Ovvero, "Messere, vi prego, passatemi cotesto tubo Bangalore." | Or, "Good ser, pray hand me yon Bangalore tube." It's officially worse than "Gladiator". Oh, and by the way, next time "someone" (you know who you are, K) tells me ASOIAF is too complicated, try slogging through English history to check how much Ridley Scott made up this time! OK, OK, you see no reason for doing it twice, I understand ^^ I admit it's mostly my problem. Others can enjoy the movie without thinking of history, like I did when I was young and innocent, with "Braveheart". Although I'd like to watch "Braveheart" now, to get a good eyeful of Robert the Bruce again, and see if it's really so historically blasphemous, apart from Isabella bedding an already dead man if we look at the chronology (hey, what's wrong with that? I do it all the time.) So I think that which detail annoys which viewer is largely subjective. Last night I was pissed at three instances of written text in three completely different calligraphies, one of which was MAYBE remotely consistent with the time period. Things like that jar me out of the "willing suspension of disbelief"; another might not even see it. (And what about the "notice board tree" at the end? "FOR SALE: One (1) Sheriff, good-looking, almost new, barely used." "WANTED: Outlaw Robert Loxley, aka Robert Longstride, aka Robin Hood for no discernible reason." "MISSING: 34.458 killer bees." But I digress. It's possible that such a thing existed, but by that time I was ready to laugh at everything.) Apart from Richard Lionheart dying without ever returning to England (which he did), and Scott's obsession with Acri (which WAS a bad thing made by Christians against Muslims, but not the ONLY defining aspect of the Crusades, horrible thing that they were, like all wars), the first half quite cheered me. Very unusual take on Robin Hood's origin and the name Loxley. After all, Robin is a legendary figure, and though it's possible that he was once a real person, every attempt to positively identify him has been unsuccessful. Like King Arthur - at least "Robin Hood" does not begin with a claim it's a true story, and tells an enthralling version of the origin of his legend. I almost expected a "Martin Guerre - Somersby" turn (and here I began to suspect the movie was not so original as I hoped), with Longstride bringing back dead Loxley's sword, and his widow believing he was the actual thing; but no, father and wife decide consciously to pass Robin as the true Loxley. Less romantic, but intriguing none the less. Russell Crowe plays Russell Crowe (Russ, drop Ridley and give us another "Beautiful Mind", please, you can do it), a brave Saxon (nice to see Saxons treated as human beings - "King Arthur", I'm looking at you again), and Cate Blanchett is gorgeous (what a Catelyn she would have been). Max von Sydow could beat Chuck Norris and the Blackfish together - he manages to fight and cut the bad guy despite being thrice his age and BLIND! Give me Max as Hoster Tully, HBO. And yes, the settings, the photography and the costumes were so beautiful they made me feel like I was already watching HBO's "A Game of Thrones". I especially liked the interior night scenes and the way the firelight played on the characters' faces. I LOVED the omnipresent dogs, the rushes on the floor, the feeling that everyone was dirty, the realistic way of dealing with chain mail armour. (Note to self: you can't "shrug off" a mail shirt in a sex scene. Have the lady help, even though it's not sexy at all, with the hero's rump sticking up in the air.) I loved the Merry Men - King Robert Baratheon (Mark Addy, my favourite in "The Full Monty"), Malarkey from "Band of Brothers" (Scott Grimes, an Edmure Tully I could like), Keamy from LOST (I spent the whole movie trying to understand where I had seen him before, so different was his role - take note, Russell) and Allan-a-Dale, an unknown I'd like to know better. I wish for a sequel only to see them all together again. King John and the Sheriff ALMOST looked like well-rounded characters. The Sheriff actually joins the battle against the French at the end, but you barely notice him (to think the story was to be about him... sigh...) There was even a classy turn from William Hurt, so perfect as the world-weary, wise councillor, that I spent the whole movie etc etc. I almost added him to my Blackfish cast, based on looks only - just a little wilder, and he'd be perfect. So far, so good. Not a bad movie, no? Yes. In the second half, the movie goes "in vacca", that is "into the cow", as we say in Italy. Brief summary: Braveheart and Eowyn fight on Omaha Beach, and King John burns the Magna Charta. History lesson. Philippe II of France CONSIDERED invading England, but did not (wise man). Great Britain was NEVER invaded after 1066! They did a pretty good job of tearing themselves apart, thanks, but NO foreign enemy ever set foot on British land - only the Luftwaffe, some seven centuries later, gave the British some worry, AND it was beaten. Philippe actually BEAT King John, but on the continent, at the battle of Bouvines. Instead we are treated with an inverse version of the Battle of Normandy, as the French (ALL bad guys to a man - practice what you preach, Ridley, but I realize it's cooler to support the Saracens than the French) land on the white cliffs of Dover with LCIs, in a sequence taken straight from "Saving Private Ryan" by CGIing in the Lily of France. Underwater scenes of arrows zipping by and blood spreading? Yawn. Seen already. There's a fine line between a homage and a photocopy, I understand, but, but, BUT! Marion-Eowyn almost made me cheer, expecially when Robin calls her "Loxley", but then she needed the strong man to save her from the bad guy. Yawn. Yes, Eowyn needed to be saved too, but it was the Witch King, for Eru's sake! Then, the Magna Charta. I was almost perking up by then. Oh yeah, the movie managed to weave Robin's story with the English barons' uprising! So cool! Now we'll get a view on the historical signing of the first example of constitutional rights... ... and King John goes bad again and BURNS IT. OK. I know that in reality he signed it and then did not respect it. But having it told in this way is like having history compressed into a suppository and shoved up your ass. Sorry, I'm a lady, but that's how it felt. By then, I was just laughing, that's why the "message board" tree made me so hysterical. No. Just NO. Ridley, please, give us another "The Duelists". Small, simple, no attempts to give history lessons. I'll forgive you everything. |