Rescue Dawn

Rescue Dawn is the film that is loosely based on Dieter Dengler's experiences as a prisoner of war in Laos in 1966.  Dengler published a book back in 1983, Escape From Laos, that probably tells basically the same story, but this film is primarily inspired by the documentary Little Dieter Needs to Fly.  Werner Herzog directed both Rescue Dawn and Little Dieter... and found Dengler's story so compelling that he found two very different ways to tell it.

The plot is a simple one.  Dengler (Christian Bale) is an American pilot in the mid-1960s that has a bombing mission over Laos.  He gets shot down, which was especially bad in Laos because the US wasn't supposed to be there at all; that essentially means that the US government would not be using diplomacy to get the POWs in Laos home, because the US didn't officially have troops there.  Yes, I know...it sucks to be Dieter Dengler (and not just because of the name).  Dengler is captured by men affiliated with Pathet Lao, which is approximately the Laotian version of the Viet Cong in Vietnam.  When he was initially captured, Dengler was given the chance to denounce the United States by signing a pre-written letter in exchange for leniency; Dengler refused to denounce his country and was sent to a prison camp.  The camp is guarded by a relative handful of men (maybe fifteen or so) and there are six POWs, including Dengler.  Dengler instigates an escape plan, but that's really the small picture.  Even if the POWs escape, they have a dense jungle filled with disease, enemies, and precious little nutrition surrounding them on all sides.  How are they supposed to be rescued from there?

For a movie about POWs, this movie spends relatively little time in the prison camp.  A decent-sized chunk of the story takes place there, to be sure, but I would estimate that less than half of the film is set in the camp.  That really puts a lot of the focus on Christian Bale to carry this picture, which he does, often with extended periods with minimal dialogue.  I don't consider Bale an explosive or overwhelmingly great actor; I think he approaches his roles methodically and tries to pay attention to the details.  In this regard, he does a great job.  His mannerisms, from the way he behaves in the jungle at the beginning and end of the film to the way he eats his worms and grubs in the prison camp, feel authentic.  He certainly looks like someone who spent time as a POW; he lost over 50 pounds to play this part.

Bale wasn't the only actor to lose weight for this movie; Steve Zahn and Jeremy Davies lost 40 and 33 pounds, respectively.  Both actors turn in good performances here.  Zahn is primarily known as a comedic actor, but he does a good job as the POW that is the least depressed and deluded when Dengler arrives.  As such, he becomes Dengler's partner in crime and shares a lot of screen time with Christian Bale.  Personally, I like Zahn best when he is stretching himself (Happy, Texas and Out of Sight are good examples of Zahn's talent for layered comedic roles), and playing an ordinary man in an extraordinary circumstance is a refreshing change of pace from his typical buddy comedy fare.  Davies has a lot of fun playing the delusional member of the group, insisting that diplomacy was the only way back to the US and he would rather ruin an escape attempt than risk his diplomatic rescue.  Davies' character is interesting because it gives an unexpected source of conflict that produces some unusual results.  The rest of the supporting cast is solid, but not particularly noteworthy.  The Pathet Lao appeared to be mostly evil, which may be an oversimplification, but was probably a valid point of view coming from a POW.

Despite the lengthy periods with limited dialogue, Herzog does a good job keeping the suspense and danger in place.  This could be a film that tries to convey the exhaustion that Dengler experienced, but Herzog wisely chose to compress time and focus on immediate threats whenever possible.  The cinematography is good and there are no truly weird moments, which makes this the most viewer-friendly film Herzog has directed to date.  There has been some dispute over how true this "true story" is; the family of Davies' character has set up a website that attacks the film's accuracy in general and the portrayal of Jeremy Davies' character in particular.  While I have no doubt that Herzog changed some aspects of the story to make a more suitable narrative, I find myself pretty indifferent to complaints of inaccuracy.  Herzog claims the sole writing credit for the movie (despite the fact that Dengler wrote his own book about his experiences), which tells me right away that he chose to change some plot elements for dramatic purposes.  As long as Dengler didn't get a writing credit and the movie is not promoted as a biopic, that's okay by me.  My main problem with the film has to do with the plot; by spending so much time out of the prison camp, the immediacy of the escape is diluted.  That is a necessary problem, given the story, but the escape wasn't as cathartic as it should have been.

This is a move that is difficult to break down into individual components because it really is a cumulative effect.  The ways that each character reacts to their stressors might be unexpected at times, but it is logical, which is difficult for a director to pull off.  The physical work the actors put into their roles combines with an unusually restrained directorial effort from Herzog to make the best POW war movie since The Bridge Over the River Kwai.

Mary Reilly

Gothic horror.  The phrase immediately brings to my mind heavy shadows, forbidden longings and the time when morality and science were often completely opposed. If you give me a few more seconds to think about it, though, I might imagine fat kids with dyed black hair, eyeliner, stocking sleeves and combat boots that make me wish that I didn't like the Cure.

Those seemingly disparate ideas are not as separate as I might want to believe.  For every good Gothic horror story (Dracula, Frankenstein, From Hell - the comic), there is a crappy bastardization on film (Bram Stoker's Dracula, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, From Hell - the movie).  All play with the same basic set of tools (science vs. superstition, dark vs. light, love vs. seduction), but the Hollywood versions in the 1990s consistently missed the mark.  Mary Reilly is a novel that offers an different point of view on Robert Louis Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.  It doesn't try to change much of the story, but offers some alternate motivations for the Jekyll/Hyde character.

The movie Mary Reilly attempts to do the same by shifting the narrative focus onto the shoulders of the title character.  Mary Reilly (Julia Roberts) is one of many servants in the Jekyll household.   I'm going to assume that anyone vaguely interested in this movie has a passing familiarity with Jekyll and Hyde, as an idea if not as literature, because the movie makes this assumption as well.  But, just to clarify, Dr. Jekyll is a middle-aged (maybe a little older) scientist that is brilliant and kind; unfortunately, he represses his emotions (which was the style at the time) and begins to long for a way to release them.  He creates a drug that transforms him into Mr. Hyde, a younger, more virile persona that is essentially Jekyll's Id unleashed.  Hyde's appearance varies from version to version, but he is always the lusty, violent side of Jekyll.  So, while that story is playing out in the background, Mary Reilly does her household chores, encountering Jekyll and Hyde from time to time.  She spends most of her time carrying food trays and gathering laundry.  Oh, the suspense exclamation mark three times.

Mary draws the attention of Dr. Jekyll (John Malkovich) when he notices some scars on Mary that are clearly from animal bites.  Initially too shy or socially reserved to tell her story, Mary later relates how her abusive father (Michael Gambon) once locked her in a closet with rats, which bit her many times.  When Jekyll asks if she hates her father for what he did, Mary refuses to hate; she reasoned that alcohol made him into a monster, one that acted, spoke, and even walked differently than her sober father.  This really hits home for Jekyll.  I think.  The camera holds a few extra beats of Jekyll staring with his mouth slightly open at this point, but Malkovich doesn't really emote much here.  Mr. Hyde (still Malkovich) also pays Mary special attention.  He enjoys flirting with her and making her uncomfortable.  He is rude and arrogant around her.  Presumably, this is because Jekyll is attracted to Mary, but cannot express himself properly.  Eventually, Hyde appears more and more, until he murders an important man in broad daylight in the streets of London for no reason.  And that's the movie.

I really want to point out this movie's flaws, but I'm going to start out positive.  John Malkovich is a good actor who can play an emotionally reserved man as easily as he can a jerk.  I thought the differentiation between the Jekyll and Hyde characters (vocal tones, facial expressions) was pretty decent.  I'm glad that at least one character (but sadly, only one character) pointed out the visual similarities between Jekyll and Hyde --- and yes, that is a poodle-haired Michael Sheen making that comment.  I liked Jekyll's laboratory, although it was unnecessarily weird; I get having the operating room be an auditorium, but there is no reason for the walkway into the lab to have been a suspended chain bridge.  That's just not practical.  As far as the acting goes, Michael Gambon did a decent job of being a disgusting, abusive drunk.  I thought Glenn Close's performance was muy macho, and it was brave of her to play a Victorian brothel-owning transvestite.  Oh, wait... she was supposed to be a woman?  With that accent?  And that Jay Leno chin?  That can't be right...

...And that's the best this movie has to offer.  Why is that, you ask?  Well, for starters, Julia Roberts was cast in the lead role.  I have nothing against Roberts, although I will admit that she does not usually star in movies that I desperately want to see.  This role goes against her strengths, though.  Julia Roberts is at her best when she is smiling and charming audiences.  Here, her performance reminds me of something I heard in The Goonies cast/director commentary; apparently,director Richard Donner's most common directorial instruction to his cast of child actors was "big eyes."  Julia Roberts channels that direction in this movie like no other.  She spends most of the movie looking like a Precious Moments doll, particularly one commemorating the moment when a child watched its dog get hit by a train.  I kept wanting to staple her lower lip to her face so she wouldn't keep tripping over than damn thing.  I get that working for Jekyll and Hyde doesn't make for slapstick comedy, but even servants have more than one emotion.  And that is just her character's normal state!  Eventually, she has a nightmare where Hyde begins to rape her, but when she wakes up screaming, her roommate tells Mary that the dream didn't sound bad to her.  That implies that Mary had a Hyde rape fantasy.  Finally, a movie that has the guts to stand up for rape.  Three cheers for rape!  In a related note, no matter how hard I scrub, I don't feel clean.

John Malkovich is not at his best here, either.  For a movie that is very British and very Victorian England, John's accent has attendance problems, to put it mildly.  I also find it hard to believe that anyone could  look at Malkovich's Jekyll and Hyde and not immediately conclude that they are the same person, or, at the very least, siblings.  Hyde has longer hair and no beard.  Aside from that, he still looks and speaks like Jekyll.  And I don't care what time period it is, John Malkovich is not someone that inspires dark, erotic dreams (I typed those words, but the only thing that made me feel better when I read it back was scraping my tongue).  I also didn't care for the way Hyde's crimes were handled.  In the original story, only the final murder is clearly a crime; the rest of Hyde's activities might have ranged from fairly innocent fare, such as staying out late in the city, drinking to excess, and sleeping with women of questionable morals to the more grisly stuff, like violence and murder.  Here, it is primarily a blood lust, which cheapens the character in my mind.  Also, the first evidence of violence shows Hyde's bedroom covered in blood, with only an animal's carcass (possibly a rat's) to imply that the blood is not human; the effect, however, is for the scene to resemble an act of beastiality gone horribly wrong (not that I'm judging).  Hyde then goes on to decapitate someone off camera and murders a man with a cane handle.  While not particularly fun to watch, there is little or no suspense, horror, or Gothic-ness in any of these scenes.  In fact, they come off as little more than disagreeable.

The biggest problem with this movie (aside from the two actors and their characters) is the subtlety of the film.  I rarely accuse any movie of being too subtle, but this movie never comes out and says anything.  I assume that Jekyll and Hyde have an emotional or sexual attraction for Mary Reilly, but I just don't know for sure.  This movie stays true to the Victorian way of not letting emotions show, but that really cramps a film's style when those same emotions are implied to be the motivating factors for the climax of the film.

The film was directed by Stephen Frears, a man that is capable of greatness (High Fidelity, anyone?).  Surely, his direction can be seen in Roberts' performance and the overall feel of the movie.  It is rare that I say this about a director that has talent, but either he missed every mark he set for this film, or he didn't aim for the right things.  This was painful to watch.  It wasn't until I was finished watching the movie that I realized that the movie's tag line ("Evil loves innocence") didn't refer to Jekyll/Hyde and Mary, but to the film and its audience.

Kickboxer

 The cover to this movie's DVD has the tag line "If your opponent refuses to be humbled...destroy him."  I don't think that actually has anything to do with this movie.  At all.  Isn't that just implying that the villain refuses to bow down to Van Damme's superiority (or the other way around), and must be killed for not tapping out?  Well, whatever; that tag line is the least of this movie's problems.

Let's get the plot framework out of the way first.  Jean-Claude Van Damme plays Kurt Sloane, who is the little brother to the US kickboxing champion, Eric Sloane (Dennis Alexio), and sits in his brother's corner during matches.  Eric decides that he should become world champion in kickboxing and goes to Bangkok to fight the Thailand champion, the undefeated Tong Po (Micel Qissi).  Eric is clearly out of his depth in Bangkok and Tong Po beats him mercilessly; after Eric is obviously defeated, Tong Po breaks his back for fun.  Clearly, this movie is going to be about Kurt nursing his brother to health in the hospitals of Bangkok, showing him the value of inner strength in a city that is alien to them both.  Hold on...what's this?  Kurt bucks the obvious Oscar-baiting plot and decides to train himself in kickboxing to avenge his brother?  I did not see that coming.  Kurt meets an American (Haskell V. Anderson III), who introduces him to a martial arts master (Dennis Chan), who trains Kurt to be a kickboxing bad-ass, but will Bangkok allow him to fight Tong Po?

This movie suffers from the same thing that a lot of martial arts movies do: training scenes. Dear Hollywood, I don't give a crap about movie characters training to be tough if the actors can obviously deliver roundhouse kicks to the face from day one.  If you cast Phillip Seymour Hoffman is a karate role, then sure, I want to see how he ramps up his skills.  Jean-Claude Van Damme, though?  Come on!  They even spend time pretending that he can't do the splits.  I'm sorry, but I've seen several Van Damme movies and the young Van Damme proudly shows off his splits in every film.  At least introduce something new to his repertoire.  Is a death punch too much to ask?  Maybe a move that rips the skin off someone's face?  But no, we have to pretend that Van Damme is waaay out of his depth here, but through the power of the movie montage, he will quickly become world class.

This is one of the early acting attempts for Van Damme.  Now, I have no problem with Van Damme's kinda-sorta karate, but his acting has always left something to be desired.  No matter how successful his films were, I just can never get past his voice (click the "Singing Chinese" link in the bottom right for a great example).  That is pro-bab-ally unfair of me to pick on his accent, but that's life.  The weird thing is that Dennis Alexio is actually a worse actor than Van Damme.  To be fair to Alexio, he was actually a champion kickboxer, and not a professional actor.  So...what's Van Damme's excuse?  Haskell V. Anderson III's performance is on par with Van Damme's;you can tell that he memorized his lines, at least, but that's about where my compliments stop for him.  The rest of the primary cast actually isn't half bad, but that may be because they treat Van Damme like a moron.  Both Dennis Chan and Micel Qissi turn in solid performances as a wise Asian dude and a meanie pants, respectively.

There are two directors listed for the movie (David Worth and Mark DiSalle, who shares a story credit for the film with Van Damme), presumably one for the action and one for the drama.  I might be wrong, though.  Perhaps this example of true cinema required the efforts of two full-time directors to get all the subtext and symbolism they could squeeze into this 97 minute slice of pure movie gold.  Or, maybe they decided who would direct what by rock-paper-scissors.  Whatever works, right?

Not everything in this movie is bad.  It gives us the semi-iconic image of Van Damme dipping his fists in wax (or something) and then dipping them in broken glass for the final fight.  The final fight is okay, I guess, following in the Rocky school of fighting (get beat up until you decide to win).  More importantly, though, this film gives us Van Damme dancing:

I know what you're thinking and, yes, he is wearing a break-away tank top with suspender clips built in.

I try to judge movies based on their individual merits and how well they accomplished their goals.  This movie is clearly all about the fight scenes, with some boring story in between.  Unfortunately, the fighting isn't all that great, aside from the awesomeness with Van Damncing.  I'm no professional fighter, but I'm pretty sure that the fighting in this movie is not muay thai, as they mention so often.  It looks to me like it is traditional kickboxing with a teenie bit of muay thai added for spice.  To give you an idea of how hard they tried to make this movie good, Tong Po is credited as "himself" in the credits, even though he was just the character name for Micel Qissi in this movie; they couldn't even tell if their characters were real people or not!  I'm sure Van Damme walked around the set saying "I just learned karate...wanna see?" all day long.  I guess they got confused because they are all method actors and the story was so enveloping.  And unpredictable!  Do you think Van Damme will get to fight Tong Po by the end of the film?  I don't want to spoil the ending for you, so you'll just have to watch and see for yourself.  At least Van Damme showed enough sense to not star in any of the four (FOUR!) sequels.

Sleepy Hollow

The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, for those that haven't read it, is not necessarily what I would call "ready for the big screen."  In the story, Ichabod Crane, while the most notable character, is definitely not a hero.  He is a superstitious, brown-nosing teacher that competes for the hand of Katrina Van Tassel until he is chased by the Headless Horseman and leaves town.  With Crane gone, Katrina marries the rival for her affections, Brom Van Brunt.  The story implies that Van Brumt dressed as the Horseman to scare Crane away.  So, let's recap: the main character is superstitious (read: foolish) and is outwitted.  It turns out that the Headless Horseman is just a myth, and it was used by a clever man to remove a romantic rival.  Definitely not something that would translate well into a movie, which explains why there hadn't been a film adaptation of the tale since the 1920s.

All it took was Tim Burton and Johnny Depp to remake this story for modern times.  Sleepy Hollow features Depp in the role of Ichabod Crane, a New York City constable, dedicated to the new-fangled methods of scientific investigation (autopsies, finger-printing, etc).  Crane has annoyed his superiors with his know-it-all attitude for some time, so he is dispatched to the far-off town of Sleepy Hollow, which has had a rash of murders.  When he arrives, Crane is informed by the townsfolk that the killer's identity is known; it is the Headless Horseman, the spirit of a bloodthirsty Hessian mercenary, who lost his head in death.  Since the killer was known, Crane declared "Case closed!" and returned to New York City.  No, not really.  Crane, obviously, doesn't believe that a headless creature from beyond the grave is murdering the townsfolk and investigates.  Eventually, he finds out that there IS a headless creature from beyond the grave murdering the townsfolk.  That wasn't a spoiler.  Along the way, Crane develops a fairly innocent romance with Katrina Van Tassel (Christina Ricci), daughter to the most powerful man in town.  He also uncovers a conspiracy that ties the victims together and begins to explain why the Horseman is terrorizing the town and how he chooses his victims.

Depp makes some interesting acting choices in this role.  He plays Crane as decidedly effeminate; aside from some little half-yelps he gives from time to time, he is prone to hiding behind women and children when he is frightened.  That's a pretty ballsy choice for a Hollywood lead.  While this isn't one of Depp's typical weirdo roles, he comes off as intelligent and it's fun to see him squirm when he sees blood.  It's not his deepest role, but he is quirky and shows development as the film progresses (plus, Depp is awesome).  As Katrina, Christina Ricci attempts to make her character seem like an innocent babe.  In the attempt, Ricci goes past "innocent" and lands somewhere in the range of "infantile" or "simple-minded."  This wouldn't be bad, but she shows almost no emotional range --- her voice doesn't change whether she is happy or upset with Ichabod.  Ricci's uncharacteristic performance doesn't hurt the overall film, but it is kind of annoying.  She went from rags to riches and she doesn't have even a little bitterness or sarcasm? 

The other actors turn in solid supporting performances.  Casper Van Dien plays Brom, and (like in the story) he poses as the Horseman to scare Ichabod.  Van Dien is not a very talented actor, but he lends some credibility to the only real action scene in the film, so I guess that was decent casting.  Christopher Lee and Martin Landau make brief cameos (Landau was uncredited in his role) that don't add much, but cameos are really only there for the fans and are effective in that regard.  Jeffrey Jones, Richard Giffiths, Michael Gambon, and Michael Gough all do decently with their supporting roles as town elders and co-conspirators.  As for the supporting ladies, Lisa Marie does what you might expect from her, providing little (or, in this case, no) dialogue and ample cleavage.  Miranda Richardson has a good time cackling toward the end and does a pretty good job of portraying crazy.  The best supporting role, though, belongs to Christopher Walken as the Headless Horseman.  It's not that he does much, but Walken is one of the best actors for a bit role you can imagine.  With Tim Burton's direction, the Horseman comes off as genuinely creepy, evil and malevolent.

The draw to this movie is not the story (There's a Headless Horseman?  What a twist!) or the acting, but Burton's vision.  While this is not the most imaginative of his movies, it still has his unmistakable feel.  As a director, Tim Burton focuses less on the actor's performances and more on the overall feel of the movie.  This movie won an Oscar for Art Direction and was nominated for costumes and cinematography, and after watching this again, I have to say that I'm not surprised.  The costumes are good (read: colonial-looking), the town is better (authentically colonial, despite being built for the film), and the camera work is the best you will find in a horror movie since The Shining.  While there is a fair amount of blood (brilliantly crimson blood, at that), the movie isn't very gory for a film that features several beheadings.

This adaptation of the classic tale does deviate greatly from the original story, but I think these changes were chosen well.  The major element that everyone remembers from the original story (the Horseman) was just a guy in a costume; here, he becomes bigger than life --- or death.  Making Crane a detective instead of a teacher helps make him a more formidable opponent.  Introducing a conspiracy to the plot adds a mystery that, while not necessary, helps draw the story out long enough to be satisfying.  While I don't imagine Washington Irving's rabid fanbase made a big furor over these changes, they were key to allowing this to go beyond the confines of the short story and expand as a feature film.  Kudos to Burton for seeing the horror in this quaint tale of Americana.

Robin Hood (2010)

You might not remember this, but when Russell Crowe originally signed on to this project, it was to play the Sheriff of Nottingham.  As a hero.  Whatever.  Later, he was going to play both the Sheriff and Robin Hood; I don't know if he was going to do an Eddie Murphy makeup job to pull it off, or if it was a plot twist that had one character assuming the role of the other, or if he was going to be costumed like Tommy Lee Jones in Batman Forever or what.  Eventually, the project mutated further, which brought it back to the more recognizable form we see in this film.

I mention the history behind the project because it helps make sense of some of the choices this movie makes.  A lot of the iconic scenes from past Robin Hoods are absent here and a few characters that have been historically important roles are pushed aside here.  That doesn't make this a bad movie, mind you.  It's just different.  If you think of this as "Robin Hood Begins," then you'll be able to approach the movie with a fresh mind-set and appreciate it for what it is: a Ridley Scott-directed, Russell Crowe-starring action movie.  And there's nothing wrong with that.

Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) is coming back from the Crusades in the army of King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston) of England, when the army pauses on their journey home to pillage a French castle.  Bad idea; the Lionheart dies.  Robin and his buddies decide to rush to the coast while they can, because they know the rush to England will make boat rides pretty scarce.  They weren't the only ones with this idea; Robin Locksley of Nottingham was leading a party of knights to the king's ship to escort his royal crown back to England and give it to the royal family.  Again, bad idea; the knights are ambushed by French soldiers, led by Godfrey (Mark Strong), the right-hand man of Prince John.  Godfrey is working as a double agent, pretending to be loyal to England, but is really working for France's King Phillip in exchange for power and riches.  Robin and his men ambush the ambushers, killing most but Godfrey escapes with a nasty Joker-esque scar from Robin's arrow.  Robin promises the dying Locksley to return his family sword to Nottingham and the crown to the royal family.  Oddly enough, he does both.

That synopsis doesn't even get into the meat of the story, does it?  This is a pretty complicated plot for a character that is supposed to rob from the rich and give to the poor.  I could go on, but it gets a little silly.  I suppose that should be rephrased as, "I can go on, and it gets a little silly out of context:"

• Robin assumes the identity of Robin Locksley, then abandons it, only to assume it once more upon the request of Locksley's father (Max von Sydow).  
• The sheriff of Nottingham is bullied by Godfrey's men and contributes absolutely nothing to the plot or character development of the movie.  
• Robin is only referred to as "Robin Hood" twice in the entire movie.
• Are those the Lost Boys from Peter Pan in Sherwood Forest?
• Robin fights for King John.  
• Robin is married to Marion before they even kiss.  
• There is an implied orgy.
• He steals from the rich church and gives to the poor plants crops in the night.

Surprisingly, this all works pretty well.  Godfrey and his French soldiers have been attacking the towns and property of the British nobles, in the name of King John.  Logically, the nobles prepare to team up and attack King John; this is Godfrey's plan to weaken England's army so France can invade.  Robin steps in and essentially suggests the Magna Carta by declaring that every man should have liberty by law.  This is enough to get England to band together and they attack France's invading forces in a suitably epic battle.  To put it simply, a lot happens in this movie.

Ridley Scott can direct an action movie in his sleep, which might be why parts of this film are a tad reminiscent of the battle scenes from his previous movies.  Still, Scott and screenwriter Brian Helgeland (who is completely hit and miss --- The Postman AND LA Confidential?  Really?!?  A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master AND Man on Fire?!?) clearly wanted this to be a unique middle ages experience.  This is definitely the most authentic-looking Robin Hood movie to date, with what appears to be genuine military strategy from those times.  The weapons look good and they are used correctly; this is important if you're one of those people who doesn't think action heroes should be able to carry anti-aircraft guns and run at the same time.  The clothing also is very authentic.  The details throughout the film add to the appeal because they aren't necessarily obvious, but every so often I found myself thinking "Oh, look, Robin's bow fingers look different than the rest of his hand," or something like that.  Not terribly important stuff always, but nice to see.

Russell Crowe generally acts in movies where he is the only developed character, and that is basically true here.  This isn't an Oscar-worthy role for him, but he does everything you want Crowe to do in an action movie: he is tough, honorable, a little sensitive, and looks a little uncomfortable making jokes.  Oh, and he's a bad-ass.  Can't forget that.  The next most developed character is Marion, played by Cate Blanchett; Blanchett, like Crowe, turns in a pretty standard performance here.  She's still a go-to actress to play smart characters and she plays the role appropriately.  Mark Strong is dastardly as Godfrey, but he doesn't do much except be eeee-veeeel.  There is no denying that he does bad well.  There is also no denying that he looks like an evil Andy Garcia.  The rest of the characters are much less developed.  I actually liked Kevin Durand as Little John; he provides a lot of the smiles in the movie and he looks huge here, as opposed to most Little Johns, who have tended toward "big boned" as well as strong.  Scott Grimes (Will Scarlet), Alan Doyle (Allan A'Dayle), and Mark Addy (Friar Tuck) are okay as the rest of Robin's Merry Men, but they are in the background for most of the movie.  Similarly, William Hurt and Danny Huston are left criminally underused in this story.  Matthew Macfayden played the Sheriff of Nottingham, but his three scenes just leave you scratching your head, because he is ineffectual, at best.  To be fair to Macfayden, though, the character has nothing to do in this film.  On the other hand, Oscar Isaac is suitably weasely as King John, playing rude, ruthless, and wussy simultaneously.  Eileen Atkins (as King John's mom) and Lea Seydoux (King John's wife) are fittingly regal and actually succeed with the little material they are given.  Overall, I would say the acting is surprisingly good for the number of characters in the movie, but most of the performances are superficial.

That said, there were some things in this movie that bugged me.  First of all, I have a problem with movie titles that imply that their story is the definitive telling of a particular tale (see Ed Gein or Pearl Harbor for examples).  By calling this movie "Robin Hood," viewers have every reasonable expectation to see the iconic scenes from the legend and previous film adaptations, like the scene where Robin and Little John meet over a river (which is kind-of-not-really replaced with a game of medieval three card monte).  I have no problem with that scene (or any others) being omitted here; I just think that, since this is clearly a re-imagining of the story, the title should have been changed to Robin Hood Begins, The Untold Truth of Robin Hood, or even Robin Longstride or Robin of the Hood.  Any of these would have clearly pointed out that this story could differ from the more familiar ones.

Another problem I have is the historical inaccuracies.  Most Robin Hood stories end when King Richard returns to England to reclaim his throne; here he dies before Robin becomes a Hood.  Robin (and his father before him) propose a charter of rights (clearly alluding to the Magna Carta, which King John will eventually sign), but the dates of the movie set this up over a decade early.  King John never went into battle.  Oh, and one more minor point... the French never invaded England.  HA!  It's like making a Revolutionary War movie and having America fight the Spanish, or a Civil War film that uses the secession of states as the reason why Canada isn't part of this country.  Oh, our culture is ignorant.  Of course, little things like the perversion of history are not going to bother anyone. 

Inaccuracies aside, I enjoyed this movie.  It's got a lot of plot for a pretty simple story, but it still makes sense.  The action is good and the acting is pretty solid throughout.  I'm a little surprised that Robin doesn't do his normal Socialist thing of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor.  His whole take on individual freedoms seems an awful lot like Libertarianism to me, which is an interesting direction to take such an iconic character.  I wish there was more humor in the movie, but the tone is at least consistent throughout.  If the focus had been on character development instead of a plot that incorporated so many known-but-underused characters here, I think the film would have been much more enjoyable.  Really, do we need to have Friar Tuck, Allan A'Dayle, William Marshall, or even the Sheriff of Nottingham in this story?  No.  With so many changes from the traditional tale, this movie could have easily gotten away with omitting a lot of the supporting cast.  Of course, some of these criticisms only occurred to me after thinking about the movie for a bit.  I have no problem saying that (aside from the history lesson) I had no problems when the movie was playing.