It has been a long time coming but now, it’s official: i have lost what little respect i had left for Ridley Scott.

Much has been said about the historical distortion around which this story of Robin Hood was written. I don’t necessarily approve of such inaccuracies - after all, cinema, as with most visual media today, is a powerful tool with much reach and impact that can influence minds and values - but i can live with them if the movie holds solidly on all other cinematic foundations. Unfortunately, in the case of Robin Hood, it doesn’t.

As i mentioned in my review of Body of Lies, the films of Ridley Scott are usually well-crafted. It is clear upon viewing that one is watching the work of an experienced filmmaker who knows his trade. Yet, in his drive towards the false epic and the commercial saga, Scott has let plenty of weaknesses creep in. Superficial, predictable, stereotypical and clichés characters who can not possibly surprise us with their actions and emotions (except when ridiculous things happen such as Cate Blanchett appearing out of nowhere to fight with the others on the beach, or when we are confronted several times with the face of a screaming Russell Crowe rising out of the water in slow motion - didn’t someone poke fun of this cinematic cheesy faux-pas? Perhaps it was Ben Still in Tropic Thunder or Mike Myers in Austin Powers. I can’t quite remember - ), a carelessness towards making sure that the actors speak with proper accents, an over reliance on what is now starting to seem like a ‘passé’ camera and editing style for his battle scenes and last but not least, a dependence on the limited Crowe as lead actor.

I think Scott has squeezed the last drop of moaning and groaning and growling out of Russel Crowe and there is only one thing left to do, as suggested wisely by The Onion, and that is for Scott to trade Crowe for Johnny Depp. And also to abandon his delusions of grandeur and go back to simpler, more artsy and intelligent films where his craft as a director can shine.

So here i am in mythical Delphi Greece, minding my own business - as i usually do -, taking in the sights and hoping to get a glimpse of my future when, out of the sea of tourists that surrounds me emerges the silhouette of Louis Leterrier. He rushes towards me, screaming like a maniac, his hands reaching out towards my neck. Ever since my scathing review of his Hulk, a review that thanks to the thousands of loyal followers that my blog attracts, was brought to the attention of his agent, Leterrier is out to get me. Years of Jujitsu practice allow me to swiftly dodge his attack, and in a slow-mo Spiderman moment, i brush Leterrier to the side, his momentum carrying him headfirst into the magnificent remains of a temple wall behind me. I hear the impact, see the blood, but i have no time to dwell on his fate. A boat to Corfu awaits me, and as i leave Delphi behind, the ghostly form of a strangely dressed and bearded Liam Neeson appears on the side of the road and says ‘thank you’.

It would be naive to assume that Avatar only works because of the technology. There is little doubt that, in this case, the 3D aspect enhances the filmic experience. However, as Michael Bay and George Lucas, and countless others, remind us too often, placing most of the focus of a film on CGI and visual effects while neglecting everything else, can have disastrous consequences.
James Cameron, while not king of the world, is probably one of Hollywood’s princes of perfection. His reputation as a very hard man to please make him a respected, yet also apparently often disliked director who is not afraid to ask for expensive sets to be completely redone in a very short amount of time and for staff members to be dismissed right away if they fail to comply. It is somewhat unfortunate that these types, whether in Hollywood or not, are often rewarded for being unpleasant but the positive side is that it is exactly what makes them difficult that also allows them to create interesting works.

Avatar provides a fairly average story with extremely cliche characters. The acting is nothing special, the soundtrack is over the top, even a bit annoying, and some of the dialogues are ‘cheesy’. So what works? As mentioned earlier, despite the fact that the CGI and visual effects are of the highest caliber, this in itself is usually not enough to carry a film. Cameron has succeeded in creating an overall experience that is so enthralling that the mediocre aspect of some of its parts is forgiven. A bit like Star Wars in 1977, a film which after all was fairly amateurish at times, Avatar immerses us in a very believable world of fantasy, legends and myths. The acting may not make much sense but the details of the world do. It is this meticulously crafted visual and non-visual environment that succeeds in transporting us to a very interesting place for 160 minutes or so.

While i like intelligent, cerebral and artsy cinema, i also love when cinema just entertains and when it does it well. Avatar has sucked all that it could from the little book of entertaining cinema and offers perhaps the best visual effects ever created on film. But more importantly, it works thanks to the clarity of an artistic vision and thanks to the perfectionism of James Cameron.

Utterly pointless and excruciatingly bad.

Outlander is an expensive B-movie that tries to be more than that. It fails at it but does not feel overly arrogant while trying. That is not to say that it constantly deals with its subject matter in an effective way but it seems to be satisfied with targeting a certain audience and to provide this audience with as solid of an experience as possible. Of course, when it comes to a story about a man from the future crash landing in 8th century Norway, there is plenty of room for subjectivity in how one appraises the merits of such a film.

What makes Outlander better trash than for example Eagle Eye (2008) or The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008) is that it does not pretend to know how to deal with big philosophical questions and it does not tie its story to the ‘real’. By releasing itself from the shackles of reality, that is, by taking place in a fantasy world, Outlander does not have to meet the stricter believability standards of films that relate to our modern society.

That being said, Outlander is still a very average film. Instead of aiming for the level of The Navigator (1988), or even better, for the level of Planet of the Apes (1968), the best time travel movie ever made, the movie turns into some kind of Predator-type monster flick with weak undertones of Excalibur (1981), a Beowulf (2007) that can not use animation as an excuse for its weaknesses. A strange but interesting mix that could have worked better had the director not decided that an avalanche of gore was in order. And that James Caviezel should play in the lead role…

Pan’s Labyrinth, recipient a week ago of the National Society of Film Critics Best Picture award, seems like the perfect follow-up to Hellboy. Del Toro goes further in his study and exploration of Magic Realism in film and delivers a work that, in spite of its brutality and a couple of disturbing scenes, has a broader appeal than some his previous efforts. His craft and technique is clearly improving and he is slowing starting to make his mark on the industry, alongside his Mexican compatriots Inaritu and Cuaron.

I initially felt slightly disappointed that Pan’s Labyrinth did not contain more scenes in the alternate world of the Labyrinth. I wanted Pan to spend more time escaping the cruel reality that she was facing. Yet, I realized afterwards that the magic of the film lies not in the depiction of the fantastical but rather, in the perfect mixing of fantasy and reality. I suppose that this is exactly what magic realism is all about and that straying too far in one direction tilts the equilibrium away from what actually creates the beauty of the work.

Thus, Del Toro mixes the ingredients adroitly and creates a work that is at the same time beautiful and disturbing, enchanting and unsettling, real and dreamlike, historical and authentic, gothic and believable…it is perhaps easier to understand how good of a film Pan is by thinking about how easily it could have been a bad film. I have an idea: let’s take the Spanish Civil War, throw in a young girl who likes to escape reality by reading fairy tales, and add an alternate world of fauns and fairies. In most cases, this would sound more like a recipe for disaster than one for a film that is actually on its way to winning dozens of awards throughout the world. Del Toro is a man with a vision and the skills to implement it.

Despite its better than expected box office results in the UK and the US, this Walt Disney film falls way short of the hype that surrounded its release, unless of course you are taking your kids to see it, in which case the experience should be entertaining enough. However, as an ‘adult’ film, no comparison with The Lord of the Rings should be attempted. Narnia does not even come close to achieving what LOTR has done in terms of character development, plausible and interesting dialogues and solid acting. Even the CGI looked quite poor at times.