Downright one of the finest Period pieces ever made.

Cast: Liam Neeson, Jessica Lange, Tim Roth, Brian Cox, John Hurt, Eric Stoltz, (Shirley Hendersen & Jason Fleyming in early roles.)

Director: Michael Caton-Jones

Writer: Alan Sharp, based on historical figures

Running Time:  139 min.

1995

Like Dangerous Liaisons or The English Patient, this film walks the line between epic and intimate character study, (although those make the best epics.)

I first saw this film on my 17th birthday.  I was struck even then by the depth of the characters and the subtlety with which they are revealed:  A man and a woman truly in love, two men in the throws of bitter hate, (because one hates himself,) One man whom, out of prideful arrogance and self-love, shits on everyone around him while getting richer in the process, and one of the slimy shat upon, weaseling his way through the filth to make whatever profit there is to be had, and get his sick kicks along the way.

Deep breath.

Tim Roth blows my mind he's so good in this film. (Where the F**k is he these days, anyway?  Do I have to watch Planet of the Apes again, [only for free on cable, at somebody else’s house, [with a plethora of pistolas to my cabesa and little will to live,] to get my fix? Or is he gonna make another movie?) It might be the best role he's been given, as Sir Archibald Cunningham, he simply inhabits it as though it were his own skin.  I would like to think he is just a truly great actor, because if there is more than a little self-portrait in there, he is one scary dude.  I remember viewers referring to his performance as the personification of evil, but I would say hate.  That is at worst, but I hesitate to break his character down to something so simple, because that is one thing his character definitely is not.  He transitions from fop to fierce on dime, revealing his character's deep seeded duplicity as his self loathing projects onto the world around him, infesting it with violence and deceit. “Cunning” is the beginning of his surname, and it's well reflected in the man.

The relationship between Neeson and Lange, as Rob Roy and Mary MacGregor, is sultry, downright hot, and beautiful. Both give strong impassioned performances. The two of them always look like they just did…or are about to, for real, with hotter chemistry than Salma Hayek and Antonio Banderas, (Tony Flags,) but somehow with a nice maturity, making it very tangible.  These lovers perfectly exemplify the films strong running theme of honor.  The nice thing is they actually talk, and tell each other what for, like a marriage. Admittedly they get me a little misty.  Kudos to Neeson, you're an ass-kicker. Charisma to burn ye have me friend, and some earthy realness that puts you right in the room.

While I feel at times she struggled with the accent, Jessica Lange delivers, down to the ground.  She is one of the reasons I think this movie is quite emotionally tangible.  One particular scene, if you’ve seen it, you’ll know the scene, in which she goes toe to toe with Roth is super intense shit.  If you’ve yet to see the film you’ll know the scene in reference when you do.

John Hurt and Brian Cox, two masters, must not go without mention when discussing this film. Hurt exudes arrogance where Roth seethes with hate.  These characteristics play nicely off one another throughout, making for some juicy moments. This isn't cool arrogance, by the way, it is pure, court-bred arrogance, complete with powdered face and wig, applied “beauty” marks, practiced sneers and sideways smiles. Hurt's realism as the Marquis de Montrose, combined with that of all others involved, creates a very believable court setting and power structure. A setting in which Kilearn, played by Brain Cox, lives and breathes, if only to leech off of everyone around him. He is deliciously slimy, waddling pathetically one second, and turning to gnaw at unsuspecting fresh meat the next.  His duplicitous nature makes him the obvious/ perfect co-conspirator, if not friend for Roth’s Cunningham.

In his review of this film, Mick Martin, writer of yearly a “DVD Movie guide” and former film critic of the Sacramento Union, (before it went under, due to no fault of his own,) called it "stately," and "an uncommonly serious swashbuckler."

Stat-ly (Webster’s) \’st8t-le\ 1 a: HAUGHTY, UNAPPROACHABLE b: marked by lofty or imposing dignity.  2-impressive in size or proportions.

1a: not even close.  (HAUGHTY- blatantly and disdainfully proud.)  The only disdain in this film is that which the characters hold for each other.  What, it’s okay for Indiana Jones, (Martin gave 4 stars plus to all 3,) to be proud and arrogant, but a real guy who stood up for his name and his people can’t have a code, and speak his mind both in the prescence of his family and his adversaries?  Unapproachable?  See aforementioned sensuality.  B:  okay, but drop the “imposing.”  Lofty is okay, because here it is tempered with great chemistry and atmosphere, driven by it’s underlying spirit of resistence.

2: Definitely.

Swash-buck-ler (Web’s again) \nevermind\ 1: a boasting or blustering daredevil.  2: a novel or drama dealing with a swashbuckler.

1: Um, boasting? Blustering soldier or daredevil?  That sounds like a very different film.

Martin seems to be using the “swashbuckler” as it would refer to an Errol Flynn vehicle, there’s no Doug Fairbanks here.  This film is “serious,” yes, because it tells of serious times in a grounded way.  Most swashbucklers I’ve seen have a very light mood, full of pithy exchanges, felt costumes, and often a rip roarin’ sense of fun.  Take almost any Zorro or Robin Hood movie, for example.  By that token, then, there is no similarity between this film and most swashbucklers, except swords.  Swords do not a swashbuckler make.  Nowhere in the definition of the word, in fact, are swords mentioned.

Let’s talk about swords.  This movie contains one of the greatest sword fights ever filmed, very convincingly portrayed by Neeson and Roth.  It is an action scene very rarely paralleled, which contains real tension and bruising realism.  In the absurdly over-mythical Open Range, Kevin Costner and Robert Duvall, as crusty cowboys, spend the whole film discussing and enhancing the legendary gunfight, (sans any actual gun fighting until two hours deep.)  When the big gunfight actually comes, know what happens?  In classic John Woo style Costner fires some eight to ten time from one revolver.  There, the mythologizing throughout served to disembowel the film once the reality fell apart in the gunfight.  Just because something is mythical doesn’t mean it doesn’t need to abide by some rules like everything else.  Unless we’re talking about a magic gun, in which case I’ve been reading that film all wrong and Kevin Costner is really my hero.  In Rob Roy, we see the men in action throughout versus multiple opponents; we see what they’re capable of.  They both seem to war with a terrible ease.  These men are not fabled to be larger than life, they are.  Thus, when they meet in battle it is both beautiful and brutal.  They are a perfect yin-yang balance: one man small and brutal, the other, large and compassionate.  It is a graceful and epic final struggle if I ever saw one.

To digress some, Mick Martin did rate this movie four out of five, (and 65-ish% of the time I agree with him,) I am simply splitting hairs, lobbying for that extra star. (Siskel & Ebert gave Rob “two enthusiastic thumbs up.)

[Leonard Maltin , however I definitely disagree with.  His 3 star review calls this film “never quite rousing.”  Grrrr, lobbying for two stars is a much bigger fight.]

Period films done well can yield very grounded, haunting results, like Elizabeth and The English Patient, true modern classics like Rob Roy and Memphis Belle, (also director Caton-Jones,) GoodFellas and The Aviator, (do I need to tell you who directed those two?)  This film is extremely raw for a studio made picture: murders, thefts, rape, stabbings, musket wounds, deceit, famine, kilts.  Not for the faint of heart. 

5 stars, count ‘em, *****

K