Robin Hood

Robin Hood

When news broke that Ridley Scott would be taking on Britain's biggest outlaw export - with none other than Russell Crowe donning the tights of the outlaw formerly known as Prince of Thieves - it sounded like a match made in heaven.

Sure, Scott has had his share of disappointments. But his recent outings with Crowe (American Gangster, Body Of Lies)  have been decidedly above par, and Scott's natural flair for sweeping  epics made the project seem an automatic winner. All things being equal,  Robin Hood might even threaten Costner's outlaw crown.

Upon closer inspection, however, the cracks quickly began to appear.  Scott may have directed some groundbreaking movies, but his track record  with historical epics is far from perfect - do we have to remind you of  Kingdom Of Heaven or 1492: Conquest of Paradise? He might have had more luck recasting Robin Hood as an alien - at least then we'd have known that he had the directing chops.

The choice of Crowe as a leading man brings its own troubles, too, not  least his disappointingly wonky attempts at foreign accents. He's still  marginally more believable at for'n tongues than Tom Cruise,  but neither could be called a vocal chameleon. When Mark Lawson dared  to suggest that Crowe's Hood sounded slightly Irish on his BBC Radio 4  show, Crowe stormed out of the studio - but Lawson's listeners probably  felt that he had a point.

In the end, though, it's Robin Hood's poe-faced earnestness that  lets it down, turning one of Hollywood's most enjoyable swashbuckling  franchises into a chest-thumping Braveheart wannabe. Costner may have been a shade too wholesome, but at least he didn't have Crowe's ever-furrowed brow.

There are numerous historical liberties taken too, as if Ridley Scott  was determined to make a movie that was even less historically accurate  than Mel Gibson's  take on William Wallace. Dates are changed, documented facts are  twisted, and somehow Robin saves England from a French invasion that the  history books have neglected to mention for the last 800 years. If your  kids are studying British history I'd suggest keeping them locked away  while you watch this.

Robin Hood (Crowe) is now revealed to have been Robin Longstride, the  long-lost son of a political activist who gets embroiled in medieval  politics himself when he stumbles upon a French plot to steal the  English crown. Robin returns the crown to the royals, and the sword of  fallen knight Sir Robert Loxley to his father (Max Von Sydow) and bereaved widow Lady Marian (Cate Blanchett).

In a surreal development Robin is then persuaded to masquerade as the  dead Loxley - and wouldn't you know it, he uses his outlaw know-how to  save Marian, the village, and eventually the whole country from those  dastardly Gauls. There's not much robbing of the rich or giving to the  poor, but Crowe's Robin isn't short of do-gooding.

This new historical mash-up of the Robin Hood story still surrounds him with his merry men (The Full Monty's Mark Addy, Lost's  Kevin Durand, Scott Grimes and Alan Doyle), and places a weaselly  Sheriff of Nottingham (Matthew Macfadyen) on the villains list, but  Scott's pseudo-factual interpretation saps much of the joy and energy  from proceedings. It's easy to see why his followers were dubbed the  'merry men' when Robin himself is such a self-righteous bore.

What bails out Ridley Scott in the end is the excellent support work from the likes of Danny Huston, William Hurt, and the ever-villainous Mark Strong,  but with most of the screen time falling to the earnest heroics of Mr  Crowe they're never allowed to fully rescue the movie. Instead we're  left with an over-long, and over-worthy, historical rewrite of the Robin  Hood myth that feels surprisingly light on both action and historical  fact.

Still, with major box office receipts in the bank, and a willing star,  it looks as if we may see a second outing for Hollywood's latest Hood.  Let's hope that the merry men recover their joie de vivre before then.

3/5

Robin Hood: A new look at an old tale

Making his first appearance on screen in 1908, Robin Hood has a rich history in the world of literature, cinema and television. He has been portrayed in countless movies, the first being a silent film directed by Percy Snow.

Cloaked and mysterious, Robin Hood has been a story told to children and adults alike. Helping the poor by fighting the rich, Robin Hood (as we know him to be) lived life as an outlaw, an archer, and a friend to the most vulnerable and abused.
While there have been many versions of this tale (Prince of Thieves and Men in Tights come to mind as two of the most popular), they have been told in a variety of ways and from different strands of the legend.

The latest to join the long list is the Ridley Scott directed film starring Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett. While the title remains the same, little else does.

Robin Hood, and the legend the name holds, isn’t the focus of this particular script, but is merely the title of its lead character. This movie was meant to be a battle film, an action drama, and is the third of its kind for Scott who also directed Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven.

Written to reflect a fallen England, a people ready to fight for their rights, a charter that changed the course of history, and just the beginning of the Robin Hood legend, this film pushes the viewer through politics, love, loyalty, and war with cinematic ease.

Though the average viewer may feel led astray by the name, and lack of focus on famous characters like Maid Marian or King John, it sets the stage for a story yet to be told.

Entertaining and exciting, this film is a great mixture of action and character. Though the storyline weaves in many sword fights and bloody battles, it does possess the top notch acting necessary to carry an emotional connection.

Cate Blanchett shines on screen as Lady Marian, bringing to life a captivating, strong, and witty character that stands for what she believes in and is willing to fight for what she knows is right.

Playing the part of Lady Marian’s blind father-in-law, Sir Walter Loxley, Max Von Sydow also delivers a dynamic, though short
lived, performance that could possibly garner award season buzz.

Though the storyline isn’t the true “Robin Hood” the world is used to seeing- stealing from the rich, outrunning the law, hiding in the forest’s shadow- Scott’s story gives us the background to a story we already know.

While Scott, and screenwriter Brian Helgeland//ig/</igins cite="mailto:Clarissa%20Andersen-White"/>/ig</ins> may have taken creative liberties with the plot, the certainly pull you in to see the story from another angle, and gives the viewer a different idea of who Robin Hood could have been.

While I wouldn’t go so far as to label it “the” film of the year, and Russell Crowe probably won’t win an Oscar for his performance or his accent, it certainly kept me entertained and is one I would highly recommend.

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: Wizard of Oz

Last updated: 2010-06-16 05:37:05 by Clarissa3782

Robin Hood

***this review discusses parts of the plot and may act as a spoiler! If you haven’t yet viewed the film and don’t want spoilers, then perhaps you should return to this review after viewing it. Sincerely, Rammfan518***

I haven’t written a review in some time. I don’t really have an excuse for being so lazy (except general busyness with school and other creative projects) so, yea, sorry about not updating.

Yesterday, I had this exchange with my friend Cory via Facebook chat:

casey says: I want to write a review (of Robin Hood)

cory says: was it good or bad

casey says: middle

He suggested that this be my whole review, which would be funny, but I feel like I need to elaborate a bit. It’s become a known fact here at college that I dislike a lot things. Some people I have too high of expectations. I’d like to think 1) that they simply like too much, 2) I am simply disappointed by mediocre results from cool ideas and 3) well, I’ll keep that one to myself. Due to this general dislike of my “not liking anything,” I haven’t told my friends that I have seen “Robin Hood” or disliked it. Usually my reasoning is “Because it’s stupid”, a reason I find perfectly acceptable, but I guess that doesn’t work for everyone, so before I say “Robin Hood” is stupid, I guess I should tell you why.

When I first heard this movie was coming out, I groaned and my heart rolled in its grave. Another Robin Hood? Do we 1) really need another re-imagining/remake/whatever the fuck and 2) really need another Robin Hood movie? Errol Fylnn’s “The Adventures of Robin Hood” is still awesome, so why make another one, especially when Costner made one hella years ago? Like everything that needs an excuse to be re-imagined, Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood” would tell the backstory of the legend of Robin Hood, which, honestly, no one really knows about. It reminded me of the 2004 movie “King Arthur,” which tells a possible origin story of the Arthurian Legends. Don’t get me wrong, I love “King Arhtur”, although it’s a bit cheesy and lame, but going back into Robin Hood’s backstory seemed, well, less cool and a bit superfluous. I also had a couple complaints about the first trailer. “Robin on the beach? Wasn’t he in the woods?” I passed off the film as something I wouldn’t want to see.

A couple weeks before the movie was released, the marketing department released some cool trailers that got me excited. I don’t what happened, but for a second, I believed that this movie could be pretty badass. I asked my friends if they wanted to see it, which they responded with “I thought you didn’t wanna see it bla blah nya nyaaaa”, so I decided to go solo yesterday. I went into the theatre thinking it was going to be badass, but it just turned out being like a burnt bag of popcorn.

There are a couple reasons I didn’t like “Robin Hood” as much as I think I should have. I could nitpick and shit, but my main complaint was the story. It was, well, boring.

The story drops us into the 12th Century, where Richard the Lionheart is returning from the Crusades, conquering whatever the fuck he wants along the way. Robin Longstride (not “Robin ‘of the’ Hood”) yet, is there, along with some of his buddies, being archers and shit. On the night before the storming of the castle, Richard the Lionheart decides he’s going to find “an honest man,” for what reason I do not know. Richard stumbles upon Robin and Little John fighting or whatever. He asks Robin and Little John what they honestly think of his campaign, and Robin’s honest tongue gets him and his buddies locked in some wood device shit.

I dunno what else happens, this boy helps free them, only to die in the next scene at some ambush by some traitor bald guy we’ve never seen. The story is all over the place and it sucks.

Ok, ok, back to the story. Robin and his buddies stumble upon an ambush or whatever, and after killing some people (who cares?) there’s this dying English guy who wants only that his sword be delivered to his father, Sir Walter of Loxly in Nottingham. Robin agrees to this for this dude for some reason.

So, Robin and his group of people go to England with the crown, which is given to Richard’s asshole successor and younger brother, King John. King John is introduced by banging some French princess (one of the highlights of this movie) played by Léa Seydoux. So, whatever, King John gets the crown and is an asshole. . .whatever.

In the other storyline, Robin goes to Nottingham with Little John and two of his friends who seriously never get developed. At the end of the movie, I didn’t even know their names. It is here that Robin meets Friar Tuck, who is a bee-keeper for some unknown reason. Robin reaches the (fucking a, I hate this story) main house of Sir Walter of Loxly, the dad of the dying soldier, the person to which Robin has to return the sword. This is where Robin meets Lady Marion and the old blind guy Sir Walter of Loxly. Apparently, Lady Marion was married to the dying guy in the woods, and so now, the old coot wants 1) Russel Crowe to pretend to be his dead son and 2) pretend to be Marion’s wife. Marion is like “ugh, whatever” and disapproves of the newcomer being her husband.

Some political shit happens and it’s boring, and then Robin saves some grain and Marion likes him now. WHATEVER. Some more shit happens, and basically, at the end, there’s a battle on the beach between France and England. On the English side is Robin and his friends, as well as the asshole King John. Yes, he joins them for this fight, and at this point in the movie, I kind of forgave him for being a dickhead the whole time. Lady Marion arrives at the battle too with some forest kids WHOSE BACKSTORIES ARE NEVER EXPLAINED, but whatever. . .

The battle isn’t very long, and well, what do you know, the English win and the asshole bald guy gets an arrow in the neck. (God, this movie is so long). After that, King John (who was aided by Robin in the final battle) becomes a dickhead again and outlaws Robin. What the fuck? Why? Why was he an asshole, to being likeable, just to go back to being a dick? I don’t get it.

So anyway, Robin moves into the forest with his cronies, to live happily ever after and become a legend. . .the end.

Fuck that, dude. What a stupid story! To me, it feels like they had two stories to tell. The story seems to be split up between Robin’s story and this France-England war story, which is pretty damn annoying when I went to go see ROBIN HOOD. I mean, really. . .did they think this was a good script? It’s too talky, not enough action, and boring.

One thing that annoyed me about the film is the role of the forest kids. Throughout the film, these little kids from the woods run around with bows and arrows, being all mysterious and causing mischief for the people of Nottingham. When Robin explains in the movie that he was abandoned by his father when he was six, I couldn’t wait for Robin to meet the forest kids (that I assumed he used to be a part of). I was expecting a scene where Robin spoke some language to the kids and they understood, thus revealing Robin’s past, but no, these kids are just unexplained. And then Marion shows up with them at the final battle? Fuck you, screenwriter.

As I mentioned before, the two friends of Robin and Little John are never really introduced. They’re just, well, there. Which reminds me of two stupid points. First off, I heard Russel Crowe wanted his friend and album collaborator Alan Doyle to play the Merry Men’s Minstrel. This is fine, I GUESS, but why does his characters name have to be “Allan A’Dayle”? Seriously?

Another stupid scene is after Robin and his three stupid friends come to Nottigham. The three friends drank hella mead and fucked some chicks, whatever. The next day, when Robin and Marion visit the the three friends, the girls come out and are all embarrassed, giggly, and go running back into the cabin. Then one guy says “Well. . .looks like you guys had quite an evening!” or something stupid like that. Am I supposed to laugh at this? Am I supposed to go “HAR HAR HAR THEY HAD SEX AND NOW WE ALL KNOW IT HAR HAR” Please. . .

Oh, and Robin totally dropped the “L” word prematurely. I’m not going to go into it, but yea, he totally dropped it early.

Another thing that pissed me off is that the people in this movie have no reason or motivation for what they are doing. Here’s an example of what I mean:

Dying guy: “Take my sword to my dad”
Robin: “Ok”

Old-ass guy: “I want you to pretend to be son and be Marion’s husand”
Robin: “Ok”

Seriously, what the fuck? This movie is kind of lame, now that I think about it. I’d have to say it’s on par with Ridley Scott’s other Crusade movie, “Kingdom of Heaven”, which was equally bogged down by politics talk and shaky-cam battles. (At least it had Liam Neeson and Eva Green, though.)

Well, I think I better go because I haven’t been outside all day today and I have bitched enough about this movie. In an interview for this film, Russel Crowe said “This has got to be the best [Robin Hood depiction] ever done, otherwise I should be doing something else.”

I wish I had been, Russel.

Recommendations: (500) Days Of Summer (Marc Webb, 2009)

Film Review: ROBIN HOOD (2010)

RATING 5/10

BOTTOM LINE: Despite some well executed sequences and an interesting interpretation of the legend, “Robin Hood” is a mixed bag, with more negatives than positives, starting with its badly miscast lead actors to the feeling that this origin story does not sit well with the traditional tales of the famous outlaw.

THE GOOD: The legend of Robin Hood has been told so many times that another version of the same story probably would have been pointless. To his credit, director Ridley Scott tries to go in a different direction, telling a more realistic version of how Robin Hood and his merry man became who they were. As a result, this film tells a story that we have not seen and where Robin actually rose to a noble position, only to have it stripped away from him at the end as his position within the kingdom threatens King John’s leadership, thus turning him in to Robin Hood. In terms of directing sequences, Ridley Scott is still at the top of his game, creating some exciting drama, particularly with the big battle sequence in the climax. As expected, the film is well shot and edited, and draws you more in to the plot than even some of Scott’s recent efforts. “Robin Hood” is an interesting attempt to give a fresh face to well known material.

THE BAD: This film is disappointing in many ways. Ridley Scott is a great director, but somehow in recent years, his films have contained some questionable choices. This time, the telling of this story of Robin Hood seems to discredit the more traditional legends that we have come to know and love. Despite a more realistic interpretation, Robin Hood at the end of the day is stuff of legend rather than realism, and this origin tale does not make use of any of the colourful aspects of that legend, starting with the man himself, his band of followers and Maid Marion. It is well made, yet it does not add to the legend, but rather gives you a feeling of detracting from it. Despite being played by some great actors, the characters seem lifeless and only serve as plot points; Friar Tuck, Little John and others are not strong in this film, only really showing up to be introduced. Perhaps the worst decisions were the casting of Russell Crowe as Robin Hood and Cate Blanchett as Maid Marion. Yes, they perform well, but they are totally wrong. The rest of the cast is relatively young, as befitting the time when not many people lived past their forties. Yet Russell Crowe is in his late forties, and he looks every bit of it next to the rest of the younger cast. How can an origin tale of Robin Hood be told with a man in his late forties, who by all accounts, would probably not have survived to that age, if we are to use a realistic interpretation of the period as Scott has done? Crowe sticks out like a sore thumb, and every moment he is in the film feels wrong because he is too old for the part and does not, except for a few small instances, carry the mischievous quality of that character that are missing here. Cate Blanchett is in a similar position, and the chemistry between her and Crowe is more akin to friends than lovers. “Robin Hood” is like a noble experiment gone wrong; an attempt to give a fresh perspective on the legend has unfortunately worked against itself rather than for it.

(Read Less...)

Todd Murphy <br />
http://www.allaboutmovies.net

Robin Hood misses the bullseye

When I heard that Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe were teaming up again to bring another ancient hero story to life, I surprisingly asked ‘why?’. They made Gladiator which, while overblown and a rip off of Braveheart, was considered a success. So I was puzzled why team up again to tell a story that has been told many times before? I will speculate at the end of the review but first, on to the film.

Robin Hood is basically an origins story. Robin Longstride is a faithful and brave archer in the King’s army. Having enough of the military life, he and his merry men decide to go on the road for a simpler life. Along the way they hitch a ride back to England, Longstride get’s mistaken for Robin of Locksley, falls in love with Lady Marion, and ends up leading the English army into battle against the sneaky French. wrongfully accused by the end of the film, he dones the title of ‘Robin Hood’ and takes his place among the forest, beginning a life of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Sounds OK right?

This new version of Robin Hood is diametrically opposed to the Kevin Cosner’s Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves in every way. This new version is authentic, well acted, beautifully shot, and grounded in realism. The problem; it’s also boring, lifeless, humorless, and as romantic as a game of chess. While the 1991 Robin Hood was a complete mess, at least it was fun and exciting in a corny kind of way. While the world Ridley Scott knits together is well crafted, I found myself enjoying the scenery more than the actors that inhabited it. It also is crippled by a storyline that is difficult to track and action scenes that are forgettable.

While I generally like Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett, I just found them too old for this origins story. Crowe does a good job portraying the noble, quiet fighter but is given very little else to develop. There is a desperate attempt at storyline about his father but it’s unsatisfying and pointless. Marion is hardly a maid and is way too heavy-handed as a strong independent woman. A younger and more vulnerable actress would have been better suited as a counter to the already strong and independent Robin Hood. It’s not till the last twenty seconds of the film that you kinda get excited about the adventures of Robin Hood and his merry men. Unfortunately, it’s too late to care. This is a wasted effort for such a talented cast.

So back to my original question of why this movie now? Inspired by great origins stories like Batman Begins, I believe Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe are in search for the new epic franchise. I think that is the ‘holy grail’ for these directors with reputations to protect.  Robin Hood felt like an attempt to ensnare the audience in wanting more and telling an epic story that spans multiple movies. Don’t get me wrong, I am a big fan of Scott. Blade Runner and Alien were some of the best movies of their generation- so long ago. Now I am starting to question his vision to create unique and compelling stories. This movie didn’t help that case either. So if you want to good laugh, rent the 1991 Robin Hood. If you want a good nap, watch this version.

Sorry Ridley, looks like your crusade for the holy grail continues, but please take us in another direction.

Read more of my reviews at www.BabbleOn5.com

Last updated: 2010-05-27 15:29:34 by tonybkim

Target: Audience

Robin Hood is under siege. Critics have gone medieval over its length, its indifference to fact, its morose direction, Russell Crowe's dour archer with a Welsh-today, Scot-tomorrow accent... et cetera. While I've seen worse than a 44% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, it seems like a lot of support is coming from critics who appreciated the action sequences, and a lot of flamery from critics who wished those action sequences weren't so far apart. Not good.

What do I say? Dark isn't drab. Nolan's Batman franchise is dark; Scott's Robin Hood, like Gladiator before it, is drab. Grey pallette, grey characters, grey, depressing story. Crowe's merry man is unrelentingly grim, and so too are we, because we know everything he does about the situation, plus a whole lot more, all of it worse than even he imagines. Moments of humour--rare, and book-ended by tragedy or guilt--are shouldered by supporting characters, none of whom have a full grasp of events. If they did (we're forced to conclude), they'd have nothing to be joyful about. Just like we don't.

Now that my own quiver's empty, I'll point out something good about Robin Hood: the opening intertitles. I dug the throw-back feel of these screens, which prepped us, silent-movie style, for a familar tale delivered in new and spectacular fashion:

"This is the story of his return home, where, for defending the weak against the strong, he will be condemned to live outside the law."

My movie-going companion bitched about this, calling it a spoiler, but for me, it added power to a film for which predictability is both a blessing and curse. Robin Hood's ground is well-trod--like any remake, reboot, or revisioning of classic material, from Superman to Sophocles to James Bond, half the joy's in seeing how a new generation adapts the material. Robin Hood's opening intertitle acknowledges that the Robin Hood legend is part of our shared popular history; it brings us together and, for a few seconds, reminds us that we are witnessing a retelling of something bigger.

Many silent films open this way--with a brief summation of what's to come, or even, in the case of comedic shorts, a thematic platitude that sums up the absurdity ahead of time. For better (and worse), silent scriptwriters and directors assumed a common background among their audiences, and so seemed less afraid to begin with a shared idea, attitude, or understanding of facts.

Robin Hood isn't great filmmaking. But it could be a portent, if only because it assumes people of various socio-economic backgrounds, nationalities, ethnicities and ages share a common knowledge of the Robin Hood tale.

(Read Less...)

Robin Hood

Robin Hood, written by Brian Helgeland and directed by Ridley Scott, provides yet another perspective on the “taketh from the rich, giveth to the poor” hero. Neither the suave Errol Flynn, swashbuckler Douglas Fairbanks or Kevin Costner Americanized version, and most especially not the Mel Brooks musical comedy hero, 2010 Robin Hood is perhaps the thinking man’s (or woman’s) champion. As personified by Russell Crowe, this Robin Hood can drink and fight with the best of them…is an archer extraordinaire…has a sly wit…is gentle…and loyal. I have to admit I was smitten by the man and the movie.


Scott’s Robin Hood gives us the man before he became “Robin of the Hood,” beginning as Robin Longstride, an archer in the Third Crusade under Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston). Following Richard’s death in battle, Robin and three of his fellow soldiers, Allan A’Dayle, Will Scarlett, and Little John (Alan Doyle, Scott Grimes and Kevin Durand respectively), are returning home, having spent ten years fighting abroad. Along the way this “merry band of men” happens across an ambush of the King’s guard by Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong), an English knight with what seems to be dual French and English citizenship and allegiance. Robin assumes the identity of Robert Loxley, an English lord murdered in the ambush and in possession of  Richard’s crown. Robin/Robert takes the crown and returns it to the king’s brother, Prince John (Oscar Isaac )and then proceeds to Nottingham so he can inform Robert’s father, Sir Walter Loxley (Max Von Sydow), and Robert’s wife, Lady Marion (Cate Blanchett), of Robert’s death. Walter asks him to continue the false identity and in so doing, Robin becomes engulfed in the troubles between the new king and his subjects as well as the battles between England and France.


In addition to Crowe, the film boasts an eclectic cast with some terrific acting. Von Sydow and Blanchett are very convincing as the elder Loxley and the mature, but spunky Marion. Mark Strong gives another powerful villainous performance and William Hurt, as William Marshall, counselor to the king, and Eileen Watkins as the king’s mother, make strong impressions in their roles. And television viewers may be amused and surprised by some key performances by Kevin Durand and Scott Grimes.


Scott may take liberties with the battle scenes, but they are fun to watch as are all of the archery scenes. The shots of the English countryside are breathtaking and make one long for a visit.


This was a Robin Hood with which I was not familiar, but truly enjoyed getting to know.

Last updated: 2010-05-23 16:18:10 by jfuchsman

Robin Hood

Robin Hood, the dashing, longbow wielding, lady wooing outlaw running around the countryside of England causing mayhem for the established monarchy by attempting to institute his socialist agenda. Or is that reading into it too much?

Everyone was really excited about Robin Hood because its the latest in Ridley Scott and Russel Crowes lovefest. I was super excited to because the have great movies under their belts (American Gangster, Gladiator), but Robin Hood fails on every level that those movies succeeded.

Considering that my knowledge of Robin Hood folklore consists of exactly two movies: Mel Brooks' hilarious Men in Tights and Disney's animated Robin Hood (one of my favorites), I can't really comment on the historical accuracy but as far as I've heard, Scott created his own prequel to the story most of us know and love. Robin Longstride (Crowe) is a common archer in King Richards returning crusaders, who are doing their very best to burn the French countryside on the way back to England. King Richard dies, and Robin and a couple of his men swear to never be owned by a man again and ditch the army. They return to England and because of some promise Robin made, visits Maid Marion's (Cate Blanchett) house and swears to her father that he'll pretend to marry her because of tax reasons, and essentially becomes owned by another man. The IRS would not be happy. Then there's some other side plots, the new king is a total jerk (INTERESTING FACT: King John was a real king and he was so bad that England hasn't had a king john since.) and his best friend Godfrey (Mark Strong) is a traitor and is running around the countryside with the French killing englishmen and then the French invade and then I slowly choke to death on all the twisting plot threads that have wrapped themselves around my neck. Oh and somehow the Magna Carta is tied into Robin Hood and god it is just so confusing. Not to mention cheesy. The end battle against the French army has so much cheese everywhere that I thought Robin was fighting the swiss.

Robin Hood has so many different things going on, it can feel longer than Avatar. Throughout the movie Robin isn't even called Robin Hood. His name is Robin Longstride and then Robin of Loxley and there is a brief reference to the hood part. I can't get over at how poorly done this is. It is just like Body of Lie, a chicken running around with its head cut off. Except with no blood coming out because they rated it pg-13, what is up with that Ridley? All your great movies have been rated R. Step up your game.

Anyways, that chicken I referenced is still an extremely good looking chicken. Very pretty shots of battle scenes and enough arrows flying through the air that no one really noticed when they got hit. All of the actors are incredibly talented, but that's no surprise. It would be a surprise if they acted badly, then I'd be very mad.

In the end, Robin is declared an outlaw and lives in the woods with all his merry men and starts up the whole steal from the rich and give to the poor deal. The audience goes yes! finally! and then the movie ends. Go watch the Disney version again and enjoy some good old fashioned good against evil tales.

2 out of 4 stars

-Christopher O'Connell

(Read Less...)

Robin Hood (Ridley Scott, 2010)

THE SCOOP
Director: Ridley Scott
Plot: The story of an archer in the army of Richard Coeur de Lion who fights against the Norman invaders and becomes the legendary hero known as Robin Hood.

Genre: Action/Drama
Awards: -
Runtime: 140min
Rating: PG for violence including intense sequences of warfare, and some sexual content.

IN RETROSPECT
Ridley Scott has done it before. The swords-and-sandals sub-genre in which he single-handedly reestablished a decade ago with Gladiator (2000) influenced many filmmakers to take up the reins of epic-scale action pictures set in medieval times. Scott revisited this again with the less successful Kingdom of Heaven (2004).

In Robin Hood, the famed director of Alien (1979), Blade Runner (1982), Black Hawk Down (2001), and American Gangster (2007) comes closest to recreating the gritty, animalistic battles and strong human drama so brilliantly captured in his Best Picture winner. However, this time it is less impressive.

The first hour of Robin Hood is a letdown. It takes a long time for the narrative to pick up its momentum and for us to be acquainted with the film’s major characters. The skirmishes are shot in trademark balls-to-the-wall style by Scott, but there is no sense of direction or visual coherence. We are plunged into chaos, not knowing who’s who in the setup, and what the bloody hell is going on.

Russell Crowe who plays Robin Longstride allows some form of viewer-character identification. He struggles through the mayhem just like us. But at least he knows what is happening. The meeting of Robin and Lady Marion (Cate Blanchett) at the start of the second hour turns things around. What a relief to say the least. The romantic (and awkwardish) chemistry between Crowe and Blanchett provides us with something worth investing in for the remainder of the film.

The climactic battle is the film’s showpiece sequence and Scott is a master of building anticipation. Wide aerial shots of armies approaching the battle ground (the French on boats, and the English on horses) are quite spectacular, though the battle per se does not live up to its “anticipatory” billing.

While Scott’s direction of action now makes more sense than at the start, he copies relentlessly scenes from Mel Gibson’s Braveheart (1995) and Steven Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan (1998), thus providing little, if any, fresh take on the art of filming war scenes. To his credit, Scott still manages to make them thrilling.

Scott’s take on the popular legendary figure is interesting. But it is far from the definitive one. This is not the Robin Hood who steals from the rich to give to the poor. This is not the Robin Hood who hides away in Sherwood Forest and be merry with his friends. Instead, this is a Robin Hood “Gladiatorized” for the mass market.

The film ends with the sentence, “And so the legend begins.”, thus confirming our suspicion – that this is a “prequel”. Not surprisingly, there are talks of a sequel. Let’s hope this time there will be more humor, less Maximus-inspired speechmaking, more swashbuckling action, and less grit. Scott takes the fun out of watching a Robin Hood picture. But frankly, I will settle for this anytime over that Kevin Costner drab show.

SCORE: 7/10
[www.filmnomenon.blogspot.com]
All rights reserved!

Recommendations: Toy Story 3 (Lee Unkrich, 2010), To Kill a Mockingbird (Robert Mulligan, 1962), The Visitor

Singapore's Most Prolific Film Blogger @ www.filmnomenon.blogspot.com

Last updated: 2010-05-20 06:32:00 by eternality_tan

A worthy chapter in the Robin Hood legend

Do we really need a new movie about the legendary Robin Hood?  It’s been done countless times, even to the point of parody (remember “Robin Hood: Men in Tights”?).  Well, it turns out that Ridley Scott and screenwriter Brian Helgeland didn’t want to tell the same old story again, either.  The previews for the film proclaim that this film is the story behind the legend, not the legend itself.  That story, as it turns out, is extremely interesting and, more importantly, entertaining. 
“Robin Hood” takes place at the turn of the 12^th century.  Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) is among the crusaders following King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston in an amusing, though short role) as he plunders his way through France on his way back to England.  Robin is just a soldier, but fate throws him in the middle of a potential war between France and England. 
This is not a movie about Robin hiding in the woods, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.  This is the story of how he became that man.  We get glimpses of his sense of honor; upholding a promise he made to a dying knight, helping a village keep their grain, etc.  They are just that, though, glimpses.  The full focus of “Robin Hood” is actually the situation that created the legend. 
The political landscape concerns King John and his need to collect taxes from the barons.  He lets loose Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong) to basically terrorize the countryside.  But Godfrey is in cahoots with the king of France and he’s using French soldiers to collect the taxes and turn the barons against the king.  The tax collection is the main thing, though.  No one likes paying taxes, but people turn violent when taxes are demanded yet they have no representation in the government, or in this case almost no basic rights at all.  So, yeah, Robin Hood is fighting a war on taxes.  When put like that, this movie might sound boring, but I assure you, there’s some action.
Ridley Scott has proven himself time and time again when it comes to battlefield action.  “Robin Hood” is further evidence that Scott knows what he is doing.  People are comparing this film, unfairly, to another Scott film, “Gladiator.”  Those looking for action on that level are going to be disappointed.  The more apt comparison would be to “Kingdom of Heaven,” Scott’s 2005 crusades film.  In fact, you could make the argument that this film is almost a sequel to that film since Richard the Lionheart appears at the end of the film on his way to his crusade.  The main difference, and my only real issue with this film, is that “Robin Hood” is rated PG-13.  This basically means that the blood is taken away from the battles.  This may seem trivial to some, but I had an issue with it because it’s Ridley Scott.  The guy paints a battle with beautiful splashes of blood.  Take away that ingredient, and he’s left to make battle scenes where someone gets hit with a sword and just falls over. 
The action is great, but there’s not an abundance of it.  I was fine with that because I enjoy history and Scott created a great historical world for this film.  Others might be bored by the scenes with Marshal (William Hurt) as he discusses political issues within the country.  That stuff interests me, though. 
Of course, it’s easy to maintain interest when the cast is good.  First off, Crowe does a fine job as Robin.  He doesn’t give an iconic performance or anything, but he handles the hero role well.  Cate Blanchett holds her own as Marion, the strong willed protector of the village.  Mark Strong is impressive as usual as Godfrey.  It’s only a matter of time before he wins an Oscar.
It’s too bad this cast won’t be coming together for round two.  I usually don’t clamor for sequels.  I don’t have issues with them, but it seems like a movie is more substantial if it’s a standalone story.  I would like to see another “Robin Hood” because the characters and the world are set up so effectively.  The problem here is that if Ridley Scott made that movie, then it would go against the entire point of this film.  This is Robin Hood’s origin story because that is a part of the legend that gets the least attention in the other films.  I wasn’t interested in seeing the same old story again, but now that I’ve seen what Crowe and Scott have done with the origin, I wouldn’t mind seeing what they could do with the rest of the legend.  But Ridley Scott doesn’t make sequels (the closest he has come so far is that he has signed on for an “Alien” prequel), so I’ll probably never see his version of it.  That’s no big deal, though, because “Robin Hood” stands on its own quite well.

(Read Less...)

Eric Harris - www.canneltoncritic.com

Robin Hood

Robin Hood
Starring: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, William Hurt, Mark Strong
Genre: Action, Drama
Director: Ridley Scott
Rated: PG-13
 
 
 
 
The Story of how an archer from Richard the Lion Hearts army, one Robin Longstride becomes the legendary outlaw known as Robin Hood.
 
Ridley Scott teams up for the fifth time with Russell Crow to tell what amounts to the prequel of what everyone conceives to be the tale of Robin Hood.
 
At the inception of this telling Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) is an Archer in King Richard the Lion Hearts (Danny Huston) Army, upon Richards death Robin escapes with his band of “Merry Men” they come across a group of knights including a Sir Robert Loxley who’s dying wish is for Longstride to return his family sword to his father Sir Walter Loxley (Max Von Sydow). Robin and his men assume the identities of the deceased knights and Robin Longstride assumes the role of Sir Robert of Loxley.
Upon delivering the sword to Sir Walter, Robin meets the only woman in all of England who is headstrong and filled with resolve and thus destined to be Robins love interest Marion Loxley (Cate Blanchett)
 
The Second half of the film follows impersonator Robin as he finds out the truth about his own father and a conspiracy that involves taxing the north of England to incite them to fight the kings army and thus makeit easier for France to invade England.
 
Robin Hood is two and a half hours of an origin story that nobody was clamoring for, nor did this tale require the long-winded screen time it was given. While there is a lot going on, not much is really said in terms of motivation for why things are done. We are introduced to Robins Merry Men yet we are given no reason as to why they look up to Robin or anointed him there leader, particularly when they were peers in the army.  The major villain is Godfrey (Mark Strong) who while being under charge of King John (Oscar Isaac) is a double agent conspiring with King Philip to get France to attack England, Even though there is no explanation given for his actions.
 
To garner a PG-13 rating we have an extensive amount of swordplay with people falling to the ground dead even though they are unscathed by the fatal slash of the sword; Which is about as believable as when Robin is kissing Marion in the ocean while the French and English armies battle each other all around them. When a film’s title character is an archer and the poster has him holding a bow and arrow it would be fantastic to include this as a focal point of his fighting repertoire, aside from one shot at the end, the archery skills of Robin are just as good as anyone else’s.
 
This is a movie that was only made to create the sequel, the story is plodding and forgettable and so overly long.  The existence of this film is only so they can milk the audience at a later date with a story people might have some interest in.  While the concept of giving us a Robin Hood that is different than the one we all know about, is intriguing if it cannot be done in an interesting or entertaining way there really was no point.
  
Grade-77
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Last updated: 2010-05-16 18:23:51 by Cinemaassassin

A Different Kind of Robin Hood

Robin Hood was a nice surprise cos' I liked it more than I thought I would. I've never experienced the tale of Robin Hood in this light and I must say that it's a fresh take of an age-old character that most of not everyone of us would know. Russell Crowe plays an atypical Robin Hood which is an interesting take on the character to say the least.

What's cool is that Ridley Scott has left the movie open for future expansion cos' the movie seems to be made as a launch pad for future stories. The minor downside that it seems to be an extra-long introduction to the characters in a sense.

If you're a fan of Gladiator or Russell Crowe then this one is worth a spin. I give it a solid 4 Stars out of 5.

For reviews and more visit me at http://wengyuen.wordpress.com

(Read Less...)

Robin Hood Movie Review

It truly is amazing how long a character can live with a great pike stuck in his gut, because he has to explain so much about the sword and his house in Nottingham and his dad and how they didn't get along and well, it shatters the realism that this version of Robin Hood tries to give to audiences.  If only brave Sir Robert was truly suffering and gasping for his last breath instead of just an actor with a fake pole in his stomach, a wee trickle of blood on his lips and a great checklist of information to tell Robin so the rest of the movie can work.         
One Word Movie Review: Slow

MarketBOB rates this film a 2 star effort. 
Robin Hood is a dreary plod though the mud and thatch and grime of 12th century England.  Very little happens, except for some political intrigue, squabbling about taxes, arrows flying and burning straw everywhere.  It is 1199 AD and the English and the French are fighting again.  Robin, our hero is trying to be honest, brave and naive, the three great characteristics of an English soldier.  So he steals a noble's clothes and wife, negotiates a charter of rights with King John (as if) and fights his enemies on the beaches, on the landing grounds and everywhere, for he will never surrender, because he's English and like so many lambs before him, he has become a lion.
The characters are familiar and the re-creation of this particular slice of history authentic if somewhat dull and filthy.  Add a few stars known for their ability to chew scenery and you would think you'd have a rip-roaring adventure.  Alas, 'tis not to be.  There is much ado about nothing much.  You know you're in for a long night when the blind, aging Sir Walter, played by Max von Sydow gets all the good lines.
On the plus side, there are several great bonfires in this film, and a re-creation of the invasion of Normandy, this time with the French landing on a English beach to be met by archers on the cliffs and calvary charging across the sands.  We get the cloud of arrows raining down on the French infantry and the charging horses and, wait, there's Maid Marion and her band of orphans joining in the battle.  Say, don't they look ridiculous?
She attacks Godfrey, the bad guy played yet again by the durable and hard-working Mark Strong and as she is about to be impaled by his sword, who should rescue her?  Here's Robin, her substitute husband and he will smite the bastard but, no the two boats will smash him instead.  Boats?  What boats?  This is a sword fight.  Eventually, the bad guy  gets away, perhaps to sequel-land unless...one last arrow from Robin's bow might just find it's mark...will it? 
Robin Hood is a cliffhanger ending searching for a story to attach itself to.  By the time we arrive on the beaches, where the first wave of French invaders land, we've slogged through so much intrigue, mud and dialogue, not to mention a few oysters and the ultimate insult, a translation of the tag line "rise and rise again, until lambs become lions!"  Robin, what does it mean?  Tell us poor peasant lads mystified by the sheer poetry of it all.  Tell us, Oh wise and grimy one!
The Story
The story is simple enough, with a fight for king and country between an older brother (Richard the Lionheart) and Prince John (the runt of the litter) with everyone else caught in-between.  Robin of the hood, and we meet him first in the forest, wearing a hood, shooting game.  Yes, beat us over the head with the obvious.    
There are battles, death everywhere (including the ridiculous pike in the gut scene) and you start thinking this is really a re-make of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Bloody hell, Sir Robert, it's only a flesh wound!  Then we get the farce of Robin masquerading as the dead Sir Robert, having to share the boudoir with Marion, the wife.  After ten years away at the Crusades, the stupid peasants of Nottingham can't remember what the bloke looked like - remember this was before digital photography and Facebook.  However, this is not a remake of Le Retour de Martin Guerre, even if that might have been a better idea that this film.  No, we need to bring the French into the story another way, as an invading force and a fifth column of saboteurs lead by the traitor Godfrey.
Finally we get some action when Robin and his merry men decide to steal some seeds from a church wagon.  This is the start of the big time epic adventure, finally.  Then, what do these mad robbers do next?  Why, plant the seeds into the rich Nottingham soil in the dark!  Yes, the action never stops.
We try to get epic with the horses and the arrows and the French beach assault, but can you name any movies where a French invasion force actually won the day?  Go ahead, I'll wait while you think hard.  So, we just have to set up the sequel and show (in close up) how little chemistry exists between Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett as the main characters and then we end with vanity credits in the style of Ridley Scott's Scott Free company logo.
The Genre
The historical epic genre is a Hollywood specialty and when done well, it wins awards and makes everyone's "best movies of all time" lists.   Epic scale, thousands of extras, extravagant sets and big name stars are all features of these types of films.  Lawrence of Arabia, Cleopatra, Ben Hur and Moses are all characters who have graced the screen over the years.  Robin Hood has been one of Hollywood's favorite historical figures for his "rich vs. poor" ethic which appeals to the mass target audience as well as his rogue outlaw character thumbing his nose at authority.
From Disney's animated version to Errol Flynn's classic portrayal and the sad effort by Kevin Costner (without an accent, no less), the outlaw archer has been entertaining audiences of all ages.  This latest Russell Crowe/Ridley Scott version, a modified Gladiator version of the character concentrating on the warrior's early days fighting in the Crusades and returning home to the turmoil of King John's reign has none of the grandeur of Rome or the heroic arc of the Maximus character to thrill and engage us.        
We are left with a historical setting of limited appeal, a character with only the promise of the outlaw in the future and a love story based on deceit and convenience.  The battle scenes are not epic, but confused skirmishes with little to distinguish friend vs. foe.  In the end, you are left with an overall impression of little people squabbling over tax rates.  Yes, nations can rise out of unjust taxation (tea party time), but it doesn't make for great cinema.
The Overall Quality
Robin Hood is dull and grimy on so many levels it is difficult to know where to start.  The lead actors appear to be slogging through their roles without the spark of stardom gracing the screen at all.  The music is forgettable and trite in some scenes, irritating in others and, although it tries to be "authentic" in period and style, it just sounds ordinary.  Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett have little to do except trade medieval banter about cutting off their privates and asking politely when they want something done.  The band of merry men only come alive when they are drinking and carousing with women off-screen.  No one has a good time in front of the camera.
The worst fault is the script, which uses lazy methods to tell the story, particularly with the afore-mentioned Sir Robert's death scene, the only epic performance in the entire film.  Robert hangs on forever, spitting out key bits of information to good and bad guys alike.  Without Sir Robert, the movie ends.  He fills the role of the infamous laptop in modern movies, the instrument that solves all the plot mysteries and allows the characters to succeed.  Without him, Robin has no sword, no slogan to remind him of his father, no map to the ship home, no disguise to hide behind, no entry into the royal circles of power, no horse to ride around for the next hour and a half and, most importantly, no opportunity to meet Marion and enter her bedroom. 
The final battle on the beach is absurd on so many levels, climaxing with the appearance of Marion and her orphan boys and her charging forward to battle Godfrey.  All throughout the movie, we have been waiting for Robin to confront him and then she gets there first.  He has to rescue her, battle him and all this in waist-deep water.  It is a metaphor for the movie, where the entire pace of the film is partially submerged and struggling to move forward.     
Movie/Market Analysis
MarketBOB’s sentiment indicators, the GQS (Genre, Quality, Story) rate Robin Hood an emotional BEAR.  This movie is another confirmation that people are searching but not finding a rebel hero to fight for their freedom from avarice and greed, overwhelming taxation and inept leadership.  Whether it is on the streets of Athens or future cities around the globe, the cost of our current economic situation has not been resolved, merely postponed to another time.  The folly of the Crusades and the cost of maintaining distant armies is the root cause of domestic dissent in Robin Hood's time and created the outlaw hero.  Unfortunately, the film is not about that character, but the preamble leading up to the man we have adored for years.  We have to wait a little longer for a cinematic hero to inspire us out of our current recession malaise.      
Craig Forgrave (MarketBOB)
For the latest reviews and analysis of movies and their impact on market psychology, go to www.marketbob.com. 
My novel about the Devil harvesting sinners in advance of the end of the world, Devil Jazz is available from the publisher, ENC Press on Scribd at:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/15627287/Devil-Jazz
© copyright 2010, Sportscar Projects Ltd.

Robin Hood's Evolution

Robin Hood has entered the 21st century. Like his more modern compatriot, one James Bond, he has evolved and not everyone is happy. It all depends on how attached you are to those stirring adjectives of the golden years of Hollywood, 'swashbuckling' and 'romp'. If you loved either Errol Flynn, Kevin Costner or even the crew from Men in Tights, perhaps you should give it a miss. If, however, you like a bit of gritty realism, go ahead, you'll find enough to amuse and entertain you in this latest incarnation of Robin Hood.

To be fair, no-one expects laughs and snappy one-liners from Russell Crowe, and Cate Blanchett usually amuses for her chutzpah, rather than her pratfalls. This is a Ridley Scott film, people! You'll get something that feels like history unfolding chaotically, yet with great directorial control, before you.

To talk of Robin Hood's 'history' is a joke anyway, as he has been constantly evolving for more than 600 years, since he was first mentioned in a tale called Piers Plowman in about 1377. He has been a yeoman (as he is here) and an aristocrat (as he pretends to be), but didn't ever do anything very much for the poor for several hundred years of his existence in the ballads. His story was sanitised during (surprise, surprise) the Victorian era, when he was turned into a children's story, so the return to the bloody horror of war and outlawry was, for me anyway, a breath of fresh air. I don't think I could have stood another anachronistically wisecracking bunch of lads partying their way through the countryside while everything burned around them.

There is a ring of historicity which really grounds this movie. Sure there's some far-fetched stuff - Cate Blanchett's Marian is a great, resourceful woman, but the full metal jacket bit was too much. Otherwise, she's splendid and the freshness of Robin and Marian's courtship is great fun. Rather than a petulant young woman, she describes herself as having been 'an old maid' by the time her husband married her, 10 years earlier.

Crowe turns in his usual committed performance: he is a natural in this environment. If you were in his smelly boots, you wouldn't have too much to laugh at either, but that's not at all the point. He has you well and truly on his side, as ever in this genre. His adversaries are great too. Mark Strong is making a habit of being a bad boy, but then he does it so well, so why mess with a great formula? Oscar Isaac is splendid as the debauched King John, striking sparks off the wonderful Eileen Atkin as his mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine.

Von Sydow is a moving Walter Loxley, Mark Addy (of Full Monty fame) is perfect as the 'non-churchy' Friar Tuck and the Merry Men give their leader able support. The battle and fight scenes are terrific - powerful, realistic and exciting, mercifully without being anatomically graphic.

Robin Hood is solid entertainment, if you can take off the rose-coloured glasses that show a Merrie England that never was.      

(Read Less...)

Miss Amazon

Robin Hood- An Incredibly Convoluted Prequel Re-envisioning That Falls Flat and Feels Desperate

It shouldn’t be a surprise that when people hear the name Robin Hood they should immediately think of an archer loyal to Richard the Lionheart fighting against the injustice of tax laws imposed by Prince John normally through the rival the Sheriff of Nottingham. From Errol Flynn to Kevin Costner the delivery of Robin Hood has always been varied but the structure and the core of that story is what allowed it to make sense and remain familiar to audiences. It appears Ridley Scott has taken some notes from the likes of Tim Burton and Joe Johnston by taking a known source and throwing out everything of the structure except for the name. If you don’t recognize anything that occurs throughout Ridley Scott’s prequel re-envisioning of Robin Hood then no one blames you because its just Scott’s convoluted, paradoxical, and history twisting interpretation of the classic fiction tale. Certainly the producers are hoping for a big release since they didn’t even skim the surface of the robbing from the rich and giving to the poor Robin Hood and instead have introduced the disillusioned war veteran Robin Hood, whose loyalty is given to basically no one. Scott is trying to grasp the glory that was Gladiator and falls flat in the desperate attempt. This doesn’t mean that Robin Hood doesn’t entertain at all because its action is tight and well delivered. Even some of the performances, especially Cate Blanchett, are well done and aid the too complex for its own good plot. But what this Robin Hood proves is that a big budget can’t necessarily make up from your deviation of structure, especially when the BBC is airing such a great television series of the same character with infinitely less expenses.
            So what is so drastically different about this version of Robin Hood that makes it so difficult to give it a solid review? Well we are introduced, with cheating title cards, to the scenario at hand where Robin Longstride is an archer in the first crusade under Richard the Lionheart. Where it deviates strongly is when we learn that Robin is completely disillusioned with Richard’s crusade because of the slaughtering of Muslims. Are there any political messages becoming obvious yet? Putting that to the side it actually gets weird when Richard dies in battle, taking away the entire original core from the original Robin Hood tale where Robin is loyal subject of Richard and objects to Prince John’s abuse of the throne in Richard’s absence. Then things get really complicated when we are introduced to a completely new character named Godfrey who is attempting to create civil war within Britain while also aiding King Phillip of France to overtake Britain. John becomes king and marries Eleanor of Aquitaine, which is Ridley Scott’s combination of actual history and The Lion in Winter making Richard and John based on historical figures rather than complete fiction. This could be a benefit but it isn’t handled well in the drastic deviation of the Robin Hood tale. Robin and his merry men aren’t quite merry, especially Little John who is a bit brash and a drunkard. In fact, it is actually difficult to explain everything here in a sort of synopsis because it tries to balance everything from civil war, improper taxation, blatant contradictory political messages, a power hungry King, and an awkward love affair that involves mostly everyone from the original tale by name except, of course, an essential factor being the Sheriff of Nottingham who appears momentarily for no good reason at all if not to just be presented that he actually exists in this convoluted prequel re-envisioning.
            Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood does indeed reek of desperation trying to recreate the epic nature of Gladiator by claiming the successful grounds of another epic work known as Braveheart. The inspirational speeches, the soaring music, and the fast paced sword and arrow action done through editing all make great evidence to Scott attempting to recreate the formula that made his Oscar winning film so good. But everything just comes off flat in the end especially when you forget about the entire restructuring of the Robin Hood plot. Most of the characters are barely known to us and this includes Russell Crowe’s version of Robin Hood. Its association by name, whether it’s Little John or Friar Tuck, that Scott is depending on so our familiarity of the characters can be fit into this unknown version of the Robin Hood story. Screenwriter Brian Helgeland didn’t really account for developing character within the script and just depended on the character names to trigger our subconscious awareness of the actual character depictions on the screen. Not to even mention that Russell Crowe is by far the oldest looking version of Robin Hood to ever be on the screen. Crowe has lived longer than most people back then could even dream of lasting. He just seems out of place much like everything on the screen, and that includes Cate Blanchett no matter how good an actress she might be. Most of the supporting cast is well chosen especially Mark Addy, Max Von Sydow, William Hurt, Danny Huston, and Mark Strong who all portray their intended characters well if only in separation of the original source. All Scott and Helgeland really had to do was stick with the original tale, but Scott wouldn’t be able to add in his nuanced ability at sword fights, which in even Robin Hood isn’t as good as his other crusade work Kingdom of Heaven.
            Alright so the acting is alright despite the obvious age problem and the action is well done even if it doesn’t even come close to matching Gladiator or even Braveheart. So what is Ridley Scott’s intention of re-envisioning the story of Robin Hood? Well its simple brow-beating at its best lecturing audiences across the world on foreign invasion of Muslim countries and that we should be living in communes where everyone has an equal share at nature’s table. Division of political views aside this message in contrast with Robin being the enforcer of unjust taxation by a greedy government taking away personal liberty just becomes a drastic paradox. You can’t say live without any government and be one with nature at the same time as speaking of being equal under the law, a human institution. Ridley Scott and screenwriter Brian Helgeland trip all over themselves in their prequel Robin Hood by making the story too convoluted by attaching multiple and varying plot devices, including manipulation of civil war and Robin Hood’s back story which some stranger seems to know all about it without any prior indication that he knew otherwise. Robin Hood just appears as though it’s trying way too hard at the same time not igniting any real emotions for the characters and their plights, which in filmmaking could be seen as a failure. Luckily not all is bad in this film and it certainly will entertain a majority of summer film seeking audiences.
            Adaptation is certainly a screenwriting art form that isn’t well respected in the modern age because it appears all screenwriters think they can be better than their source. This has happened with a majority of projects as of late and proves that one shouldn’t deviate too far from the core of their adapted source or all things will crumble apart in the end. Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood is far from being anything close to the original source because it’s a complete re-envisioning of the tale focused more on back story than it is with character motivations and development. If you take away the original core you need to provide a believable and even flowing new one to replace it if you want the film to be paced properly with no obvious glitches. Unfortunately Scott wanted to make another sword fighting film and he succeeds by making drastic plot and character sacrifices, making the action the only constant enjoyable aspect of the movie. Desperate attempts at putting all of the perceived variables together to recreate a previous successful film usually don’t work out and Robin Hood, with its overly intricate plot and strange older casting choices, makes for a great modern example of this kind of failure.

Recommendations: Red Riding, Fish Tank , Mystery Team

Robin Hood

“Ask me nicely...”

This was a line that Director Ridley Scott and his screenwriter Brian Helgeland loved so much, that they used it twice in the just released Robin Hood. Both times it was spoken by Robin played by Russell Crowe.

But no matter how nicely they, or anyone else might ask me – I’m not going to be able to come up with a positive review.

To begin with, this is not your grandfather’s Robin Hood. And if you think you’ve read something similar from me before, you’d be right as I made the same stylized reference about last December’s Sherlock Holmes. The bad guy in that one was played by Mark Strong (below) who is the bad guy in this one too.


You see, this is not a re-imagined Robin Hood. This is a prequel – the story of how an ordinary bowman, or archer, a ‘grunt’ in the army of King Richard, whose name was Robin Longstride, came to be known later in life, and as legend has it, as Robin Hood. This film ends with King John announcing that Robin has been declared as an outlaw – and death to any that help him. There’s a placard put up on-screen that reads, “And so the legend begins…”

This Scott film runs about 140 minutes. It isn’t the length that made it difficult to sit through, instead it was a number of other factors.


First – there’s no humor at all in this film. The Merry Men, a scruffy lot to say the least, aren’t merry at all. Their high point is a night of carousing, drinking, and partying with the local wenches in Nottingham.


I’m fairly certain that Crowe’s Robin doesn’t smile even once in the entire film. Russell Crowe does a good job as this dour and taciturn ‘hero’. But he’s not all that likeable. He’s sort of a con man, something of an opportunist, and one to plot and scheme whenever he’s given the chance.

Second – the story wasn’t that easy to follow. There’s plenty of posturing by Robin, and by other assorted nobles and barons, including a nearly unrecognizable William Hurt as William Marshall, the most likable and honorable character in the film,  about freedom and liberty from tyranny and oppression (taxation). Didn’t we hear all of that in Braveheart?

Which brings us back to the first point and the second point again. For reasons that aren’t given any real depth, Robin is asked by Marian’s father-in-law, Walter Loxley, played beautifully by Max Von Sydow, to pose as his son Robert Loxley, for a while longer. This would include posing as Marian’s husband.


So, to make the play acting as husband and wife more realistic, Marian has to share her chambers with Robin. Marian, in this film is not Maid Marian, she is now a widow, and her married life lasted exactly one week, before her husband marched off with King Richard to fight in the Crusades in the Holy Land. And that was 10 years ago.


Anyway, Marian, played by Cate Blanchett, warns Robin, that despite them spending the night together, for appearance’s sake, that he is not welcome in her bed. In fact, she says, “I sleep with a dagger, and if you even try to touch me, I’ll cut off your manhood.”

Robin says, “Thanks for the warning.” But he says it with a flat delivery, without any irony, or sense of humor. And without even a hint of a smile. As I said, there’s no humor at all in the movie.


Third – the film lacks color. I don’t mean colorful characters. What I mean is the beautiful color we saw in the ’38 Robin Hood. Here there are gray skies, earth-colored and home-spun rough clothing, and even in the King’s Palace, there’s a distinct lack of color in the furnishings. Maybe Scott was going for realism, but it wasn’t pretty.

We get about 20 seconds of beautiful color when Robin and his men first arrive in Sherwood Forest. The dappled sunshine, filtering through the sylvan forest canopy looked marvelous. But it was so brief.


Fourth – there’s plenty of action – a siege is laid on to a French castle, and in the film’s closing action set piece, The French arrive at an English beach for the main battle. There’s a lot of the wielding of axes, slashing swords, and thrusting pikes, but the editing is done so fast, that you aren’t able to focus on any one such fight. Even when Robin and Godfrey are having their not quite final duel. the action is confusing. And you feel that you are a distance from it. It looks like action, sounds, like action, but doesn’t quite feel like action


Ridley Scott spent a lot of money on this film, especially on CGI, like the shot above, but the film lacks warmth, heart, color, and humor. He bought into the idea from a successful original source. In the first draft of this film, which was called Nottingham, Crowe was to play the Sheriff of Nottingham. For reasons unknown to me, but most likely somehow tied into the idea of spending a lot of money in order to make a mountain of  money, they re-thought that idea, and opted for Crowe as Robin Hood. Just the comparisons of titles Nottingham and Robin Hood, and the point is proven.


In my view, I felt the film was a major disappointment. Blanchett and Von Sydow steal the film. As for Crowe as Robin, I’ve seen the Robin Hood played by Errol Flynn who gave the role -  life, dignty, a sense of importance, honor, and humor. Crowe’s Robin Hood is stoic and cold. It’s simple, Russell, you’re no Errol Flynn.

.
 

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: Chak De! India

Last updated: 2010-05-14 14:48:47 by JustMeMike

the team that brought us gladiator return

Now I was unlucky enough to be invited to a test screening of this film. My expectation were high, gladiator being one of the greatest modern pieces of cinema, and with Crowe and Scott collaborating again only good things could happen surely?

This was one of the biggest disappointments I have ever seen, it was all wrong, the script, the music, the visuals, the plot, the acting, the length, the fight scenes, the romance. None of it fitted together and I was left regretting that I had even agreed to go to a free film. We spent hours afterwards picking it to pieces for every single aspect. The score felt stolen, and I've seen bigger fight scenes in bars. if this two and a half hour film had been condensed into twenty minutes and then the real film followed it could have had potential, and I'm sure that the inevitable sequel has every chance of being good, but for me this film just doesn't need to exist at all.

In its defence the film was not the completed article but it was still ninety five percent done, the sound and picture needed brushing up, and the end credits weren't complete, but besides that it was the whole hideous mess. When the film finished there was barely even a round of applause from the audience just a murmur of discomfort and regret from around the cinema.

When this comes out in May avoid it. If you want to see a Ridley Scott film watch Gladiator (I just finished watching it to restore my faith in Crowe and Scott), and if you want to watch a Robin hood film watch Prince of thieves, or even men in tights. I could have made this film better with my cell phone camera.

Vincent Snavely