The Manly Men of Adventure

I've seen some very entertaining films recently. Mostly featuring men being all heroic and manly. Well, what woman wouldn't enjoy that, I ask you?

Ridley Scott's version of Robin Hood with Russell Crowe as the hero sounded great, but I did worry a bit. I didn't like A Good Year and it has been a few years since The Gladiator. I made the mistake of reading a few critiques beforehand and felt mighty nervous as I walked into the theatre. I really needn't have. The film worked. It wasn't Scott's best, nor Crowe's, but it worked. I didn't get bored, Crowe still made a superb hero and Cate Blanchett, one of my favourite actresses, was no whiny damsel in distress. My chief concern had been that Crowe would be wrong for the role. He makes a great hero for a historical flick as proven in The Gladiator, but I kept thinking that he was more the type to punch a guy in the face or slice them to bits with a sword rather than shoot arrows at them. I couldn't shake that purely physical vibe of him and Robin Hood has been a more agile, boyish kind of character in the past. Well, for one, seemed to me that Crowe had slimmed down quite a bit. He moved well and was every bit the soldier he needed to portray. The bow didn't look out of place in his hands. Should've trusted the guy, he is a good actor. I also enjoyed the supporting cast, Blanchett, Robin's sidekicks and the old Loxley, in particular. Prince John looked suitably like a weasel.

All in all, Scott's version of Robin Hood could in some ways be compared to Batman Begins by Christopher Nolan. It takes a new view on a subject that has already been done several times. Batman Begins was a phenomenal take on the superhero genre. Scott's Robin Hood isn't quite that great, but it is different from other Robin Hoods and thus to me, it was was refreshing and certainly entertaining enough for the admission fee.

The other swords and soldiers flick I saw last night. Prince of Persia: Sands of Time. I was vaguely familiar with the game franchise, but the trailers of the film itself had seemed rather silly. My friend and I went in to watch Jake Gyllenhaal do what Orlando Bloom did in the Pirates of the Caribbean except maybe act a bit better. In that regard, we got what we expected. There was the usual Disney-package of relatively bloodless violence, cheekily delivered one-liners and a comic relief character so outlandish that you wanted to bury your head into the sand. There were some parkourish runs through the city and dropping on people from above that reminded me of the game, but I'm not big enough a gamer to spot much else from the game. Bearded and long-haired, Gyllenhaal managed to look a little more tough-guy than usually, but he does have that Nice Guy label all but tattooed on his forehead. He did alright as Prince Dastan, not as if the role offered much to work on. Gemma Arterton's role could have been played by anyone in a skirt, but I don't think that was her fault. I haven't seen her in anything that required real acting chops yet, so I'm reserving judgement. She was pretty and looked good in white. The prince's family put in a nice performance, too. I liked the way the three brothers played together.

To put it in a nutshell, Prince of Persia is nothing new. It's a mix of the Pirates of the Caribbean and the first two Mummy movies. Fun, not-too serious, some cool special effects, a bit of very innocent romance thrown in and that's it. A nice summer blockbuster for the Disney-Bruckheimer coffers, too, I imagine...