Mr. E chimes in with a script review of the Russell Crowe vehicle Nottingham to be directed by Ridley Scott.

{sidebar id=1}This is the first draft of the script, so expect some changes by the time it makes it into production in January 2008.

For more info about the evolution of the project check out the trade announcements here and here.

Now for Mr. Es lowdown...

Mr.E here.

The past doesnt change but our perception of it is mutable.

That makes sense doesnt it?

I was in The Yellowfang Pub in Wee Britain, CA having drinks with fellow IESB Film Geek reviewer extraordinaire Mike Dayspring. He was on his second Rum and Coke and I was working on my second 7Up & Pineapple juice. Wimpy, I know, but I dont drink.

Somehow, the subject of how the past is portrayed in films and television came up.

I dont care if a film is historically accurate at all, I said to Mike, I only care if the end result is worthwhile.

What do you consider worthwhile, Newsie boy? Mike taunted.

I groaned. Mike was one of the few people I trusted enough to share the info that I was an extra in the movie NEWSIES and one of the few people I liked enough to get away with giving me crap about it.

Oh low blow, I said, defending it. Look, NEWSIES is worthy because lots of people grew up with it on home video. It is one of Kenny Ortegas best films!

At that point, Mikey did the best real life spit-take I had ever seen.

SPPPTHHHEWWWSSHHHTT! he sprayed.

Overhearing our conversation about the perception of history, Lionel the barkeep threw a bundle of papers I recognized as a script. I read the title NOTTINGHAM right before it hit me right between my eyebrows and knocked me cold onto the pubs hardwood floor.

HIP HIP HOORAH

And I believe its pronounced TALLEYHO SPOILERS BELOW!

NOTTINGHAM by Ethan Reiff & Cyrus Voris begins with the title card: THERE ARE TWO SIDES TO EVERY LEGEND and opens outside a moonlit castle in Cyprus. The year is 1911, sorry, 1191, and The Castle Marcappus is under siege. You see, theres this little thing called The Crusades going on and the English Army currently has control of the fortress, and as we soon learn, the tunnels under the fortress.

Attacking them are the Cypriots (the folks from Cyprus-dont feel bad. I had to look it up, too) who apparently still havent forgiven the English for unleashing Hugh Grant on the rest of the world.

After some introductory Cypriotian Catapult work, we come smashing into the underground tunnels where the first words out of the first English soldier we meet are Fucking hell.

To quote Hellboy: Oh Crap!

Its not the use of the f-u-c-k word that offended me-it was simply that their use immediately took me out of the world of the script and back to the 21^st century.

Anyway, as I read on, SIR ROBERT TORNHAM (Russell Crowe) leads his troops in a glorious, sweaty, bare-chested battle not seen since the movie 300 in March 2007, and to victory.

The action then shifts to Somewhere in England, where a party is in full swing. As you might expect from watching too many movies, a lovely YOUNG WOMAN and a handsome YOUNG MAN slip out of the party for some sexytime alone in the dark woods. Theyre a little too drunk and a little too, err, intoxicated by their passions to realize whats going to happen next. To be fair though, it is the 12^th century and its going to be a really long time before anyone invents the moving picture and even longer after that before someone invents the dead teenager slasher flick. So, with a high pitched whistling sound that real arrows flying through the air sound nothing like in real life and a THUNK, a single arrow impales the young lovers.

Warning - MALE NUDITY RANT Follows:

Back in Cyprus, its morning and TORNHAM rises for his morning shit/shower/shave and the audience is privy to view his nakedness as he makes his way to the privy.

From BASIC INSTINCTs Michael Douglas stunt butt taking a post-coitus stroll to 300s Gerard Butlers moonlit full moon whatever-the-hell-he-was-doing, this one scene seems to be the only form of gratuitous male nudity known to filmmakers outside of any Harvey Keitel Full Monty action.

Im just mentioning this because as an avid filmgoer for over twenty-five years, Ive noticed movie makers have envisioned thousands of perfectly legitimate reasons for women to lose their tops but only one reason to show a mans butt (and not that theres anything wrong with nudity of either gender, Im just suggesting there could be a bit more creativity from the filmmaking community).

End RANT The Story Spoilers Continue below

Following his outhouse chess game (Im not kidding), SIR ROBERT finds his 60something squire: SQUIRE THOMAS LESLIE is packing his things. A letter from KING RICHARD has arrived and TORNHAM has been re-assigned to Nottingham. Yes boys and girls, SIR ROBERT is to become THE SHERRIF OF NOTTINGHAM (TSON).

As TSON and SQUIRE THOMAS make into and about the bustling city of Nottingham, SIR GUY OF GISBORNE intercepts them. His character provides pages of needed exposition regarding the murderous outlaw ROBIN HOOD, the city politics of Saxons VS Normans, and the status of Nottinghams Jewish population (really!)

Before SIR ROBERT can make it to his office to set up his email account, he asks to see the bodies of the two recently slain partygoers. This is surprising since everybody knows who killed them-Robin Hood-and the notion of detective work is completely strange to them because its going to be another 663 years or so before Sherlock Holmes is born. Nevertheless, TSON continues his research, finding, on the faces of the dead, beeswax- a fact not to become important until about an hour and ten minutes later in the film.

From the morgue to the madhouse, SIR ROBERT follows another clue and meets the daughter of the man who threw the killer party - MAID MARIAN.

Her introduction reminded me of the scene in ROBOCOP when we first met cute OFFICER ANNE LEWIS, as she kicked butt in the Old Detroit Police Station. This MARIAN is smart, tough, and doesnt need rescuing. SIR ROBERT asks her about ROBIN (who is also suspected in three other deaths) and, of course, he slowly falls for her over the remaining course of the movie.

Of course we have more characters to introduce: PRINCE JOHN, THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND-RICHARDs (remember him?) wife ELANOR OF AQUITAINE, and last, but not least, ROBIN HOOD who adds some needed life to the pages of this script.

And theres even more plot that goes on, involving taxing the poor to secure the release of the imprisoned KING RICHARD. PRINCE JOHN wants to keep the loot for himself, and SIR ROBERT is tasked with diverting the funds destined for  PRINCE JOHNs coffers to the proper hands to have RICHARD released.

And theres more with TSONs murder investigations, his growing (no pun intended- you perverts, you!) admiration for MARIAN and yadda yadda yadda.

In fact, it seems the writers of NOTTINGHAM forgot they were writing an action film until about page 96, when ROBIN fights with SIR GUY, SIR ROBERT discovers the real killer, and KING RICHARD storms the castle.

Speaking of the killer, the scene of the bad persons lair had me laughing for all the wrong reasons. Remember the beeswax from earlier in the review? It turns out the murderer used beeswax to create spooky death masks of all the victims.

Yeah right.

Lets think about this: the assassin had to carry the hard wax, kill the victim(s), build a fire to heat the wax to the proper point, apply the wax to the face of the recently deceased, wait for the wax to harden, remove the casting, place the mask somewhere safe, douse the fire and then casually ride away.

Uh huh.

So finally the story ends with SIR ROBERT shown as not such a bad guy after all as he takes his place into the pages of history and legends.

It seems that different versions of the Robin Hood tale often present different bad guys. Sometimes its like Kevin Reynoldss 1991 ROBIN HOOD PRINCE OF THIEVES where The Sheriff of Nottingham (the highly excellent Alan Rickman) is the big bad, and sometimes its like Michael Curtizs 1938 THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD, where Sir Guy of Gisbourne (the very highly excellent Basil Rathbone) makes Robins life miserable. And in the under seen, underrated John Irvins 1991 ROBIN HOOD, Sir Robert Hode swashbuckles with Sir Miles Folcanet (Jurgen Prochnow-an actor whose name I enjoy saying more than his acting I enjoy watching).

Does NOTTINGHAM hit the target?

No, because this first draft of NOTTINGHAM, sorry to say, didnt excite me.

I think Sir Ridley Scott has been a genius director for many classic films like ALIEN and BLADE RUNNER and I am a big fan of Russell Crowes solid, quietly strong performances in L.A.CONFIDENTIAL, GLADIATOR MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD and many other films, but NOTTINGHAM seemed unsure what kind of film it wanted to be. Did the writers want to have their historically accurate cake and the f-word too? It doesnt matter because NOTTINGHAM felt like the bastard child of 300, SLEEPY HOLLOW and GLADIATOR.

NOTTINGHAM is neither fun enough nor noble enough in its aspirations to join the ranks of the great Robin Hood films. Despite all of its good intentions, I never really felt like I made it to Sherwood Forrest

NOTTINGHAM rates a ROBIN HOOD: MEN IN TIGHTS out of a possible 1938s THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD or 6 stars out of 10.

Mr.E would like his readers to know that in his research for this review he found this intriguing Middle English couplet:

Manee yars agow Sire Skott uf Reedlay ond Sire Wrusle uf Kroe

Deed tyell oh manlee tyale uf ay Gludeeaytires greet whow

Und sowe mooar yars passtd befur thee ceem tugithire agin

Nuw toe tyell un nuu staree uf te Chirref uf Uld Nuttengam 

Nythr thyr praamis uf thee arrt uf Sire Skott uf Reedlay

Culd saiv thyr screpdt frum thay rathe uf Meestire E

NOTTINGHAM by Ethan Reiff & Cyrus Voris

First Draft

November 13, 2006

Comments (0)

Show/Hide comments

Show/Hide comment form

Name

Email

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Add Comment