Menace II Society review

  Number 807 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Hughes' brother 1993 teen-crime drama Menace II Society.

Caine Lawson (Tyrin Turner) and Kevin "O-Dog" Anderson" (Larenz Tate) are two boys growing up in the rough streets of Crenshaw, Los Angeles. Together they need to navigate the dangerous life of gang violence and drugs.

To any budding film-makers out there, I'll give you some unsolicited advice. Don't do what the Hughes Brothers did and have your two main characters shoot to death an innocent Korean couple who are just running their shop. It isn't a great way to get me to care about your characters. It's not like it was an accident or the boys felt guilty; on the contrast, O-Dog constantly boasts about his crime.

It was a bad start and things only got worse from there. Menace II Society offered a superficial surface look at a deeply-nuanced issue. It's difficult not to draw comparisons to the the 1991 Boyz n the Hood which has similar subject matter.

The main comparison is one of quality. Whereas Boyz n the Hood was good, Menace II Society was not. Tonally, it was all wrong. The Hughes Brothers, wanting to contrast with the hopeful Boyz n the Hood, were aiming for a more nihilistic tone. Yet, I detected little nihilism. It wasn't like the characters were bitterly resigned to their situations; they were embracing them. O-Dog constantly shows the CCTV footage of him shooting the Korean couple to anybody who's interested. Again, why am I supposed to care about or like this character?

The dialogue was also incredibly ham-fisted. I was rolling my eyes so much that at point they got stuck in my skull. It reminded me of Green Street Hooligans where Charlie Hunnum had to recite the Cockney rhyming dictionary.

It didn't help that the actors didn't believe what they were saying either. All round, the acting wasn't great. I want to say something about Jada Pinkett Smith who debuted in this film, but Will doesn't like it when his wife's name is in other people's mouths.

I didn't like this film at all. The characters were horrible, the dialogue was corny and there was nothing nihilistic about it.

The Adventures of Robin Hood review

 Number 297 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1938 swashbuckling adventure 'The Adventures of Robin Hood.'

Robin Hood (Errol Flynn) is an outlaw living in Sherwood forest while King Richard I is fighting in the crusades. In his absence, the villainous Prince John (Claude Rains) rules the country along with the evil Guy of Gisborne (Basil Rathbone) and Sheriff of Nottingham (Melville Cooper.) When the trip start exploiting the poor, it is up to Robin Hood and his merry men to save the day.

Unlike other films where Robin Hood does not speak with an English accent, the Adventures of Robin Hood succeeds, because it doesn't take itself too seriously. It's complete nonsense, but that's what Robin Hood should be. It shouldn't be dour and broody like Prince of Thieves or a block-buster like the Russell Crowe adaptation. Robin Hood should be fun, gaudy and colourful and this film fit the bill perfectly.

A lot of that was down to Errol Flynn's energetic and irreverent portrayal of Robin Hood. He played the outlaw with a brash aloofness that meshed well with the light-hearted nature of the film. In many ways, it reminded me of Cary Elwes' portrayal of our roguish outlaw almost fifty years later. 

Although, reportedly, Errol Flynn was a nightmare on set, being difficult to work with and acting with a level of unjustified arrogance. Perhaps his portrayal of Robin Hood was Flynn being his usual rude self.

I've never been accused of being a SJW, but I definitely depicted some queer-coding within Claude Rains' portrayal of Prince John. I'm not sure whether this was historically accurate, but I can understand why modern audiences might find that problematic.

Nonetheless, I did enjoy the light-hearted romp that was the Adventures of Robin Hood.