Sadly, this is what is left for films tailored to today’s younger generation. In other words, this film is made for “Twilight” fans. It’s not as completely wretched as that nonsensical vampire-werewolf love fest. “Hood” has 3 things that you can identify as BAD, providing of course you are not a “Twilight” fan. If you are a “Twilight” fan, stop reading this now and go off to enjoy…whatever you call entertainment. The 3 things that spell r-o-t-t-e-n for “Hood” are: no character development, plot holes, and acting so shallow that it should be in a kiddie pool.
Folks, there is too much of this going on in Hollywood today. It is so depressing that it has made us all jaded and cynical. The funny thing is almost nobody goes back to watch something old and classy to see how it is supposed to be done. You mean the lighting of “Citizen Kane” by the great Orson Wells? Do you mean the tension created by a few bars of music created by the legendary John Williams in “Jaws”? No, I mean acting. Yep, this film is so bad in the acting department it should be shown to kids in school so they can be told what NOT to do. #1 rule of acting: make the audience connect with you. What do you feel for the title character in this movie? Nothing. I don’t remember the character’s name, but the actress is Amanda Seyfried. She should get out of the business right now, because she is HORRIBLE. Her lines are delivered with the passion of Kristin Stewart, or a piece of driftwood – they are both the same to me.
But wait! It gets worse. The actor who plays her love interest – again I care so little that I don’t remember his name or his character either – is stiff and uninteresting. In fact, I think he could be a cardboard cut-out that you see for sale at comic shops and those funky weekend sales kiosks in the mall. He wears black and he carries an axe. Supposedly he is a woodcutter, but he is such a sissy that he lets his childhood girlfriend kill a rabbit instead of him.
Plot holes, you say? Um, there’s the title and Amanda is given a bright red cloak to wear. So there you have the justification for the title. We are never given any decent explanation as to why this cloak is given – only that it was meant to be a wedding present. Oh, but why stop there with such stupid cheekiness; let’s add a bit of the fairy tale rhyme in as actual dialogue to the film! That was fun, wasn’t it? The audience must think we are geniuses for coming up with this!
The only part of this film that was remotely interesting was Gary Oldman as the acerbic werewolf-hunter/priest called Father Something-or-other. His back story was pretty interesting. After you hear that part of the movie, you can turn it off. The rest of the story is such nonsense – like the villagers go off to hunt a wolf with pitchforks and axes, or the rich kid in town is the village jewelry maker (he certainly didn’t know how to be a blacksmith). I am not being picky here either; two other people I watched the film with said the exact same thing!
The film looks like someone recycled “The Village” set and costumes, and added in the extras that were left over from the “Twilight” saga as the stars of this tasteless gruel. The red cloak is a feature to the whole movie because whenever it appears on screen, it is 40 miles long and always has to be blowing around. My message to the director & producers of this trash: (To quote Roger Ebert) “Your film SUCKS.”
…and that’s it for this edition of THE REEL VOICE.
- Red Riding Hood (reelryan.com)