Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)

 "That's it, then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans.No more merciful beheadings. And cancel Christmas."

I've seen this film many times, but not since the turn of the millennium. It is, of course, a highly entertaining Hollywood blockbuster, perhaps the most popular celluloid version of the Robin Hood myth. Yes, Kevin Costner is... well, adequate, but we all know the real star is the late Alan Rickman. Was ever scenery chewed with such aplomb? This is one of the finest bits of moustache twirling villainy in cinematic history, and perhaps the performance for which Rickman will be best remembered. 

And it's a fun film, lots of set pieces. It's good. And yet... it drags a bit in places, doesn't it? And... we need to talk about Robin of Sherwood.

Yes, Azeem, the character played superbly by the always excellent Morgan Freeman, is clearly based on Nasir, and no previous version of the legend had included such a character: the film was lucky not to get sued. Yet the overall plot, the feel, and especially the climax feels suspiciously similar to the TV series, right down to the mild fantasy elements in the person of the witch character.

The geography is, of course, hilarious, and not only the start of the film where the White Cliffs of Dover are apparently within easy walking distance of Hadrian's Wall. The implication throughout is that Nottingham is in some way close to London, and that the Sheriff is in some way a figure of national imporance.

The revelation about Will Scarlet is hilarious too. And doesn't quite feel plausible how Little John's merry band so easily accept Robin as their leader.

Despite all that, though... ah, it's fun watch, and what more do we want?

Man of Steel (2013)

"What are you smiling about, Captain?"

"Nothing, Sir. I just think he's kind of hot."

Usually I'd write a review based on the general premise of the film in question being good, bad, or indifferent. That's a rather challenging thing to do here. I mean, yes, ok, the film is good. It works. It's a solid start to the DC universe. But there are flaws, real flaws. The film gets away with it, in no small measure because of a solid script by the ever-dependable David S. Goyer and, interestingly, Christopher Nolan and the inspired casting of (thankfully moustache-free) Henry Cavill. But...

Here's the thing. Zack Snyder is technically a superb director. The whole thing is well shot in the extreme, even if it's CGI'd to death. It looks amazing. But it all feels (Russell Crowe as Jor-El aside, oddly) not quite persnal enough. There's just enough charm to get away with, but no more. And the direction: yes, it's clever. But at the expense of the storytelling- not enough to damage the film, but I'd say Snyder needed to watch it if not for the fact that #MeToo seems to make any such advice irrelevant.

There's a lot to praise, though. Traditionally dull Krypton is given CGI alien beasts of burden, an internal politics and a genetically caste-based culture against which Kal-El's birth is a rebellion in the name of freedom. I like that. I also like the characterisation of Zod here; he isn't a moustache-twirling baddie but a general, with his fanatical followers, who only wants to save Krypton. At the expense of our little human species, naturaally.

Lois Lane is presented well here, as a tenacious journalist who figures out who Clark is early on, saving us an awful lot of tiresomeness. Perry White is a bit more nuanced. Jimmy Olsen, er, isn't in the film. But it's a well-done and thoughtful approach to Superman's origins and the ideal first film for the new DC Cinematic Universe. They need to run  with it, so what next. Batman? The Dark Knight? No, those are both taken. So how about Batman: The Dark Knight? Yes. Colons are good. And the next film is in no way going to be a disaster. Right?