Man, do you guys remember Robin Hood? I do. Legendary Outlaw, pitted against a fiendish but largely incompetent Sheriff trying to save the good people of Nottingham from the corrupt aristocracy by robbing them of their ill-gained wealth and delivering it to the poor. From Prince of Thieves to the Disney adaptation, Robin Hood has remained a strong character of the stage and screen, and I've been a fan ever since Kevin Costner saved Morgan Freeman from certain death. So, how does Sir Ridley Scott's latest adaptation of the hero hold up? Let's find out.
---
When I think about Robin Hood, I think about green tights, big trees, and lots of arrows. I don't think of discussions of politics, democratic revolutions, castle sieges or the French--which is strange, because Ridley Scott's new Robin Hood movie is full of all of those things, and while it certainly doesn't feel like a Robin Hood movie at all, it is still an entertaining, if somewhat baffling historical epic.
The story opens with Robin Longstride, an English Archer, attacking a castle alongside Richard the Lionheart. Robin (Russell Crowe) saves the day and helps win the battle, but that night inadvertently insults the king and gets himself and his friends placed in the stocks as punishment. The next day, the Lionheart promptly dies and Robin decides that he's had enough fighting, and leaves. En route to the French Coast, they come upon the aftermath of an ambush and Robin takes on the name of "Loxley" to pass as a nobleman and get free charter back to England on the King's ship. This leads to a LOOOOOOOONG string of events that ultimately culminates with Robin being adopted by the house of Loxley in order to avoid having its property seized and oh god I'm going cross-eyed.
Any of this sound familiar? It might. See, in all Robin Hood stories, there's usually a paragraph or brief speech at the beginning detailing Richard the Lionheart and alluding that Robin may or may not have been one of his soldiers. That paragraph? THAT'S THE ENTIRE MOVIE. See, Scott decided that Robin Hood was fine and all, with swashbuckling action and daring thefts and romance, but it needed more...history stuff. The bad guy isn't the Sheriff of Nottingham, but some guy named Godfrey (played superbly by Mark Strong, the go-to villain) and the Sheriff is barely a bit player in an enormous, sprawling tale that goes up and down England, focusing on the political feuds and tensions between the monarchy and the feudal barons and landlords.
Robin is not a moustache-twirling rogue, but rather a world-weary grizzled soldier...in other words, every other role that Russell Crowe has ever played, with some few variations. He does a fine job, but melts into the background unless the plot calls for somebody to get shot with an arrow (which is often) or when he has to give a big dramatic speech (which, surprisingly, is also fairly often), and the only times he really seems particularly energized with his character is when he's bantering with his friends or shooting things. And he shoots a lot of things--arrows fly across this movie like swarms of hungry flies, and there's so many camera shots of shields pierced by arrows, arrows sailing across the sky, and one final, lingering slo-mo sequence of Robin shooting a bow and arrow. It's a nice gesture and lends dynamics to otherwise fairly routine action sequences, but CHRIST! I know Robin Hood shoots arrows, but this ventures into overload territory, and it gets worse because Robin Hood in this movie is scarcely Robin Hood.
The movie's saving grace is Maid Marion, played by Cate Blanchett. She lends a weathered, but rebellious strength to the part, and has just as much screen time as Robin himself, as well as providing a far more interesting character. Forced by the cruelty of war to watch over her husband's lands whilst his father descends into madness and blindness, repelling unwanted advances from the petty men in power and struggling--and failing--to help her people. She's so captivating that, in fact, the movie suffers whenever she's not on screen, and the fact that she and Robin's romance is spoiled by a quick and succinct resolution that denies the audience the true pay off of all the teasing and chemistry that sizzles between the two. This movie should have just been about Marion, honestly--she carries the script much farther than anyone else, though to be fair, the supporting cast is nothing to laugh at.
A strong supporting line-up, including a lot of familiar faces, such as William Hurt and Max Von Sydow (who plays the same character he's been playing for awhile too--old, lovable man who dies dramatically, or OLMDD) make the countless dialogue and exposition scenes entertaining, and to be fair, all of this courtly intrigue and political debate IS entertaining and interesting. Much of the plot revolves around the start of King John's reign, and John (Guatemalen actor Oscar Isaac) is endlessly entertaining, something of a blend of Russell Brand, a Frat Bro, and Eric Bana to form a vortex of twat that would threaten to swallow the whole production if not so skillfully performed. If you like what Scott has been putting out in the past--Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven--you'll find this good too, though it is far shallower and a little less polished than those movies were.
There's an awful lot of weird plotholes too. For example, Nottingham is beset by this group of children thieves who infest Sherwood Forest. They are responsible for a lot of the troubles that the people are facing, but there's no real resolution to them--one moment they are stealing grain, getting shot at, and the next they are rushing to Nottingham's aid and even joining in the big final battle against the French, as if it's a matter of course, even though there's no explanation or reason for them to be doing any of that. Marion even completely derails herself, seeing Robin off to war and then suddenly appearing to fight in the battle. I understand that Mario is a strong-willed girl who isn't afraid to get her hands dirty, but Christ, why? It's pointless, she contributes nothing, and the whole event leaves more questions than answers. There's this bizarre McGuffin that we are told about--a sort of primitive Magna Carta, written by Robin's father (because the plot required it) that is this magic flag bandied about by everyone at the end of the movie, like this super solution to all their problems that amounts to nothing, is completely pointless, and serves only to make the villains look more villainous and the heroes more heroic, but it's a political gesture that doesn't really make sense in a Robin Hood movie.
In fact, as "Robin Hood" goes, this movie fails spectacularly to capture any of what makes Robin Hood interesting. There's only one actual case of banditry in this movie, Crowe is not a charming, dashing anything--he's more of a bruiser who lucks into a lot of power and influence and just happens to do some good stuff with it. Robin is practically handed everything he needs in the first twenty minutes of the movie, and after that you get 2 hours of nothing that resembles what we like in Robin Hood stories. In fact, the movie ENDS with him become the Robin Hood we know and love, which begs the question of why? Why, when every other story sums up this movie in a paragraph (and eliminates pesky historical inaccuracies like a FRENCH INVASION and the DEATH OF KING RICHARD, what the fuck guys?) this movie decided that we, the viewers, don't care about any of that--we want Gladiator in medieval England, but less good. And by God, we got it.
In conclusion, this movie IS entertaining, with a strong cast and some interesting camerawork, but as a Robin Hood movie it falls incredibly flat, and there's simply not enough here to really sustain it. The ending comes abruptly and resolves very little, and all in all, it seems like a strangely pointless story, with a vague beginning and a vague ending. I wouldn't recommend it unless you are a fan of the genre, the director, or Crowe.
Crowning Moment of Awesome: There is one, and it's near the end--the big climactic fight between Robin and the main villain (not the Sheriff). They fight on a beach, surrounded by soldiers and up to their waists in water, hacking and slashing madly at each other, dodging dropships and arrow volleys, culminating in Robin shooting the man off his horse from about 400 feet away in glorious slo-mo. It's an awesome sequence, and certainly levitates the movie's climax a lot...but not enough to truly save the film.
---
When I think about Robin Hood, I think about green tights, big trees, and lots of arrows. I don't think of discussions of politics, democratic revolutions, castle sieges or the French--which is strange, because Ridley Scott's new Robin Hood movie is full of all of those things, and while it certainly doesn't feel like a Robin Hood movie at all, it is still an entertaining, if somewhat baffling historical epic.
The story opens with Robin Longstride, an English Archer, attacking a castle alongside Richard the Lionheart. Robin (Russell Crowe) saves the day and helps win the battle, but that night inadvertently insults the king and gets himself and his friends placed in the stocks as punishment. The next day, the Lionheart promptly dies and Robin decides that he's had enough fighting, and leaves. En route to the French Coast, they come upon the aftermath of an ambush and Robin takes on the name of "Loxley" to pass as a nobleman and get free charter back to England on the King's ship. This leads to a LOOOOOOOONG string of events that ultimately culminates with Robin being adopted by the house of Loxley in order to avoid having its property seized and oh god I'm going cross-eyed.
Any of this sound familiar? It might. See, in all Robin Hood stories, there's usually a paragraph or brief speech at the beginning detailing Richard the Lionheart and alluding that Robin may or may not have been one of his soldiers. That paragraph? THAT'S THE ENTIRE MOVIE. See, Scott decided that Robin Hood was fine and all, with swashbuckling action and daring thefts and romance, but it needed more...history stuff. The bad guy isn't the Sheriff of Nottingham, but some guy named Godfrey (played superbly by Mark Strong, the go-to villain) and the Sheriff is barely a bit player in an enormous, sprawling tale that goes up and down England, focusing on the political feuds and tensions between the monarchy and the feudal barons and landlords.
Robin is not a moustache-twirling rogue, but rather a world-weary grizzled soldier...in other words, every other role that Russell Crowe has ever played, with some few variations. He does a fine job, but melts into the background unless the plot calls for somebody to get shot with an arrow (which is often) or when he has to give a big dramatic speech (which, surprisingly, is also fairly often), and the only times he really seems particularly energized with his character is when he's bantering with his friends or shooting things. And he shoots a lot of things--arrows fly across this movie like swarms of hungry flies, and there's so many camera shots of shields pierced by arrows, arrows sailing across the sky, and one final, lingering slo-mo sequence of Robin shooting a bow and arrow. It's a nice gesture and lends dynamics to otherwise fairly routine action sequences, but CHRIST! I know Robin Hood shoots arrows, but this ventures into overload territory, and it gets worse because Robin Hood in this movie is scarcely Robin Hood.
The movie's saving grace is Maid Marion, played by Cate Blanchett. She lends a weathered, but rebellious strength to the part, and has just as much screen time as Robin himself, as well as providing a far more interesting character. Forced by the cruelty of war to watch over her husband's lands whilst his father descends into madness and blindness, repelling unwanted advances from the petty men in power and struggling--and failing--to help her people. She's so captivating that, in fact, the movie suffers whenever she's not on screen, and the fact that she and Robin's romance is spoiled by a quick and succinct resolution that denies the audience the true pay off of all the teasing and chemistry that sizzles between the two. This movie should have just been about Marion, honestly--she carries the script much farther than anyone else, though to be fair, the supporting cast is nothing to laugh at.
A strong supporting line-up, including a lot of familiar faces, such as William Hurt and Max Von Sydow (who plays the same character he's been playing for awhile too--old, lovable man who dies dramatically, or OLMDD) make the countless dialogue and exposition scenes entertaining, and to be fair, all of this courtly intrigue and political debate IS entertaining and interesting. Much of the plot revolves around the start of King John's reign, and John (Guatemalen actor Oscar Isaac) is endlessly entertaining, something of a blend of Russell Brand, a Frat Bro, and Eric Bana to form a vortex of twat that would threaten to swallow the whole production if not so skillfully performed. If you like what Scott has been putting out in the past--Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven--you'll find this good too, though it is far shallower and a little less polished than those movies were.
There's an awful lot of weird plotholes too. For example, Nottingham is beset by this group of children thieves who infest Sherwood Forest. They are responsible for a lot of the troubles that the people are facing, but there's no real resolution to them--one moment they are stealing grain, getting shot at, and the next they are rushing to Nottingham's aid and even joining in the big final battle against the French, as if it's a matter of course, even though there's no explanation or reason for them to be doing any of that. Marion even completely derails herself, seeing Robin off to war and then suddenly appearing to fight in the battle. I understand that Mario is a strong-willed girl who isn't afraid to get her hands dirty, but Christ, why? It's pointless, she contributes nothing, and the whole event leaves more questions than answers. There's this bizarre McGuffin that we are told about--a sort of primitive Magna Carta, written by Robin's father (because the plot required it) that is this magic flag bandied about by everyone at the end of the movie, like this super solution to all their problems that amounts to nothing, is completely pointless, and serves only to make the villains look more villainous and the heroes more heroic, but it's a political gesture that doesn't really make sense in a Robin Hood movie.
In fact, as "Robin Hood" goes, this movie fails spectacularly to capture any of what makes Robin Hood interesting. There's only one actual case of banditry in this movie, Crowe is not a charming, dashing anything--he's more of a bruiser who lucks into a lot of power and influence and just happens to do some good stuff with it. Robin is practically handed everything he needs in the first twenty minutes of the movie, and after that you get 2 hours of nothing that resembles what we like in Robin Hood stories. In fact, the movie ENDS with him become the Robin Hood we know and love, which begs the question of why? Why, when every other story sums up this movie in a paragraph (and eliminates pesky historical inaccuracies like a FRENCH INVASION and the DEATH OF KING RICHARD, what the fuck guys?) this movie decided that we, the viewers, don't care about any of that--we want Gladiator in medieval England, but less good. And by God, we got it.
In conclusion, this movie IS entertaining, with a strong cast and some interesting camerawork, but as a Robin Hood movie it falls incredibly flat, and there's simply not enough here to really sustain it. The ending comes abruptly and resolves very little, and all in all, it seems like a strangely pointless story, with a vague beginning and a vague ending. I wouldn't recommend it unless you are a fan of the genre, the director, or Crowe.
Crowning Moment of Awesome: There is one, and it's near the end--the big climactic fight between Robin and the main villain (not the Sheriff). They fight on a beach, surrounded by soldiers and up to their waists in water, hacking and slashing madly at each other, dodging dropships and arrow volleys, culminating in Robin shooting the man off his horse from about 400 feet away in glorious slo-mo. It's an awesome sequence, and certainly levitates the movie's climax a lot...but not enough to truly save the film.