As a film, Robin Hood is simply decent. A bit long with a tendency to drag, it is populated by epic action scenes, and highly regarded character actors. What Scott and Co. attempted is to create a realistic origin story for the lovable legend. That means King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston) is actually violent and egotistical, and King John (Oscar Isaac) and the Sheriff of Nottingham (Matthew Macfadyen) both make appearances but are not the main villains. That distinction belongs to the French, and the English traitor Godfrey, played by the leering Mark Strong. Robin Hood returns home from the crusades right as the French are attempting to use political intrigue to split England in two. Of course impassioned speeches, ambushes, lovely maidens, and Scott's trademark ability to film a battle all ensue.
Like all Scott films, the technical side is well done. He knows how to shoot an adventure, and he knows how to shoot a period piece. The only complaint is that the pacing lags a bit in the middle. The cast side fares just as well. Crowe is always a solid lead, Cate Blanchett handles the role of Maid Marion with grit and aplomb, and Mark Strong is creating a really fun bad guy persona. Other notables include William Hurt, Max Von Sydow, Eileen Atkins combine with Danny Huston as they bring some acting cred to the table.
As adventure films go, it is well done. The film is entertaining, and well-acted. This particular film however, had a larger responsibility than that. Robin Hood is one of the most beloved legends of all time, and while Scott and Crowe provide a gritty and exciting update, they fail to revive any of the spirit and jauntiness of previous incarnations. The band of merry men, while frequently present, have little in the way of lines of character development. The bottom line is as a movie, Robin Hood is fine. As an update of an old story, it fails to live up to is predecessors.
20/30
(I apologize upfront, because I think this comment is going to be longer than your review. It’s because your reviews are interesting and make me think. Also a warning – this comment contains spoilers.)
ReplyDelete“Robin Hood, Robin Hood, riding through the glen,
“Robin Hood, Robin Hood, with his merry men.
“Feared by the bad. Loved by the good.
“Robin Hood. Robin Hood. Robin Hood.”
That’s the opening to the theme song of a ‘50s TV series I watched religiously as a little tyke. As you can see, I grew up firmly indoctrinated in the standard Robin Hood legend – books, TV, movies. However, I didn’t expect to see men laughing their way through the forest in a film by Ridley Scott starring Russell Crowe. Neither of them immediately bring “merry” to mind when thinking of their films. Or, as Russell Crowe said in an interview, once Mel Brooks has done a comedy about a subject, you’re almost obligated to go in a completely different direction.
This movie reminded me more of “The Lord of the Rings” than “Gladiator,” starting with certain passages of music (mostly when Marion was on screen), to the white horse emblazoned on the hillside (is this England or Rohan?), to Walter Locksley (AKA Theoden) doing battle with Godfrey (AKA the Witch King), to Marion (AKA Eowin) making her charge on the beach with the orphan boys (AKA the Hobbits), to Robin (AKA Aragorn) riding along the lines of men before the big battle. All I needed was a glimpse of Cate Blanchett’s, err, I mean Galadriel’s, err, rather Marion’s pointy ears and the comparison would have been complete.
However, I actually liked this film a little better than you did, I think. I’m a sucker for historical fiction anyway, and liked the mind exercise of an alternate interpretation to the Robin Hood legend. I was helped by the preface “….this is how it all began,” and I took the film at its word (the movie ends where the traditional legend begins). I liked that the story seemed real in its complications, and liked that the French were the villains (from my experience, the French ARE the villains – sorry, that’s an inside joke.) I agree the film was somewhat slow in pace, but I didn’t mind, and I liked the depiction of Marion as a strong character.
One thing I did object to – Marion joining the battle on the beach. It actually made me laugh (“This is for you, Walter!!”) – not what I think they were going for – and took me out of the film rather than engrossing me in the outcome. If they wanted a touching reunion of Robin and Marion at the end of the film, maybe she and the orphan boys, equipped with their bows, could have been watching on the edge of the battle, and somehow become engaged in a fight to stop escaping soldiers/Godfrey or something. But to ride in with full armor just was wrong.
I also think there are things to be learned from this film which make it worthwhile viewing, like don’t go into the water wearing full body armor; and never allow anyone to herd you into a building, because you can bet money they’re going to set it on fire.
its funny you should mention Lord of the Rings, because I read a reviewer, can't remember which one, who thought the final battle was one part Helm's Deep, and two parts Saving Private Ryan. I think I agree with him.
ReplyDeleteAs to the rest of your comments. I did enjoy much of the film. I thought Marion worked reasonably well, as did Crowe as their version of Robin Hood. I just always pictured Robin a bit differently, and it never stopped bugging me.