"Rob Roy" is a historical adventure in the spirit of "Braveheart" with a little bit of "Lord of the Rings" thrown into the mix. It wants to be exciting and epic, but try as it might, it's rather forgettable.
Robert Roy MacGregor (Liam Neeson) needs money, so he goes to the Marquis of Montrose (John Hurt) to offer him a business proposition that will make them both a lot of money. Things don't go as planned, and a man named Cunningham (Tim Roth) steals the money and blames it on MacGregor. So MacGregor must fight to save his clan and defend his honor.
That's the story in a nutshell. It's really more complex than that, but truthfully it's not worth going into.
By all accounts this should be a good movie. The performances are solid, being both standard adventure characters and complex individuals at the same time. The film looks great. So why isn't this a great film? The truth is that apart from a few instances, I could really care less about anything that happened. The most important thing a movie has to do is draw the audience into the story, and for me, "Rob Roy" fails to do that.
There are two characters that illicited a response from me. Most importantly is Cunningham, played by Tim Roth. He's as vile as they come. He could care less about anyone, and no act of villainy is beyond his capability. The second Alasdair MacGregor, Rob Roy's brother, if only because he's rather likable.
There are two things I must address. One is why they chose "Rob Roy" as the title. Liam Neeson's character is never referred to or addressed by this name. Maybe it's the name of the legend, but my bet is that most people, such as myself, would have no idea who the man was except for the movie.
The second is that the film contains the best sword-fight in film history. Please. It may be realistic because people act in a normal way, but like the rest of the movie, it's rather lifeless.
If you're looking for a good historical epic, stick with "Braveheart." There's a reason why Mel Gibson's film is widely regarded as a classic and most people don't know this one.
Robert Roy MacGregor (Liam Neeson) needs money, so he goes to the Marquis of Montrose (John Hurt) to offer him a business proposition that will make them both a lot of money. Things don't go as planned, and a man named Cunningham (Tim Roth) steals the money and blames it on MacGregor. So MacGregor must fight to save his clan and defend his honor.
That's the story in a nutshell. It's really more complex than that, but truthfully it's not worth going into.
By all accounts this should be a good movie. The performances are solid, being both standard adventure characters and complex individuals at the same time. The film looks great. So why isn't this a great film? The truth is that apart from a few instances, I could really care less about anything that happened. The most important thing a movie has to do is draw the audience into the story, and for me, "Rob Roy" fails to do that.
There are two characters that illicited a response from me. Most importantly is Cunningham, played by Tim Roth. He's as vile as they come. He could care less about anyone, and no act of villainy is beyond his capability. The second Alasdair MacGregor, Rob Roy's brother, if only because he's rather likable.
There are two things I must address. One is why they chose "Rob Roy" as the title. Liam Neeson's character is never referred to or addressed by this name. Maybe it's the name of the legend, but my bet is that most people, such as myself, would have no idea who the man was except for the movie.
The second is that the film contains the best sword-fight in film history. Please. It may be realistic because people act in a normal way, but like the rest of the movie, it's rather lifeless.
If you're looking for a good historical epic, stick with "Braveheart." There's a reason why Mel Gibson's film is widely regarded as a classic and most people don't know this one.