Archive for August, 2006

The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) Reviewed

Monday, August 21st, 2006

The Adventures of Robin Hood from 1938 is a film that owes its reputation, I believe, to faulty memories. This is a film I would like to like. But I can’t. It ought to be a great film. But it isn’t. Errol Flynn as Robin Hood and Basil Rathbone as Sir Guy of Gisbourne are both excellent in their roles, and the legend of Robin Hood is rich with possibilities for tales of adventure, romance, treachery, and heroism. Alas, this version is a drudgery to behold, nay, a torture. Claude Rains’ talent as a general anaesthetic permeates the film until the last scene. Flynn may be charming as the hero, but the combat scenes defy believability even for swashbuckling fare. (No, that type of fencing did not exist in 12th Century England, and they didn’t use swords of that sort.) I’m sure the garish Technicolor was dazzling in its day, but the film never gives one a sense of place other than that of a Hollywood set. The writing is unforgivably bland, the directing is uninspired, and the all-around inferior quality of the acting is a sad consequence of both. Somehow, though, Flynn’s panache shines through the dismal shambles in which he finds himself, and perhaps it is this alone that has contributed to this film’s undeserved status as a classic. At all other levels, one can’t help thinking it could have been done better — much better.

  • Writing: Terrible
  • Directing: Poor
  • Acting: Mediocre
  • Cinematography: Fair
  • Stunts: Fair
  • Swordplay: Fair
  • Panache: Great

Overall Rating: Mediocre
Swashbuckling Rank: Fair Good

Robin Hood (1922) Reviewed

Monday, August 21st, 2006

Robin Hood was one of the great swashbuckling epics of its time when it was made in 1922. Its production values are lavish, its scale is huge, and it’s long. In fact, it’s a bit too long. Fifty percent of the film is devoted to the story of Richard the Lion-Hearted (Wallace Beery), the nefarious Prince John (Sam De Grasse), and how the loyal Earl of Huntingdon (Douglas Fairbanks, Sr.) just wants to do what is right, but is misunderstood. The story, to put it with merciful brevity, meanders, stalls, and meanders again throughout the first half of the film. The audience is, however, treated with views of truly magnificent sets and impressive pageantry with a cast of hundreds if not thousands. After a seemingly interminable prologue dominated by pomp, evil posturing, and kingly presidings, the Earl of Huntingdon finally becomes Robin Hood, fighting for justice in England until King Richard can return from the Crusade and liberate his land from the usurper.

Let us ignore the historical facts concerning King Richard I, his brother John, the Crusades, and England under both rulers for the purpose of this review, for the legends of Robin Hood are themselves steeped in a mythical interpretation of the period.

The film certainly picks up pace during its second half when Robin Hood is “born.” Immediately, there is a spring to its step. I mean that literally. Robin Hood and his Merry Men spring into the scene and spring all throughout the rest of the film, until one thinks one is watching a stage production of Peter Pan. It’s a little too springy for my taste. The stunts are amazing as always whenever Fairbanks is around, and he carries himself as the usual happy-go-lucky god of derring-do, but he and his Merry Men just seem a little too merry. I am not exaggerating this! It sounds like an exaggeration, but there is entirely too much frolicking hither and thither to be taken seriously as a grand adventure. They are simply over-the-top full of merriment. If it were a musical, it would be more appropriate, but it’s a silent film. Don’t misunderstand me; it’s very entertaining, and it’s funny, and I think the humor of it is intentional, but I’m not quite sure.

The DVD includes a short subject by Will Rogers in which he good-naturedly pokes fun at the smash hit film, and his portrayal of the Merry Men rather confirms my description. It is truly hilarious.

Without intending any disrespect to Fairbanks’ work, it is one of his more amusing efforts, and although it is not perfect, its imperfections are admirable qualities in comparison to The Adventures of Robin Hood from 1938.

  • Writing: Fair
  • Directing: Good
  • Acting: Fair
  • Cinematography: Great
  • Stunts: Great
  • Swordplay: Mediocre
  • Panache: Good

Overall Rating: Good
Swashbuckling Rank: Good

The Legend of Zorro (2005) Reviewed

Monday, August 21st, 2006

The Legend of Zorro (2005) is another example of the sequel that ought never to have been made. I ought to enjoy writing a review that eviscerates a film so deserving of it, for bad reviews are invariably more enjoyable both to write and to read, but in this case, I am merely tired. I am tired of seeing capable actors lowering themselves to reciting lines as if they were bored prostitutes. I am tired of screenplays that are nothing more than toothpick sculptures built to support a few over-budgeted stunts and script-doctored catch phrases with a bit of family-safe sentimental tinsel draped over it. I am also tired of unconvincing and uninteresting villains, which is a flaw that was present in its predecessor, The Mask of Zorro (1998), but which is even more egregious in this film. Without going into painful, fruitless detail, I will merely state that this is a disappointing and yawn-inducing film that seems better suited for the small screen with commercial interruptions, extended snack breaks, and serving as background noise as one makes unnecessary telephone calls or works on a crossword puzzle. If my attention had been more profitably engaged in such activities, I might not have detested this film quite as much.

  • Writing: Terrible
  • Directing: Mediocre
  • Acting: Mediocre
  • Cinematography: Fair
  • Stunts: Fair
  • Swordplay: Mediocre
  • Panache: Poor

Overall Rating: Mediocre
Swashbuckling Rank: Mediocre

The Mask of Zorro (1998) Reviewed

Saturday, August 5th, 2006

The Mask of Zorro from 1998 could almost have been titled, The Unofficially Adopted Son of Zorro. It doesn’t quite have the same ring, but that is essentially what it is. Anthony Hopkins plays Don Diego this time, carrying out what he believes will be his last adventure as Zorro, hero to the people. Without giving away too much of the plot, the film eventually jumps ahead in time, and we get to see the training of the Zorro who will replace him, Alejandro Murietta, played by Antonio Banderas.

Hopkins and Banderas are both quite good as the two Zorros. Their characters have greater weight than those in earlier Zorro films, and although stunt doubles undoubtedly performed the more difficult stunts, they convey a convincing air of capability and confidence. As with earlier incarnations, there is a sufficient amount of humor and plenty of exciting swordplay. The training of the younger Zorro, in particular, provides some of the most memorable dialogue and action of the entire film.

I referred to Banderas’ character as the “unofficially adopted son” of Zorro, since he becomes Don Diego’s pupil, but in this film Don Diego actually has a daughter, Elena, played by Catherine Zeta-Jones. Elena is a challenging love interest for Alejandro, as she believes she is the daughter of Don Rafael Montero, Zorro’s archenemy (played by Stuart Wilson). Zeta-Jones is an excellent choice for the role, and this time the leading lady knows how wield a sword, which is a pleasing change of pace.

The downside is that the villains are not as interesting as the heroes, and that’s a pity. There is no one with the intensity and aura of danger that Basil Rathbone possessed in The Mark of Zorro (1940). There isn’t even a villain with the comic relief factor. No, the villains are boring, and that is the major flaw of the film. As a consequence, its action-packed climax is rather tedious, clichéd, and fails to live up to the expectations raised by its beginning and middle. It is the weakness of the villains that makes this a lopsided film — a good film, but nonetheless lopsided.

  • Writing: Fair
  • Directing: Good
  • Acting: Good
  • Cinematography: Good
  • Stunts: Good
  • Swordplay: Great
  • Panache: Great

Overall Rating: Good
Swashbuckling Rank: Great

The Mark of Zorro (1940) Reviewed

Saturday, August 5th, 2006

The Mark of Zorro from 1940 probably has the best fencing scenes of any Zorro film before or since. With Tyrone Power as Don Diego Vega/Zorro, and Basil Rathbone as the film’s leading villain, Captain Esteban Pasquale, this should come as no surprise, as they constituted two-thirds of the trinity of Hollywood’s greatest swordsmen at the time (Errol Flynn being the third). The climactic scene of the film is a breathtaking display of swordsmanship and drama as the two enemies duel, and it stands as one of the greatest single scenes in the history of swashbuckling films. In the tradition of its greatest forebearers, stunt doubles were neither used nor required in the fencing scenes.

In some ways, the film is standard Hollywood fare, although not offensively so. It manages to be inventive and spirited, despite a reliance on certain predictable conventions. Eugene Pallette, playing Fray Felipe, unfortunately reprises his role as Friar Tuck from 1938′s The Adventures of Robin Hood, which is perhaps the worst of the film’s imperfections. J. Edward Bromberg’s portrayal of the corrupt Don Luis Quintero, the despotic Alcalde, is a bit on the clownish side, but manages to be adequate.

The romantic scenes are a great improvement over the film’s silent predecessor, with Linda Darnell giving a fine performance as Lolita Quintero; the stunts are impressive without being over-the-top; and the banter is witty, but not distractingly so. All in all, it is an excellent bit of escapism, and the fencing is unforgettable.

  • Writing: Fair
  • Directing: Good
  • Acting: Fair Good
  • Cinematography: Fair
  • Stunts: Good
  • Swordplay: Superb
  • Panache: Great

Overall Rating: Good
Swashbuckling Rank: Great

The Mark of Zorro (1920) Reviewed

Saturday, August 5th, 2006

The Mark of Zorro from 1920 is one of the great film classics of the swashbuckling genre, starring that immortal master of derring-do on the silver screen, Douglas Fairbanks, Sr. The caballero Don Diego Vega, newly returned to California from Spain, is forced to disguise both his competence and his opposition to the oppressive rule of the new Alcalde in order to avoid offending his father who will not tolerate criminal behavior, and also to protect his family from retribution. As this deceptive Don Diego, Fairbanks humorously plays the snobbish, lazy fop who is bored by everything around him and finds all activities to be tiresome except when it comes to displaying his skill at sleight-of-hand. As his alter ego Zorro, however, he presents us with the iconic figure of the heroic vigilante who inspires terror in his enemies and hope in the hearts of the downtrodden. He can be menacing, as when he emerges from the shadows in the midst of his enemies, wreathed in the smoke of his cigar like a devil from Hell. He can be charming, as when he wins the heart of the beautiful Lolita Pulido (played by Marguerite De La Motte). And he can be astonishing, as when he leaps from rooftop to rooftop and over obstacles as if he could ignore gravity at will. Fairbanks, as his fans know, did all of his own stunts, and he made them all seem simultaneously easy (to him) and impossible (for everyone else). Truly, his feats of agility are jawdropping, and if the film had no other merits whatsoever, his combination of panache and superhuman stuntwork alone would make it immortal.

  • Writing: Mediocre Fair
  • Directing: Good
  • Acting: Fair
  • Cinematography: Good
  • Stunts: Superb
  • Swordplay: Good
  • Panache: Superb

Overall Rating: Good
Swashbuckling Rank: Great (Legendary)

Lady in the Water (2006) Reviewed

Friday, August 4th, 2006

Lady in the Water (2006), written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan, is foremost a fairy tale. Specifically, it is a fairy tale about a fairy tale that turns out to be true, and it would be a mistake to approach this film in any other way. In fact, the film makes a pretty clear statement of how it is not to be approached, albeit in a somewhat overly heavy-handed way (embodied literally by a film critic). The film should not be approached as an adult who is brainwashed into believing that he or she can only perceive things as an adult. The film should not be approached as a scientist regarding a specimen nor as a literary critic manipulating a text. Instead, it should be approached as a child listening to a bedtime story, and anyone who is unwilling to relive this state of mind will probably be frustrated.

The film lives best in the moment. Pedantic analysis will neither elucidate nor entertain, but looking through the eyes of the characters, which can be done without effort, will bear abundant food for thought even as it serves many delicious moments of superlative acting and skillful directing.

It is not without its flaws (is anything?), but this movie thrilled me from one end of the emotional spectrum to the other. Paul Giamatti already won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor in 2005, but if the Academy withholds the Award for Best Actor in 2006 from him, then it will be one more crime against good judgment in its very long list of oversights and bad calls. Perhaps it’s premature to predict that Giamatti will have turned in the best performance for an actor this early in the year, but I doubt it. Giamatti is one of the great ones.

  • Writing: Good
  • Directing: Great
  • Acting: Superb
  • Cinematography: Good
  • Special Effects: Great

Overall Rating: Great