The Guard (2011)

The Guard Review
Review # 152

4/5 stars

Director – John Michael McDonagh

Cast – Brendan Gleeson, Don Cheadle, Mark Strong, Liam Cunningham, David Wilmot, Rory Keenan, Laurence Kinlan

——————–

The Guard first came to my attention because the director, John Michael McDonagh, is the brother of the director of one of my favourite movies, In Bruges. That movie also starred Brendan Gleeson. My expectations were up, and I hoped for something akin to the dark humour and bleak tone of the former. While it definitely retains a dark sense of humour, the tone doesn’t seem as consistent, or as defined.

Of course, it is a bad habit (of which I am constantly guilty) to judge a movie merely because another one did something better. And while this isn’t as sharp as In Bruges (by a long shot), it is still a good movie. To be good rather than “Great” isn’t a horrible thing.

Plot wise, we follow Brendan Gleeson’s gleefully un-PC Irish cop (or “Garda”). He has been partnered with an American FBI agent (Don Cheadle), who is in Ireland to hunt down a gang of drug traffickers. In accordance with cop movie tradition they are two very different people. Gleeson is “unconventional”, while Cheadle goes by the book. Gleeson doesn’t mind making snide little jokes to Cheadle about his skin colour, and Cheadle has to try to learn to take them as a joke, as they are meant. Their relationship isn’t as “buddy cop” as a Riggs and Murtaugh, but the elements are there.

Brendan Gleeson is the standout in the film, of course, as he usually is. With his dry wit, cheeky jokes, and general orneriness, he creates an enormously fun character. It is a joy to watch Don Cheadle’s FBI agent do his best to keep up. He doesn’t succeed of course, but that’s the point of his character. He just sits by, rolls his eyes, and tries to catch Gleeson when he decides to come back to Earth once in a while.

The trio of drug traffickers are played play Mark Strong, David Wilmot, and Liam Cunningham. Again, poor Mark Strong, doing the villain thing. You can’t deny, he’s good at it. Here we get the impression he doesn’t like the job he finds himself doing. He’s disgusted by bent cops, and wishes for a special relationship. We don’t find him sympathetic, though, he sneers his lines out in a delicious way. He really is one of the best villain actors I can think of.

All in all, the best I can do is reiterate that importance of Gleeson’s character to the movie. As the main character of course he carries a lot of the weight anyway, but the uniqueness of the character he creates can not be under estimated. He is the heart of the movie, and the success of the ambiguous way in which the movie ends can be attributed mainly to him. A strong actor with a strong script is a wonderful thing to see.

OVERALL

The Guard is a dark, witty, and unique movie, whose success is due mainly to Brendan Gleeson’s wonderful turn as Sergeant Gerry Boyle. This is not to underestimate the other actors, Cheadle in particular. For those who enjoy an ambiguous ending, dark humour, and smart writing, this movie is for you.

——————–

TRAILER

“The Guard” on other trailers:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

——————–

John Carter (2012)

John Carter Review
Review # 146

2/5 stars

Director – Andrew Stanton

Cast – Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins, Willem Dafoe, Samantha Morton, Mark Strong, Cirian Hinds, Thomas Haden Church, Dominic West, James Purefoy

——————–

After Brad Bird’s excellent Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, the bar was set for Andrew Stanton. Another prominent Pixar director who was making the switch to live action, Stanton had found success with his Finding Nemo and Wall-E, two little films you just may have heard of. His entry to the live action realm is John Carter, an adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ classic sci-fi book A Princess of Mars. Featuring a Civil War veteran mysteriously transported to Mars, the book is a widely loved and admired piece of work. It is a pity that the movie is set to be anything but. Critics have been lukewarm at best towards it, and it has been savaged by the industry for its alleged massive budget. I doesn’t look to be gaining much of it back, either. Even comparisons to Ishtar have been made. Ouch.

Maybe the whole situation was just made worse by Bird’s excellent film preceding this by mere months. It built up expectations that in the end just couldn’t pay off. While Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol was witty, fast, and delivered exactly what it promised, John Carter is dry, derivative, and dull. Very, very dull.

The key issue is the writing, frankly. It’s expositional, stiff, and all about plot. We can’t get good characterization if every line is “We must get over there!”, or “The good guys have the blue flag, the bad guys the red!”. Several different Mars factions are shown, from humanoids to 9-feet tall four armed aliens. None of their motivations are extremely clear. Mark Strong heads one group, so they must be the bad guys. Poor Mark Strong, you do something well and that’s all they’ll hire you to do…

It doesn’t help that Taylor Kitcsh is miscast as the titular character, and growls out every line as if imitating Christian Bale’s Batman voice. “I am JOHN CARTER!” The strange voices aren’t limited to him though; Lilly Collins has an affected British accent that comes and goes with every other line. James Purefoy and Dominic West come out unscathed, as do the special effects team. In fact the special effects are excellent. The production design and the effects are without a doubt the best thing in the movie. The 3D is pointless though. Even Stanton has said he didn’t really want it or like it.

OVERALL

John Carter is dull, muddled, and at least half an hour too long. Characterization is flat and uninteresting, and while it does have a couple laughs and half way interesting moments (the sequence near the beginning where John is repeatedly arrested is a sign of where the movie could have gone), the rest of the movie is dry as dust. Not recommended for any but sci-fi addicts.

——————–

TRAILER

 

“John Carter”on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

—————————————-

90 – Robin Hood (2010)

Robin Hood REVIEW

3/5 stars

Director – Ridley Scott

Cast – Russel Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Max Von Sydow, William Hurt, Mark Strong, Danny Huston, Oscar Isaac

——————–

Robin Hood is a traditional Hollywood figure, whose story is regularly adapted  into feature films, from Errol Flynn’s classic The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) to Kevin Costner’s The Prince of Thieves (1991). Most versions tend to keep to the same rough story, but Ridley Scott wanted to, as the buzzword goes, reboot the story, and take it a different route. When the movie was first announced, rumors said that the story would feature Russel Crowe as both Robin Hood and the antagonist, the Sheriff of Nottingham. Apparently this was changed, as the story now is about Robin Hood (or Robin Longstride as he’s known here) before he is outlawed. Essentially this movie is Robin Hood, Batman Begins style.

Now many people had a problem with this revisionist style. I personally did not, and I actually really liked it. In fact the beginning sequence, with Robin and the English army (led by Richard the Lionheart) attacking a French castle, was quite exhilarating in a messy, grimy sort of way. What got me about the movie was its draggy, dreary, and unfocused feeling. As the movie progresses many plot points of the movie are not presented clearly, and motivations for some characters are muddy. In other words, we see people doing things, then doing other things, without a clear explanation for why they changed their mind or even their allegiance.

The movie does start off well, very well in fact. Russel Crowe looks perfectly at home in a medieval time period, and the supporting cast is decent to very good. William Hurt has always been a capable actor, and Oscar Isaacs as an oily but still surprisingly sympathetic Prince John performs very well also. Cate Blanchett is tough and hardened as Marion, and Mark Strong is a perfect villain. The problem is that most of these characters aren’t utilized very well. This could be because of the size of the supporting cast and the attention each character receives. The characters are stretched too thin, as each fights for more screen time. This merely results in everyone receiving less screen time, and thus, less development.

The second half of the movie features Robin Hood presenting to King John a charter which would guarantee every Englishman rights and freedoms (an obvious nod to the Magna Carta, which the actual King John was forced to sign by his knights years later.) Personally I found this a bit ridiculous, especially as right after this Robin apparently coins the phrase “An Englishmen’s home is his castle.” Why didn’t they have him inventing tea and crumpets and whistling ‘Rule Britannia” while looking over the plans for London Bridge while they’re at it? It felt like Scott was pandering to his audience here, as he was with the final battle also. Rarely have I seen a more clichéd collection of stereotypical battle sequences.

What I truly don’t understand is how Ridley Scott, the director of such good (even great) and unique films as Alien, Blade Runner, Matchstick Men, even Gladiator, can turn out a purely mediocre, and in some ways formulaic, film like this. Has he lost his touch? Does he rely on Russel Crowe too much? This is their 5th movie together, after all…

OVERALL

Robin Hood is a capable enough medieval movie, and starts of well, but soon loses points with its lack of clarity and its dreariness. The cast performs admirably, but cannot fight the directors seeming tiredness. This could have been quite good, but unfortunately barely rises above an average action flick. Then again, it’s better than Prince of Thieves.

——————–

TRAILER

“Robin Hood” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

——————–