Showing posts with label Russell Crowe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russell Crowe. Show all posts

Monday, 10 January 2011

The Next Three Days



Paul Haggis sets himself a difficult task with The Next Three Days, effectively trying to fuse a breakout movie with a moodily introspective drama. To put it another way, this is his attempt to make a serious action film. It's an unexpected move for the acclaimed writer-director, here adapting the hit French film 'Pour Elle'; for while he's earned genre chops on the screenplays for Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, his work behind the camera (Crash, In the Valley of Elah) isn't exactly pacey or energetic.


That he makes a good fist of it is a pleasant surprise, although Three Days is kind of on a hiding to nothing. No matter how many anguished close-ups of leading star Russell Crowe or moody statements delivered by Danny Elfman's uncharacteristically subdued score, it can never fully escape the silliness it inevitably trundles towards later on. After all, action and drama are not good bedfellows; the nearest thing to a recent success in this area would be something like The Dark Knight, a grand drama which just happened to have action sequences in it.


Nevertheless, Haggis' ambition is noteworthy and Crowe is a commanding, riveting centre. Bouncing back from his turn as Robin Hood, one which gained lukewarm reviews (but which, in the opinion of this reviewer, was fine), this is Crowe doing what he does best: holding the lion's share of the spotlight but allowing little nuances to infect his broad, immensely physical performance. It helps that he has a strong leading lady to bounce off, in this case Elizabeth Banks as his devoted, if mercurial, wife, who, at the start of the film is arrested for apparently murdering her boss.


With Crowe's happy home life disrupted (he has a young son to bring up), the film proceeds to jump ahead in stages, until the day comes he decides to break his wife out of prison. Irrespective of whether she's innocent or guilty (and oddly this threatens to become irrelevant as the film wears on), Crowe lurches forward, brow furrowed and voice set to its lowest level. At one stage he even consults Liam Neeson (performing a one-scene cameo and also growling) who establishes a series of do's and don'ts for a prison break. We barely question Crowe's motives or the fact that the evidence is stacked up against his wife because he is a force of nature, so set on his path that we can't help but be swept along with him. And, in spite of the film's odd tone, it continues to build a tremendous amount of tension.


But, given this is a Paul Haggis film, the pacing is in fact less active than it is ambling, opening up the story's flaws of logic to greater examination. Brief glitches like breaking into a van with a punctured tennis ball pale next to ostentatious sub-plots such as Crowe desperately attempting to steal money from local Pittsburgh drug addicts to fund his convoluted scheme. And of course, once the director's set down the road towards the jail break, he cannot deviate for fear of cheating the audience, although there is ironic pleasure and an undercurrent of plausibility in the way that everyman Crowe (yeah right) unwittingly continues to break Neeson's rules throughout due to his inexperience in busting people from the joint.


It's that attention to detail which saves The Next Three Days from being a complete disaster, detail which, almost counter-intuitively, underpins the silly moments with a degree of believability along with strong star performances from Crowe and Banks. The latter is excellent: effectively creating an unpredictable air of ambiguity, so much so that we're not sure if Crowe's gallantry is misguided.


It's a credit to both stars that they're able to communicate pathos amid the later crashes and bangs; this is clearly where Haggis' film is carefully poised to rise or fall, although in the end it mostly falls between the two poles, admittedly through no fault of the performers. By its very nature, it's doomed not to be a complete success but kudos for trying. Just imagine if Crash had more crashes and car chases; it's a strange brew but you certainly won't be looking at the clock for the duration.

Wednesday, 19 May 2010

Robin Hood




Russell Crowe glowers; Ridley Scott directs; light shines through the boughs; Marc Streitenfeld’s ethereal score conjures up memories of a certain Hans Zimmer/Lisa Gerrard collaboration…


The comparisons between Robin Hood and its forebearer, the trendsetting Gladiator, are however as off the mark as they are inevitable. Yes, Scott knows how to shoot a historical battle better than anyone, Crowe gets to do the macho chest-bashing yet soulful act that has marked his best roles, and the production boasts a typically awesome attention to detail. But the devil’s in the details: Robin Hood is a far more intelligent, plot driven beast than the po-faced marketing and posters make out. Maybe even more so than Gladiator itself…



But then, with LA Confidential writer Brian Helgeland on script duties, this was surely a pre-requisite, although, given the film’s notoriously difficult production history, how much of his work ended up on-screen is debatable. Both his and Scott’s delight in weaving potent mythology (there’s no point in denying the tale's romanticized nature, regardless of whether it's true) with a plausible kind of historical fiction (likewise, it’s a bit rich to call it historical fact per se), is plain to see, although it slavishly adheres to the currently in-vogue trend of ‘origin stories’, finishing where others would start. Kevin Costner would be a mere glint in Alan Rickman’s malicious eye at this stage.



The pleasingly multi-stranded narrative traverses both sides of the Channel. Robin Longstride (Crowe), a lowly archer in the army of Richard the Lionheart, witnesses his conquering ruler being cut down with an arrow at the end of the Crusades. Racing to return the crown to England and name petulant womanizer Prince John (Oscar Isaac) as king along with his merry men, Longstride is also charged with returning a sword to the Loxley family of Nottingham, presided over by Marion (Cate Blanchett) and Walter (Max von Sydow), struggling to live off the land under tax incursions. In the midst of all this is Mark Strong’s ambivalent, ahead-of-his-time double agent, plotting with the French for nefarious purposes…



Those expecting the pop thrills and frequent, gory battles of Gladiator will be disappointed; in comparison with the bewitching dovetail of fiction and (almost) fact, Scott clearly sees these as small fry, leaving them, in their arrow laden, thrilling glory, to the start and end of the film. There’s also a kind of gripping comparison to be made with Crowe’s Robin, a lowlier character than Maximus Decimus who doesn’t embrace destiny but more or less collides with it, suffering under a dodgy accent sounding like Scunthorpe by way of Swansea. Elsewhere, Isaac’s campy John is certainly a stoop to Hollywood villainy but puts a face on an overlooked ruler while Strong is no mere villain, bewildering a French soldier at one stage with his divided loyalties.


Throughout, there’s a constantly fascinating series of ‘what if’ scenarios where history and myth blur together. One especially wonderful aerial shot picks out the Tower of London alongside a forested River Thames; the next moment, an unexpected bit of character driven spite will accidentally set in motion the later, more romanticized events of the Hood legend we know and love today. It’s also a funnier film than the largely snotty reviews have given it credit for, with the trio of merry men (Scott Grimes; Kevin Durand; Alan Doyle) and Crowe’s light chemistry with a typically earthy Blanchett offering pleasant, naturalistic asides.


It doesn’t beat the 1973 Disney version, though.