Carol (7/10): Haynes delivers a subtle and stylistic period piece

¨I don't know what I want. How could I know what I want if I say yes to everything?¨

Todd Haynes´s critically acclaimed film adaptation of Patricia Highsmith´s novel (The Price of Salt) is without a doubt very stylish. It is a love story between two women who fall for each other at first sight, although it avoids all the common cliches in the romantic genre. Mostly because the script says very little and everything is told through nonverbal expressions such as glances and touches. It is very restrained and sets the mood very early on transporting the audience to the 50´s thanks to a carefully crafted production and costume design. What´s more impressive is that it does so effortlessly. Carol is a restrained film, but one that Haynes has absolute control over setting the mood from the very first scene. I wasn´t won over by this film as most everyone else seems to be, but I can understand the praise for Hayne´s direction. What I do want to point out is how influential the score of this film is; it truly is something special and it plays a huge role in setting the mood. It is one of the best scores I´ve heard in a film this year. 

The film centers on a store clerk named Therese Belivet (Rooney Mara)  who doesn´t seem to know what direction she wants to take in life. Her passion seems to be photography and that is what she enjoys doing. Her life changes unexpectedly when she encounters an older woman named Carol (Cate Blanchett) who stops by the store one evening to buy a Christmas gift for her child. The two exchange glances at each other and after a few minutes Carol shows up at the register and starts a conversation with her. Carol is currently going through a divorce from Harge (Kyle Chandler), and is in a custody battle for her child. Harge begins discrediting her morality after he discovers her interest in women and uses that to his advantage, but Carol is a determined mother.  Therese quickly bonds with Carol, but at the same time she realizes her love could affect her custody battle. 

Carol wasn´t nominated for Best Picture as many critics were expecting, but it has received six Oscar nominations. Ironically, Cate Blanchett was nominated in the best actress in a leading role category despite having less screen time than Rooney Mara who was nominated in the supporting category. It doesn´t make much sense, but it has increased Rooney´s chances for winning considering Brie Larson is almost a lock to win for her lead performance in The Room. The other nominations for Carol include Best Score, Best Cinematography, and Best Adapted Screenplay which are all deserving. The film stands out without a doubt for its stylistic direction from Haynes and wonderful performances from Blanchett and Rooney, but above all for its mesmerizing score. 

Cinderella (8/10): A refreshingly faithful adaptation by Kenneth Branagh that never loses its magic.

“I’ll have to tell you a secret that will see you through all the trials that life can offer: Have courage and be kind.”

 

Kenneth Branagh’s Cinderella isn’t much of a re-imagination of the classic Disney animated film as much as it is a straightforward live action retelling of the tale. In a time where we’ve seen several of Disney’s beloved classic stories being reimagined and told through a much darker light, Cinderella’s faithfulness to the familiar tale feels like a fresh of breath air. In papers it shouldn’t work, but surprisingly I found it way more engaging than Snow White and the Huntsman, Alice in Wonderland, and even Maleficent (which I actually ended up enjoying), all films which were told through new perspectives. Branagh is known for adapting well known literary works (specifically from Shakespeare) and once again he delivers through breathtaking and colorful visuals and surprisingly engaging characters. Sometimes it isn’t just about the story that is being told, but how you tell it, and Branagh is an excellent storyteller. He was able to take this very familiar tale and without introducing anything new to it, he still kept the audience magically engaged with the story. A lot of credit must be given to the fantastic cast and the astonishing visuals which turned this fairytale into a classical period piece. At times I felt like I was watching an adaptation of a Jane Austen novel with so much attention to the period details and wonderful costume designs. I’m sure this film will receive a couple of Oscar nominations in the production and costume design department because it is visually inspiring. I’ve only seen a dozen films released this year, but so far this is the best and I’m not ashamed to admit that I was emotionally engaged with the film. It is better than the beloved animated classic, which I wasn’t really a huge fan of.

Is it really necessary to check on the spoiler warning box for a straightforward adaptation of this classic tale? There aren’t any surprises in this screenplay adaptation from Charles Perrault’s fairy tale written by Chris Weitz (About a Boy). It basically follows a similar structure from Disney’s animated adaptation with perhaps a little more background on Cinderella’s parents (played by Ben Chaplin and Hayley Attwell). Cinderella is wonderfully and beautifully played by Lily James (who plays Lady Rose in Downtown Abbey) while her stepmother is brilliantly portrayed by Cate Blanchett. Her character may have seemed a bit cartoonish at times, but Blanchett sure knows how to wear fashion dresses. We do get some explanation as to why she behaves in such a cruel way so she does have some depth. The stepsisters however are completely cartoonish and deliver most of the laughs for young audiences. Drisella and Anastasia are played by Sophie McShera and Holliday Grainger. The heart of the story however centers around the fantastic chemistry between Lily James’s Cinderella and the Prince played by Richard Madden (Rob Stark from Game of Thrones). The pair actually share a scene together before the ball that is really engaging and helps sell the love story. In order for the film to work it needs to have a believable love story and it does. Helena Bonham Carter also has a wonderful short scene as the Fairy Godmother, and Derek Jacobi does a convincing job as the King. Nonso Anozie is the Captain of the Palace, while Stellan Skarsgard plays the Grand Duke. Despite our familiarity with the story, the entire cast delivers and that allows the story to flow in a magical way.

My only complaint is that the message of the film “have courage and be kind” was repeated throughout the entire movie. We constantly were beaten over the head with it, but since this is a film geared towards a younger audience I understood why they did it. In a time where a lot of emphasis has been placed on being brave it is refreshing to be reminded about the power of kindness. Cinderella is given a strong female role here and it requires a lot of strength to be kind in the midst of such difficult trials. We may not have needed to hear the message so many times because we could see it through her actions. James portrayed this character in such a beautiful way and she is an actress with a bright future ahead of her. Cinderella is a much stronger character here than in the animated film; she’s not simply waiting for a prince to come and rescue her. She is strong and determined and when we finally see her first encounter with the Prince, it is she who has a greater influence in him than he does in her. The ball room scene is also magical and despite knowing every beat of the film I couldn’t help but feel invested and thrilled by the magical spell this warm film left me with. Cinderella is living proof that remaining faithful to a classic story isn’t such a bad idea after all.  

   

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (6/10): Will you follow Peter Jackson one last time into Middle Earth?

“Will you follow me, one last time?”

Not only is Thorin asking his dwarves to follow him one last time into battle, but Peter Jackson is also asking us to join him one last time in experiencing his vision of Middle Earth. We all know The Hobbit was one short book (about 300 pages), but Jackson decided to adapt it into three full length movies so there is going to be a lot of characters and elements included that aren’t in the book. J.R.R Tolkien fans might be upset and most audiences agree that Jackson made a mistake in stretching the material because this trilogy hasn’t had the same emotional impact as the Lord of the Rings trilogy had. However, Jackson is still asking us to accompany him one last time into Middle Earth in order to tie everything together. He and the producers may have experienced their share of dragon fever by getting greedy and wanting to bank on the success of their first trilogy (it is kind of ironic when you take into account that the underlying message of the novels is that greed destroys the soul), but they are asking us to join them for one last time, and they deserve it. If you are a fan of the franchise this will be an emotional moment for you, but if you don’t care much for this world then you will find the film annoying. It does tie in the first two films of The Hobbit trilogy very well with The Lord of the Rings so it serves as a sort of closure for these epic films. At 144 minutes, this is the shortest film of the franchise and you sort of get the feeling that Jackson doesn’t know how to sum things up in less than 3 hours because this film feels rushed and overstuffed with characters and subplots. It also happens to be action packed with a battle scene lasting for almost an hour. It may be a bit too much, but there is no denying that Peter Jackson cares deeply for the material here and is devoted to it. Despite not being nearly as engaging as The Lord of the Ring trilogy, The Hobbit has its emotional moments with strong action sequences and some solid performances. Jackson is asking us to follow him for the last time, but it is up to us to decide if his passion and dedication is worth the journey. I joined him and was mildly entertained although I found several flaws. Despite not being as entertaining as The Desolation of Smaug, this is still an improvement over The Unexpected Journey.  

The Battle of the Five Armies picks up right where The Desolation of Smaug left us, giving me the feeling that I had paused the film and waited a whole year before hitting the play button once again. It took me a while to recall everything that had been going on, but with the opening action sequence I had to rush those memories in order to understand everything that was going on. The Hobbit is actually one film divided into three parts which makes it difficult to analyze apart from each other. There is a sense of cohesion among these films and we finally get the concluding chapter after an agonizing and extended fist part which felt completely stretched out and an entertaining second chapter where we were introduced to new and familiar characters and an impressive dragon voiced by the great Benedict Cumberbatch. This third chapter picks up with that very dragon destroying the nearby village where Bard (Luke Evans) and his children are. The film begins with an impressive action sequence and then the next hour is dedicated to build up what will be the ultimate battle scene with five different armies preparing for battle. This is where the movie begins to feel convoluted and overstuffed with subplots that feel too rushed. But at times the film does succeed when it centers on the relationship between Bilbo (Martin Freeman) and Thorin (Richard Armitage). We know that Jackson knows how to deliver spectacular visuals and action sequences, but what was missing from The Lord of the Rings trilogy was that character development we finally got to see here with these two characters. Unfortunately there are other elements included that don’t work too well (like the love triangle between Kili, Legolas, and Tauriel that feels misplaced). The build up and the action scenes might be a bit too much for audiences, and ultimately the film fails to stand out from other epics. It is an average film that has its ups and downs, but still manages to bring closure. Unfortunately this trilogy never lives up to the grandeur of The Lord of the Rings.

My Review: How to Train Your Dragon 2 (7/10)

"Something is coming. Something you've never faced before."

I was a huge fan of the first film written and directed by Dean DeBlois thanks to its memorable characters and beautiful visuals. How to Train Your Dragon continues to be my favorite DreamWorks animated film, so I was highly anticipating this sequel. Although I really enjoyed this film, I felt a bit disappointed because I felt it wasn't up to par with the first one. I enjoyed the visuals and the characters once again, but I felt there was just too much action and too little character development. The film is very fast paced and I didn't find myself as absorbed by the story and the characters as I felt the first time. There are plenty of funny moments and kids will be satisfied with all the action scenes, but adults may get tired of the action overload at times. This is still a good film and perhaps one of the best animated films of the year as it does manage to keep the audience emotionally engaged and it has several funny scenes. The best thing about How to Train Your Dragon 2 is without a doubt the beautiful visuals which once again amazed me. It was a fun ride, but I would rather watch the first film over the sequel.

The film takes place five years after the original as we follow our hero, Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) living peacefully amongst his people and dragons. He spends most of his time exploring new lands with his dragon, Toothless. His father, Stoick the Vast (Gerard Butler) continues to be the chieftain of Berk, but he plans on leaving Hiccup as his successor. Hiccup however, doesn't feel like he was meant to lead the people and would much rather prefer to continue exploring unknown lands. During one of his explorations, Hiccup and his friend Astrid (America Ferrera) run into some men who are trying to capture dragons. They both escape, but Hiccup decides to return and try to convince these men not to capture dragons but reasoning with them is pointless. A mysterious dragon rider named Valka (Cate Blanchett) shows up and takes Hiccup to a hidden island. He later discovers that Valka is his mother and that she has dedicated her life to saving dragons from Drago (Djimon Hounsou), a man dedicated to capturing and using them for his own personal gain. Together, and with the help of the rest of his friends from Berk they decide to stop Drago and his men before he starts another war and hurts more dragons. 

Sequels usually suffer from not being as fresh as the original, and that is what happened here as the interesting premise from the first film was missing. I was already familiar with this world of vikings and dragons and the new characters didn't really resonate with me. It didn't help that it felt so fast paced either, but there were some strong emotional moments that I wasn't expecting from an animated sequel like this. There is some heart to this story allowing it not to rely entirely on the beautiful visuals, but I guess my expectations were just a bit too high because I wasn't blown away by this sequel as most people were. I really wasn't too engaged with the action, but I did enjoy the comedy. 

My Review: The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (8/10)

"In 10 days I'm going to set out to find the shark that ate my friend and destroy it. Anyone who wants to tag along is more than welcome."

Wes Anderson is one of those few directors whose style and quirky sense of humor is so unique that you could tell what films he's directed only by catching a few seconds of any scene from his movies. The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou is perhaps his most divisive film, and I can understand why considering it is heavily stylized (the set pieces in this film are gorgeous), but it isn't really as funny as most of his other films. I stand in the middle with The Life Aquatic, I don't think it's his best film, but I still enjoyed it a little more than The Darjeeling Limited. My first Wes Anderson movie continues to be my favorite, The Royal Tenenbaums, which introduced me to the rest of his work. What this film has going for it is that Bill Murray plays the lead character and has much more screen time than in the other Anderson films. He is such a terrific actor that anything he does would catch my attention. In this film Murray nails his portrayal of a tired and warn out ocean adventure documentary film maker undergoing a life crisis. Murray carries the film since the rest of the cast isn't as well developed as other characters in Anderson movies. The Life Aquatic may not be as funny as other Anderson films, but it does have the familiar quirky tone and other trademarks of his that we have come to love. It's a lovely tribute to the great Jacques Cousteau and fans will appreciate this film very much.

Written by Wes Anderson and Noah Baumbach (from The Squid and The Whale fame) this original screenplay focuses on a middle aged ocean adventure documentary film maker named Steve Zissou (Bill Murray) who is preparing for what could be his final expedition along with his crew to hunt down a mysterious jaguar shark who recently ate his partner. Steve introduces the different members of his crew during a screening of his latest film. Among the many crew members there's his wife, Eleanor (Anjelica Huston) who usually finances his expeditions, his assistant Klaus (Willem Dafoe), and Pele (Seu Jorge) who basically contributes to the soundtrack of this film by singing portuguese covers of David Bowie songs. Before he sets out on his final expedition, a man named Ned (Owen Wilson) shows up claiming he might be his son so Steve decides to bring him on board the Belafonte (his ship) in order to bond with him. A beautiful journalist named Jane (Cate Blanchett) also accompanies them on their mission to find the deadly shark, but some armed pirates interfere with their plans.

One of the things I enjoy the most about Wes Anderson's films is that you never know what direction the plot is going to go. He creates some quirky, colorful, and unique characters and Murray's Steve Zissou is another memorable one. The rest of the cast doesn't add much to the film with the exception of Willem Dafoe who has several funny scenes and Jeff Goldblum whom I would have liked to see more of. The Life Aquatic is one of Anderson's most stylized films, I loved the set pieces and the tracking shots of the different interior compartments in the Belafonte. It also has some familiar themes we see in most of Anderson's films. The crew in this film plays like the broken families he usually explores, and once again one of the men is seeking the approval of a parent figure. I had a fun experience with this film that does get off track at times, but it comes back at you every time. Despite being weird, it is delightful, charming, and highly entertaining.

My Review: Blue Jasmine (7/10)

"Who do you have to sleep with around here to get a Stoli martini with a twist of lemon?"

Woody Allen has returned to the States for this film after experiencing some extended vacations over Europe (To Rome with Love, Midnight in Paris, You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, and Vicky Cristina Barcelona), and this time the story takes place mostly in San Francisco, although we do get several interesting flashbacks in New York (Allen's favorite filming location). I mention these locations because in most of his films these cities are actual characters and sometimes even main ones. There were two general criticisms I had read about Blue Jasmine before watching it, one was that this was Woody Allen's return to form and the second was that Cate Blanchett's performance was magnificent. I agree with the second statement because Blanchett delivers one of the best performances of the year and she is the main reason why this film actually worked for me. As for the second statement I have to differ because I thought Midnight in Paris was his best recent film and I enjoyed it much more than Blue Jasmine. I do have to say that Woody Allen's capacity for writing and directing these films in such a short period of time (he's directed one every year for the past decades) impresses me. He has a unique voice in all of his films that sometimes make me picture him talking through each one of his characters. I remember something similar happening to me during college when I would be reading over my notes as I studied for a final exam actually listening to my professors unique voice in my head as I read. This is what happens to me often during a Woody Allen film as I imagine his head popping over one of his characters. It happened during this film as well, except for Blanchett's character who managed to bring her unique style which took a voice of its own. She deserves all the accolades she's been receiving from her peers and critics alike. It was a wonderful performance and an affecting one as well.

Jasmine (Cate Blanchett) was a New York socialite who lived a happy and blessed life with her husband Hal (Alec Baldwin), until he was sent to prison for fraudulent business acts. We get to discover some darker secrets about their past as the story unravels through flashbacks, but the film opens at the present as Jasmine is returning to San Francisco to live with her sister, Ginger (Sally Hawkins) and her two sons, completely broke. She has experienced several mental breakdowns due to her traumatic past, and despite being estranged from her sister during that time, Ginger takes her in. Jasmine imposes on Ginger who wasn't as blessed as she was and is working at a grocery store while dating Chili (Bobby Canavale). Jasmine and Chili don't get along too well as she has interfered in his plans to move in with Ginger. Jasmine is always telling her that she should find someone better like she did (which wasn't really the case) and that is the reason for the constant friction between them. In San Francisco, Jasmine meets another wealthy man named Dwight (Peter Saarsgard) who she begins dating, and which gives her hope that she will recover her past glory, but her constant lies begin catching up with her affecting her relationship with him and her sister.

I wouldn't say this is a character driven story because I felt a lot of them were one dimensional characters, with the exception of Jasmine of course. The people in Woody Allen's films don't tend to feel real or authentic at times, and they usually are just cartoonish caricatures from a bubbled world. Allen's films aren't the laugh out loud type either, I find them funny in a rather witty way. He is slick at times and the scenes put a smile on your face, but they don't have you laughing hysterically. Blanchett does manage to portray Jasmine in a more authentic and believable way, showing her flaws and inner struggles with her mental illness. It's a character that we find hard to sympathize with, but also feel sorry for as her life begins falling apart. She's the type of person who cannot be on her own and is always depending on someone. I also liked the way in which Woody Allen told the story and let the past unravel smoothly through flashbacks revealing several things about her character. This along with Blanchett's performance is what saves the movie and makes it entertaining, but I wouldn't agree with the critics who are saying this is Allen's best work in years. I do agree it is perhaps his most tragic and darkest comedy in recent years.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: Hanna (8/10)

¨I just missed your heart.¨

Hanna is an action film that really delivers and gives us more than we were expecting without being anything extraordinary. I really enjoyed the freshness of its script and the lead performance from Saoirse Ronan who had already worked with director Joe Wright in the past in Atonement. Wright is also famous for his adaptation of Jane Austen`s novel Pride and Prejudice starring Keira Knightley. Hanna is one of those action films that stands out from the rest of the pack because it feels fresh and original. Seth Lochhead had already written the script way back in 2006 and had received some recognition for his work by being listed in the Black List twice (an annual list that signals out some of the best screenplays that were never produced) until his movie was finally produced and directed by Wright. Yes, the script might have some plot holes here and there, but Ronan`s performance and the action make up for it. The action is almost nonstop and we get to travel across different locations as we experience one chase after another. The fighting scenes are pretty well choreographed and the supporting cast is also interesting. Hanna is not your typical action film, it is different and kind of hard to predict. At first it is difficult to understand what is going on, but as the story develops we get to piece together the mystery and uncover the past. Hanna also works because we have a rather unconventional heroine who can really bring it. Joe Wright found the perfect person in Saoirse Ronan for the role.

I don’t want to give too much of the plot away because this is one of those movies that the less you know about the better. I will only mention some of the characters and general storylines and let the viewer piece the story together as they watch the film on their own. Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) has spent her entire childhood and adolescent life undergoing special training somewhere in the middle of a forest in Finland far from all civilization. Her father has spent his life training and educating her so that she be ready for a very important mission. He has turned Hanna into a perfect killing machine because he claims there is someone who wants to kill her. Hanna`s father, Erik (Eric Bana), decides to train her and prepare her for her encounter with this person named Marissa (Cate Blanchett). When Hanna feels ready Erik lets her go on the mission and the chase begins across various locations beginning in Morocco and ending in Germany. Marissa isn’t the only one after Hanna, she has help from Isaacs (Tom Hollander) and some of his friends. Hanna on the other hand befriends another girl named Sophie (Jessica Barden) and she and her family are the first people she`s ever had a relationship outside of her father. Olivia Williams plays the mother, Rachel, while Jason Flemyng is the father, Sebastian. Hanna discovers she isn`t actually a normal girl and decides to search for answers while facing off with Marissa and Isaacs who are after her.

The soundtrack of the film is by The Chemical Brothers, who aren’t actually among my favorite bands, but they have a very different style of music which worked perfectly with this very different kind of action film. Beside Ronan`s performance which I have already signaled out, I have to say Eric Bana does a pretty decent job playing her father and Blanchett does the same playing the nemesis although we`ve seen them before in better roles. Tom Hollander plays a really weird character in this film and I really wasn’t interested in his character. As for the technical aspect of the film it was beautifully shot and edited. The action was pretty well developed and I enjoyed watching the story unfold as the movie moved on. Joe Wright has directed a very different film from what he has made in the past, but he did a great job with Hanna. By the end of the year I will probably still remember this film because it`s one of those movies that sticks with you for being entertainingly awkward. Midway through the year I can say it is one of the better action movies I`ve seen this year, but not nearly as close to being anything extraordinary. It’s no masterpiece, but it works nonetheless. Saoirse Ronan has an interesting future ahead of her and she`s proven that her excellent work in Atonement was no one-time thing; she can really bring it considering the strong physicality this role required and she delivered. This is one movie you won’t want to miss.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: Robin Hood (7/10)

¨Rise, and rise again. Until lambs become lions.¨

Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe became a franchise name with The Gladiator and now they team up once again for the legendary Robin Hood.  The expectations were high after their Oscar winning film, but many people were disappointed with this version of Robin Hood which was written by Brian Helgeland (The Green Zone, Mystic River, and Man on Fire). This movie is by no means close to being Gladiator, but it is a good movie nonetheless. The chemistry between Robin and Marion is not very strong, and the action scenes are not as good as The Gladiator, but the movie is still entertaining and has a decent plot. Robin Hood is such a rich character and I thought this movie does a good job at introducing that character and kind of setting up everything we know about him. The movie serves as sort of a prequel because we are introduced to a Robin Hood who is serving the King at war and later we discover how he ends up living in Nottingham. This is Robin before becoming Robin Hood and that is perhaps why so many people were disappointed because they wanted to see the actual Robin Hood living in the woods and stealing from the rich. I was prepared for the movie and already heard it was a prequel so I actually went with lower expectations, but ended up enjoying this epic movie and thought that it was written nicely and had some good performances as well.

It is the beginning of the XII century and Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) is fighting alongside the English in a Crusade held by King Richard The Lionheart (Danny Huston). In one of their battles King Richard is killed and Robin decides it is time to escape and return home along with a few of his partners: Little John (Kevin Durand), Will (Scott Grimes), and Allan A Dayle (Alan Doyle).  They encounter some luck on their way home when a few of the knights that have been assigned to return the King´s crown to England have been ambushed by a man named Godfrey (Mark Strong) working secretly alongside the French who want to invade England. Robin and his men kill the French and Godfrey escapes along with a few others, but they are able to save the crown and gather all the belongings left behind by the dead knights. One of the dying knights is Sir Robert Loxley (Douglas Hodge) who begs Robin to return his sword to his father in Nottingham. Robin promises to do so and along with his men they take the place of the knights and decide to return home in the boat that was waiting for them. Once in London Robin takes Robert`s place and returns the crown to the King´s brother, Prince John who is now proclaimed King of England. Robin returns the sword to Nottingham where he meets Marion (Kate Blanchett), Robert´s widow, and returns the sword to his father Walter Loxley (Max von Sydow). Walter asks Robin to stay with him and take Robert´s place for some time and Robin agrees. During this time King John decides to raise taxes and doesn´t know that his newly assigned counselor, Godfrey is actually planning to begin a Civil War so the French can invade.

Before going to see this epic film remember that this is how the legend of the Robin Hood we all have heard about begins. This is not a film about him in the wilderness stealing from the rich; it is sort of a prequel to let us know how he became an enemy of the King. Gladiator was a great epic film, but we cannot go into this movie expecting it to be just as good. Just because Robin Hood is no Gladiator doesn`t mean that the movie is bad, and I think that it is much better than most movies we´ve seen this year. I thought the performance from the cast was good and the plot was also interesting. Many people may find this movie kind of slow, but I actually was interested in seeing how all these different characters we have all heard about meet each other. I really wish William Hurt had more screen time as I enjoyed his performance as William Marshal. In this film we are also introduced to Friar Tuck, who is perhaps one of the funniest characters, and the Sheriff of Nottingham. I really enjoyed this epic movie and was entertained throughout the two hours. It was an original take of the Robin Hood legend and different from the other Robin Hood movies. Not a great film, but good nonetheless. The problem is that we have come to expect great things from Ridley Scott.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/