Robin Hood (No men in tights)

A weekend after be disappointed by a blockbuster billing, I found myself again purchasing a ticket for an opening weekend film. This time it was for a tag team that had produced the great Gladiator as Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott paired up for a new version of the classic legend of Robin Hood. As a big Gladiator fan and an enjoyer of historical pieces, I was optimistic about washing the previous weekend’s bad taste from my mouth.

Robin Hood throws you right into the action as English crusaders are attempting to seize and plunder a French castle. The opening battle sets the tone for the superb action throughout the film ( with one exception that I will address later). While the Gladiator gore is absent in this PG-13 film, the fighting sequences seem realistic and are very engaging.

The plot in this one differs greatly from that of the story that most of us grew up with. The film attempts to tell the back-story behind the one who robbed the rich to feed the poor (Side note: I asked on of my old history professors about the historical accuracy of the film and he informed me that it is riddled with inaccuracies). Other than the title character one of the first that we meet is King Richard the Lionheart. His portrayal as a somewhat drunken unsure ruler is different from that of popular lore (and dare I say history). He jumpstarts Robin’s opposition to the crown when Longstride tells him of his own personal opinions on the morality of the crusades. In a time when negative feelings towards Islamic Holy Wars are prevalent, this depiction of Richard and his role in the plot exposition undoubtedly are meant to remind people of the atrocity of the crusades and act as a critique of Christianity through comparison.

Robin Longstride (Crowe) is portrayed as a peasant crusader fighting for political ideals. His character is endearing and his aged appearance gives a maturity to his conquest. He teams up with a couple of fellow peasants including the classic character of Little John (Kevin Durand). After a bit of good fate befalls them, Robin finds himself on a journey to pursue his word and honor. Meanwhile, Prince John attempts to rule the country with and iron fist and an ill-advised friendship. The two plots come colliding together in a traditional epic battle scene (for the sake of refraining from spoiling the movie, I have extremely simplified the plot, but know that it is well produced and carefully mixes history with legend to move the story forward).

Crowe is great as title character (he also produced the film) but I was pleasantly surprised by his love interest, Marian Loxley (Cate Blanchtette). With the exception of her battlefield entrance (aforementioned only problem with battle scenes) she is very good. Her portrayal of Marian gives more depth to her character than most of the others have. Other than the main two, the only notable performance is ______ as Prince John, who effectively makes you despise the womanizing dolt of a monarch (dolt is my history prof’s word, not mine).

Other than the exposition and Marian’s battle segment, I really enjoyed this movie. Its inviting adventure to ensure freedom from taxation warms this red-blooded conservative’s heart. No doubt my naïveté towards the historical imprecision biased my enjoyment of the pseudo-historical story, but as they say, ignorance is bliss. The great action drives the film as swordsmen and archers skillfully and admirably wield their weapons. The story creatively constructs a believable prequel of sorts for the well-known legend. Don’t be surprised if Scott and Crowe tag team again for a would-be highly anticipated sequel/ I for one would be there again opening week with faith that this creative duo could sidestep the all-too-common sequel disappointment.


4 out of 5 Stars

Thanks for checking out our blog. Feel free to send us comments and suggestions at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com Also don't forget to join the Twitter. As always tell your friends about us!!!!

-Nuss

Iron Man 2: It’s a Better Sequel than Teen Wolf Too

I recently had the pleasure of FINALLY seeing Iron Man 2 (The sequel to Iron Man). I invested over $40 dollars on this movie (Yikes). I had initially planned on seeing it last Friday the day It came out (I even went and bought tickets early because I am such a baller). I spent $15 on two tickets (I was taking someone to see it? OMG, I know right?!) However, due to getting packed up to move home from college (I have more shit than a Desperate Housewife, no lie), I did not have time to get away from packing up 4 years of accumulated coupon books, free t-shirts and koozies, and other things to see the film. So boom, I'm out that money. Not a huge deal as it is just money and I am absolutely loaded (I have moved home to live with my parents for the foreseeable future). However, I was still determined to see what very well could be this summer's biggest blockbuster hit. Therefore, I turned around and bought two tickets to see it in IMAX. Nevertheless, after investing enough money into what seemed like would have gotten a start-up business off the ground, I was excited to the sequel to Iron Man (Iron Man 2). I had the pleasure of reading Nuss's review of the movie before I saw it. Check it out here if you haven't read it yet. His review had me skeptical about what was to come in this film.

    After seeing this movie, I can say I disagree with James (with all due respect my good man). Iron Man 2 (Sequel to Iron Man) is an exciting film. Here are a couple of reactions I had during and after this movie:

1. Mickey Rourek did a fantastic job in his role. My one gripe about his character (And many Hollywood characters) was his lack of taste buds. Now, personally, I have never chugged Russain Vodka from a bottle. However, if it tastes anything like normal vodka, it does not go down that smooth (so I hear). It annoys me when a character like his downs vodka (straight) like it's a bottle of water. It probably really was water, but that is beside the point. I want to see some acting. Coming from someone who just spent four years in college (observing, of course), no hard liquor goes down that smooth. It should look more like this.
   

   
    

2. Scarlett JoHOTT was a great addition to this movie. Wow, just, wow, I can't even, wow I'm a fan. The scene where she singlehandedly takes out 10 or so guards, wow, just, yeah, wow. Cherish her Ryan Reynolds… Cherish her.
   

   
    

3. Robert Downey Jr. was his usual smart ass Tony Stark (he plays it well), but Sam Rockwell straight up stole the show. I will be buying this movie when it comes out and one of the main reasons is I just want to watch his character again because he played it so well. He can also bust a move (reminds me of myself).
   

   
    

4. Wow, Scarlett Johansson, just wow.
   

   
    

5. I felt like I was taken back to Science class for about a half-hour. I hate science class….
   

   
    

Although I have decided I like Iron Man better than Iron Man 2 (the sequel to Iron Man) because it was the original, it wasn't hyped up, and it was very underrated. IM2 still had a good balance (for the most part) of action mixed with plot and humor. As mentioned before the cast was great. I thought I was going to hate Don Cheadle replacing Terrance Howard because I am a firm believer if you do a sequel, you do it right and get everyone on board again (Unlike Teen Wolf Too. Why'd they have to mess that series up?). However, I was wrong and I more than approved having him in the movie.

My favorite scene was the fictional race, "Grand Prix de Monaco Historique" (Yes, I had to look that up). This is where Tony Stark first gets introduced to Ivan (Rourek). The special effects and the overall atmosphere of the scene had me feeling like I was in the movie (good of had to do with seeing it in Imax). This scene had me wanting to take a visit for the real race someday. However, from the looks of it, you have to be a CEO or a gold digger to go. I'm still crossing my fingers for my sugar momma.

And how cool is it seeing Jon Favreau in the movie he directed? Some people might say it is him having an ego trip. However, I say he can do whatever he wants after making these movies…

In closing, I was a fan of this movie. Robert Downey Jr. was good as always, Sam Rockwell stole the show, and Scarlett Johansson (Have I mentioned, wow?) was a solid addition. The fight scenes were good, yet the plot was there. I am excited to see what Marvel has in store next.

Overall: 4/5 Claws

Hope you (sorta) enjoyed the review. Next up, will be a review of a classic comedy, My Blue Heaven. Follow us on Twitter @CLAWtomicBAUM. I have boycotted posting movie quotes until we get more followers. Let me know any thoughts you might have on this movie or anything you might want reviewed. E-mail us at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com for questions, comments, suggestions, or our phone numbers.

Ta-Ta for now,

#0 The Claw

 

My First Movie!!!!

So the blog up until this point has been me telling you guys a little bit about myself and what I think about movies. But this post will showcase the first ever movie that I helped create (I think the producer credit was slightly lofty, but I'll take it.) This is a movie that was thought up my one of my roomies (shout out to Zeke) for a competition to try to be on the Discovery Channel show Man vs. Wild. The video is a parody of the show, so you may not appreciate it if you have never watched the show. Regardless, rather than reading me rant for the next ten minutes about character development or poor plot progression, just sit back and enjoy the show.






What'd you think? E-mail us at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com and tell us. Big shoutout to Erin Smithey who shot the footage and put the whole thing together. Check out her new show on Discovery Health called My Strange Addiction. I promise, next time I'll get back to reviewing movies.

-Nuss

Lawmen-for-Hire: A Review of Appaloosa

My trip through the Wild West recently brought me to the dusty little town of Appaloosa. This 2008 film not only stars Ed Harris, but is also written and produced by him. Being a sucker for westerns, I actually saw this movie when it was released in theaters, but (and I say this at the risk of giving away my opinion of the movie) this movie is also one that has been added to my personal collection.

In many ways, this movie opposes The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. It is a straightforward plot that leaves cliché and political commentary behind. Harris plays the cool-headed marshal whose major downfall is letting his love interest (Renée Zellweger) cloud his other wise spot-on judgment. But Vigo Mortensen, playing the part of Everett Hitch, steals the show and make my list of all-time best sidekicks. His loyalty to his partner is unusual in its degree as he carefully navigates Cole’s new relationship and the problems it brings for the lawmen-for-hire duo. One of the best quotes in the movie exemplifies the unbreakable bond between the two. Allie (Zellweger’s character) accuses Everett of coming on to her. Everett coolly replies “No, Virgil. I did not.” As Allie begins her protest, Virgil interrupts without hesitation and scolds her saying “No Allie. Everett didn’t do that”

Jeremy Irons gives a very good performance as the villain that goes from rancher outlaw to wealthy lobbyist (I sensed some commentary on current politics) And his looming showdown is a great piece of the falling action.

If you are wanting a shoot ‘em up cowboy flick, you won’t find it here. This film represents the West as it was; a non-glamorous world where justice had to be served.

4 out of 5 Stars


Be sure to tell your friends about us!!!


-Nuss

Back to Back good Comic Sequels?: A Review of Iron Man 2

Now that the dust has settled from the most anticipated opening weekend in quite sometime, I will let you know what I thought of the Marvel sequel, Iron Man 2. I was pumped to get tickets to see it at midnight Thursday night (you the man Woody). The last comic book sequel I saw was The Dark Knight so this one had a lot to live up to…

This one fell short, way short. The story picks up right where it left off after Tony Stark has just announced that he is Iron Man. We are introduced to the main villain, Ivan Vanko (played by Mickey Rourke), right away and his connection to Stark seems promising. You have heard me on my soapbox before about how movies must have a good story and not just great effects. One of the most frustrating things about this one was that it started off with so much potential that was later unreached.

The plot’s central conflict centers around the relationship between the fathers of Vanko and Stark. The two were both friends who worked together to create technology that helped change the world… then Stark had Vanko deported. That’s all we know. There are no flashbacks of the two working together, nothing of toddlers Tony and Ivan growing up as friends, nothing about how the father’s argued over the use of their innovations, nothing. All we know is he was sent back to Russia, and for that, Ivan wants to kill Tony (I can’t say I’ve lived in post-Cold War Russia, but this seems like one heck of a grudge).

Tony’s character has gone off the deep end. Part of what makes the first movie great is the way he balances the line between a cocky genius and an arrogant narcissist. This one leaves the balancing behind. His persona is over-the-top and much of what he does (getting hammered in the suit) doesn’t seem to fit with the rest of what we know about his character. Another deviation from the film’s predecessor is the lack of discussion of the technology that we see at work. When lithium dioxide instantaneously cures Tony’s blood toxicity levels (did anyone else notice it went from 19% to 87% in like half an hour and he didn’t seem to concerned?) or when he constructs a particle collider balanced by a Captain America shield (great Avengers promo) that creates a completely new element, the audience is just supposed to accept what they’ve seen without any explanation. And while we are one the subject, his dad’s life work was hidden in a model city that he knew his son would be able to render digitally on a wall and then virtually dismantle until he discovered a new element that could be created in a matter of hours? I don’t buy it.

While I am being pretty harsh, their were some good parts. Mickey Rourke is great. I’m not sure if he actually got into Vanko’s character or if he played his own crazy self with a Russian accent. Regardless it worked and he is a great comic villain. Scarlett Johansen was forgettable, but replacing Terrence Howard with Don Cheadle was a great move. I am usually not a fan of changing characters in the middle of a franchise, especially comic films (neither is Joey see here). But Cheadle is great (although some of his character’s part in the overall plot don’t make a whole lot of sense either). Don’t even get me started on the crazy magic that transformed Pepper Potts went from a supportive personal assistant to a demanding CEO right before our very eyes.

This film fell into the trap that many sequels do of leeching off of the hype generated by its predecessor. The plot struggled and the character development didn’t seem to sync, but the most troubling part was that it had so much potential! It was an ok movie at best, and I had to be tough on it because I know everyone is going to blindly say that they liked it. Just be glad I didn’t go all PoliSci major on you and rant about the atrocity that was the Congressional hearing in the film’s onset!


1.5 out of 5 Stars


Let me hear how wrong I am about this one (or if you secretly agree, but don’t want to tell your friends). E-mail us at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com. And for those of you who are western enthusiasts, don’t worry, the detour is over…for now.


-Nuss

The Bad, The Worst, and The Ugly

My next stop on my tour of classic movies may cause me to detour into another genre for a little while.

The movie was the Clint Eastwood classic The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. For as long as I can remember I have been a sucker for a good western. Maybe its because of the intrinsic nature of man to live a life un-tethered in a search to find their identity or maybe its just because I like the idea of wearing cowboy hats and shooting stuff. Whatever the reason is that they intrigue me, I am going to explore a few westerns over my next couple of reviews, so please shoot (pun intended) me a message if there is one you think that I MUST review.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is a classic spaghetti-western, so named because of its Italian director. Originally, much of the dialogue was shot in Italian, which explains why so much of the talking does not sync up with the moving mouths. The film is actually the third in a trilogy of movies, the first two being A Fistful of Dollars and A Few Dollars More. It also is widely considered one of the best westerns of all-time and Quentin Tarantino went so far as to call it the “best directed movie of all-time” regardless of genre. What better place to start my journey?

To be honest, I was underwhelmed. Once again, my main beef was with the plot. The movie is very long (three hours), but the plot is extremely simple and much of the movie could have been omitted. “The Good,” played by Clint Eastwood, was good in name alone. He was a double-crossing grave robbing bounty hunter, not exactly the typical protagonist of the genre. Eastwood is great as the cocksure quick-drawing outlaw and is full of to-the-point one liners (my favorite being “There are two kinds of people in the world, those with loaded guns and those with shovels”). “The Ugly” was a loutish bandito who actually teams up with Eastwood (after they leave each other for dead a couple of times) to find buried treasure. “The Bad,” played by Lee Van Cleef, was probably my favorite character. He’s a smooth murderer who has no problem with disposing of anyone and everyone. I think in all honesty, Eastwood’s character should have been deemed “The Bad” and maybe Van Cleef’s could have been “The Worst.”

The plot is held together by a great soundtrack and the quintessential sounds that we now associate with the genre as a whole. The director also clearly goes out of his way to criticize the Civil War as a waste of human life and goes to great lengths in an attempt to vilify the North. The climatic three-way shootout was original, but it could not make up for the tongue-in-cheek style that characterized the rest of the film.

All-in-all it was fun to watch Clint Eastwood, but this isn’t one to watch again and again. I know you are probably getting tired of me saying it, but stories drive movies, and this one wasn’t the best. I know I am probably upsetting the masses with this one, but it wasn’t my favorite.

3 stars out of 5


As always, we love to hear your comments on our blog. Send us an e-mail at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com or just give us a shoutout on facebook. Tell all your firends about us and make sure to check back soon for the next stop on my journey through the wild wild west.


-Nuss