheap and designed to illicit emotion the scene didn’t earn. Secondly, I’m sick of the incessant need to have the love interest show up in battle, disguised by a helmet, which she then removes, and SHOCKER it’s Marion! WHA-WHAT woman can fight too? Oh that Marion, she’s so empowered. Give it a rest already. I’m all for female empowerment, but the need to shoehorn an enlightened ’90’s woman into the 12th century is beginning to get tiring. Everyone should have hung this trick up after Pete Jackson mastered it in The Return of the King.

Anyway, pet peeves aside, it’s a fresher, rejiggered take on a familiar legend, the Ridley Scott powered battle scenes are exciting, there’s some fun stuff with the Merry Men (Keamy from Lost is Little John and, for once, is actually likable *sniff*Lost. I miss you already*sniff*), the leads are good, and the required Robin Hood arrow POV shots are pretty thrilling too. Recommended.

“Hunger” is vivid and visual. It is also gut wrenching, brutal and unrelenting. It flows between scenes of stunning beauty and stunning violence. It’s quiet and pensive and vicious and visceral. It is based on the very real events surrounding imprisoned Irish Republican Army foot soldiers. First time filmmaker, and artist, Steve McQueen has crafted a real gem. But it is definitely not for everyone, or every stomach. When people say “art film,” I now tend to think the term was coined for “Hunger.” It is vividly beautiful in its harrowing depiction of the strength of the souls resolve and depths of human cruelty. It is also very easy to see how some will find the film indulgent, slow, and in danger of caving under it’s own preponderance.

“Hunger” takes place within the notorious confines of Maze Prison during The Troubles (the longest sustained period of wide spread violence between Ireland and England, generally lasting from the late 1960’s to the Belfast Agreement in 1998, thousands were killed on both sides.) The film starts in the midst of the IRA inmates Blanket Protest. (Here comes the history, if you want to skip this part be my guest. Known IRA members were held as common criminals and not as political prisoners. The difference being that a political prisoner is afforded many more rights and privileges than a criminal including the wearing of their own clothes, no prison work, more visits, etc. In protest of being seen as common criminals the incarcerated refused to wear prison clothes, going naked or with blankets wrapped around them, refused to shower and shave, etc. It escalated to where the guards refused to change out bathroom buckets, all furniture but mattresses were removed, beatings increased. In turn, the prisoners retaliated by smearing their excrement on the walls, never leaving there cells unless under considerable force, dumping their urine under the doors, and so forth. Each side unrelenting in their resolve and brutality.)

The plot, such as it is, is presented like a Christian triptych, a three-panel story with each panel loosely hinged to the next. The first panel concerns a new prisoner, Raymond, and his joining the Blanket Protest. Much of this first section is very nearly a silent film, almost reverential; McQueen lets the images alone speak loudly and effectively. Even the smearing of feces on a wall is approached as a solemn, dignified act. The reverence is only, shockingly, broken with viscous beatings followed by haircuts and hose showers and some particular invasive searches. Interspersed with the protest are glimpses of the life of one of Maze’s guards and the toll the job takes on his life. The second panel is the tour de force section of this film; it’s the power, pop, and heart of the film. (Additionally, for film geeks, it contains the longest, single sustained shot in celluloid history at over 17 minutes, a new roll of film had to be specially made for the shot.) In the scene, de facto prison leader Bobby Sands (Michael Fassbender in a magnetic performance) and a worldly Catholic priest (Liam Cunnigham) argue the merits of a hunger strike. It is absolutely stunning. It is riveting. Fassbender and Cunningham are pitch perfect and magnetic. Really, this scene is something to behold; it is something special, I was enraptured. The outcome of the debate solidifies Sands resolve to begin staggered hunger strikes, to up the protest, he being the first to begin. The third panel returns to the silent, respectful slant of the first. Sands begins to refuse food and eventually wastes away in protest (Fassbender is again riveting and apparently lost over 40 pounds to appear starved). Watching Sands waste away into skeletal bed rest, having to be carried to the toilet and pitied by his attending physician is gut wrenching; the self-inflicted violence effectively mirroring the administered violence of the first panel. “Hunger’s” third panel nails down the films gut-punch, it is emotionally draining.

Throughout the film however, there was a quiet gnawing at the back of my head that soon began to really pound away. That pounding boils down to this: It’s obvious that McQueen respects these prisoners and their will power. But it doesn’t stop there, McQueen seems to be taking these protesting prisoners and their starving leaders down the path of beatification and on towards sanctification without acknowledging that, frankly, these men are violent at best, terrorists at worst. It is easy to romanticize the IRA and it’s struggle. The scrappy Irish freedom fighters with their lilting voices and shocks of red hair fighting tooth and nail against the big bad machine of militarized, late-millennial Britain. Their sustained, armed struggle for unification over the oppression of an occupying superpower is easy to view through shamrock-tinted glasses. I know. I’ve studied the history and at times have over simplified their case; I’ve “supported” them and respected them and, to a degree, still do. But, in truth, the IRA is a violent and often brutish entity and is guilty of quite a few shocking, and despicable, acts. The Troubles, particularly at the time this movie takes place, were such a boiling mess of tit-for-tat aggression and dirty tactics that both sides are equally to blame for the escalating horrors. There is no acknowledgment of this in the film however. McQueen, who surprisingly is a native born Englishman, and helped write the screenplay, seemingly lays all fault, mistakenly, at the feet of Thatcher’s England. He would have the unfamiliar believing that all the prisoners were falsely accused guardian angels of the Emerald Isle. His blind acquittal of these men is unnerving. (If you’re interested, here’s a pointed British review of the film that more succinctly sums up, with history!, what stuck in my craw about the pardoning manner of this film).

I must admit though that, despite my unease with the historical whitewashing, I was thoroughly moved and marginally devastated by this film. Regardless of politics and your view of Irish Republicanism and Unification if you can stomach the disturbing elements of this film it is well worth the endeavor. It is gorgeously made and visually stunning – each shot could be freeze framed and reproduced as art worthy of a prominent wall hanging. The idea of the body being the last weapon of protest is resonant. The performances, especially the star-making turn by Fassbender, are moving. Its overall impact is powerful and long lasting. It may take some patience, but consider “Hunger” highly, highly recommend.

(Stay tuned, too, this is a two part-er review of new-ish films now on DVD, that flew under the radar and into few theaters, that both deal with The Troubles. The second of this utterly dichotomous pair is “50 Dead Men Walking,” which review will come along shortly. You’re riveted, I know.)

Why has it taken this long for Tina Fey and Steve Carrell to get together? Unfortunately, why couldn’t it have been in a better project. They’re two of the funnier, smarter comics working in entertainment today and I don’t quite understand why they agreed to finally combine forces in such a broad, middling comedy as this one.

These two comedians have become stars by being part of whip smart, incisive, and often brilliant, TV shows and movies. (Although I really believe that “The Office” has been in a slow, truly disappointing tailspin for about a season and a half now, maybe longer.) I dearly wanted this movie to be as sharp and rapid fire as their previous material, they have set such a high bar (I’m ignoring “Evan Almighty”); instead it’s broad and inconsistent. To be fair, I laughed frequently and hard at certain points, but it was mostly when it felt like Tina and Steve were riffing and going off script. Of particular note are some loopy sequences at a hipper-than-thou restaurant and when a perpetually shirtless Mark Wahlberg is with them. But between the slapstick action scenes (including cops who shoot guns worse than an ‘80’s GI Joe cartoon) and goofy encounters, it sags and there’s some pretty serious discussion of stagnant marriages and love that seems shoe-horned in from another movie to give the whole thing some “heart.” There are a number of empty cameos and unnecessary bit parts too, that are wasted on a list of respectable actors like Mark Ruffalo, Ray Liotta, lead player in where-have-I-seen-him-before-games William Fichtner; and Taraji Henson; not too mention some funny comics like Kristen Wiig and Bill Burr in unfunny parts. However, James Franco, Mila Kunis, and Wahlberg do generate some genuine laughs.

Additionally the story of needing to “romantically jump-start a stalled, but good marriage, with action shenanigans” feels stale and familiar. Again, I was hoping, maybe dreaming, that the pairing of Fey and Carrell could bring somtehing fresh to this sub-sub-genre. It starts of promising enough but by the time the whole case of mistaken-identity-and-crooks is sorted out I had a “who did what to what know?” moment followed quickly by an “awwh, who cares anyway” moment. Without the leads considerable talents and charm the whole movie would probably have sunk into “Wild Hogs” territory. It’s easy to see these same roles being done, too much less success but much louder results, by some pairing of Kevin James and Sarah Jessica Paker or Ashton Kutcher and whatever vapid blond is hot at the moment. Really, though, what was I expecting from the director of such comedic gems as “Night at the Museum” and “The Pink Panther” remake.

I’m not going to flat out recommend this because it’s just too disappointing, maybe a matinee to see Fey and Carrell together, but more like a Red Box weekend in the pj’s; or if you thought “Old Dogs” was HI-sterical. It’s like cotton candy, looks pretty and has a flash of fizzy, sugary fun but once consumed it dissolves away and leaves you still hungry. Here’s to hoping Tina and Steve get together again, and soon, in a vehicle much better suited to their respective talents.