quadrophenia718

I'll admit it, I like this movie. Granted, I think that that might only be because I'm a hopeless sap-addict with a love of Johnny Depp. I would not be surprised if Johnny Depp looks back on this movie and cringes, but then he doesn't strike me as someone who regrets past career mistakes.

This is definitely not Oscar material. The story is too complex, too image friendly, too convoluted to appeal to most audiences. It's told in vignettes, almost, with few connecting points between the various scenes apart from the over-all story. Understanding the point of the story is like wading through thick mud; it's abstruse and murky.

But there are a few high points as well. The imagery is beautiful, and one is truly touched by the Depp/Ricci dynamic. Or at least I was. As an "Official Johnny Depp fan" I love "Sleepy Hollow", but I did have trouble overcoming how wooden the Depp/Ricci relationship was. It's not nearly as wooden this time, as if they are both much more comfortable working with each other this time around. Not only that, but the "Sleepy Hollow" script did not require them to display real affection and in this one they have to. My big complaint about this area of the film, is that there wasn't all that much development of this story. As a person with an over-large imagination, I filled in some of the blank spots edited out by the writers, and thus cried my eyes out along with Depp at the end of the film. But I can see where a lot of people would not be impressed with this.

Cate Blanchett wasn't bad, but I really dislike the fluttery attitude that her character affects throughout the film. It's irritating and rather comical.

But, I liked the movie. I've watched it once and I know that I'll watch it again. Why not?

When I asked for this movie on my Christmas list this year, it met with some pretty shocked looks from friends and family members. Not that I blame them all that much either, since it's unlike just about everything else in my movie collection. What they failed to see, however, was the simple fact that the reason I wanted the movie had absolutely nothing to do with the traditional reasons (I'm not all that fond of Kevin Costner). I wanted it simply for Alan Rickman who does a FANTASTIC job as the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Okay, Costner's lack-of-accent makes me to want to hit my head against the wall much of the time. With everyone else's accents, it is as annoying as sin. And we all know that he can do accents - Thirteen Days is a perfect example. It just seemed like laziness on his part.

The arrow shot spined my head a little, but it was a neat concept. The woodland scenes were very well done - showing the fairytale atmosphere coupled with poverty, making one want to live there and not live there simultaneously.

I can make nice comments for Morgan Freeman, Christian Slater (that little plot twist was a neat idea), Michael McShane as Friar Tuck, and Nick Brimble, who made an ideal Little John. Michael Wincott also deserves some applause for his role as Guy of Gisbourne, though it once again leaves you wondering if he is EVER going to play a good guy.

That leaves Rickman. As I looked at the comments that came before mine, it seems that just about everyone was in agreement - Rickman is great. It's not that he does a wonderful acting job, or that he makes you sympathize with a poor, misunderstood villain (that was definitely NOT his intention). What he does so amazingly well, is play the role as the befuddled, sex-crazed bad guy. His pompous attitude is right on target, as is his just-slightly-over-acted-to-make-it-hilarious outrage towards Kevin Costner's Robin. He saw the opportunity and he took it and I, for one, applaud him for it.

Final notes - Rickman's performance is worth seeing, no matter what.

Okay, I'm going to come out and be absolutely honest. I really did not enjoy this film. I thought it was horribly campy and the ending was irritating. Sorry, the first thing that came to my head was "She broke the light bulb." If you watch it, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. HINT - Part II.

Yes, it was a made for TV movie, but I've seen many better ones. The special effects were awful even for the times, I wasn't even jumpy and I get scared during routine X-Files shows, the bloody bits were too fake, and the ending was absolutely awful. Now don't get me wrong, I LIKE Tim Curry and I like early Stephen King and I think that Harry Anderson is hilarious, but that didn't save the film.

There were some decent bits - the scene where the thing threatens Bev and the portrayal of each of the characters as their adult selves was fairly well done and helped keep me tuned in for the next installment. It DID make me want to see the second part which, I think is quite a bit of an accomplishment.

If you enjoy Stephen King, it's probably true that you will like this movie and that you'll be able to get past its errors. If you think, however, that Stephen King has fallen off a bit, you'll find yourself channel surfing. Watch Carrie if you want to be scared.