Robin Hood

Technically and aesthetically accomplished, but empty of substance, and full of pretentiousness, this "Robin Hood" is, in my opinion, one absolutely unnecessary revision of the mythical English archer's story.

As it has repeatedly been pointed out, you should not go into this expecting to find one more version of the "prince of thieves" theme. This is rather the (embellished) narration of how Robin Longstride came to be Robin Hood. It presents all the known characters, though many of them are vastly underused, and it describes how they came to know each other and become involved in each other's lives. It is by all practical means a "prequel" to the classic legend of Robin Hood.

So Ridley Scott tried to take a new approach on a well-known story, but the results are not impressive. I was surprised at how boring this movie turned out to be. It is a failed epic, devoid of passion, adventure, or feeling. It is almost inevitable to compare this to "Gladiator", because the latter excels at all the points that "Robin Hood" fails at. Even the battle scenes feel boring, predictable, and not spectacular at all. The heart of the director and of the main actor are just not there, and it shows.

What I liked most about the movie was the revision of Lady Marian's character, well portrayed by Cate Blanchett, but that's about that. I would rather have watched "The adventures of Robin Hood" (1938) or "Robin Hood, prince of thieves" (1991) than waste two and a half hours on this disappointment.

My rating is 3/10.

When I read that this Robin Hood was less action orientated I was a bit worried. What on earth for story is there to be told that we haven't seen in the other movies about Robin Hood. The answer is nothing.This version wants us to believe that Robin Hood is so much different than the Robin Hood we know. And while it is indeed refreshing to see this take on it. For the overall story it hasn't the slightest effect. The story we are told is not new or even compelling. Luckily there are some great actors who compensate this mess of a story to give it some meat. Max van Sydow comes to mind as one of the highlights in the movie. Personally I enjoyed the movie but expected so much more especially when you compare this to Ridly's earlier work like Gladiator or Kingdom of Heaven. The action scenes were more than decent. Too bad there were so few of them. The lack of action has to be compensated with a better story otherwise what is the point.

Solid is the keyword. From the screenplay, to the cinematography and the performance, the film is based on solid grounding. Indeed, we couldn't imagine less from the people assembled on the project. And the first signs are indeed good, starting as an origin story that traces Robin's steps returning from the Crusades and arriving in Nottingham. The plot is immediately both compelling and fresh with regards to the well known tale.

The first problem we run into is that the film never allows itself to linger. This creates two problems: the sense of purpose it reaches for through urgency has a tendency to be lost to aimlessness, and the characters never have the space to generate real depth of emotion.

Imagine only this: Russel Crowe, Cate Blanchett and William Hurt together have collected three Oscars, and an additional nine nominations. Yet it it's hard to lavish praise on their performances, because they never manage to inspire empathy as well as we might wish. The sense of urgency - of imminent physical danger to their person, of the crucial importance of their quest - never quite strikes home.

The screenplay doesn't always help them. It attempts to give the tale a strong moral foundation, by associating it with burgeoning democratic ideals in feudal Britain, unconvincingly: suspension of disbelief failed this reviewer.

For both these reasons, the epic sense of greatness that saturates Mr. Scott's similar works never works in this one. Indeed, in the anticipated climax of the battle, slow motion shots fall flat, and emotion never reaches an expected high, in spite of the film's competence in the action scenes.

This is a work that strangely echoes others, as well. People will be drawn to comparisons with Gladiator; these aren't particularly relevant beyond Russell Crow's similar (yet less engaging) performance. Rather, Robin's journey from the crusades and through England, in which he prospers on fateful luck and earned respect, copies Ridley Scott's own Kingdom of Heaven. In their themes and ambition these three films are alike, but Robin Hood doesn't thrive from the comparison. Where flaws are shared, what made the other two great is oddly lacking in this latest historical epic from the director.

This is not exactly Robin and his merry men, nor is this Errol Flynn swashbuckling and laughing his way through merry old England as he gets his jollies battling the sheriff of Nottingham. No, this particular take on the story of Robin Hood is very different - like none you've ever seen before. Even the historical setting is changed from what's usually offered. Here, rather than waiting out the evil regency of Prince John and his minions until King Richard returns from the Crusades, Richard is already dead. His death comes very early on in the movie in battle in France. John is the King of England in this movie, and rather than an unselfish "robbing the rich to give to the poor" type character, Robin (actually in this movie Robin Longstride, who finds himself impersonating Robert of Locksley and becomes known as "Robin of the Hood") is a more complex character. I wouldn't say exactly noble - especially in the beginning - and his battle is not so much for the poor as it's a battle for the "rights" of the English people, as he eventually takes on what seems to be the fight to get John to sign what I assume is Magna Carta, and at least temporarily has to ally himself with John to help lead the defence of England against a French invasion.

The different historical setting is a bit disorienting to be honest - especially at first - but it also gives a degree of unpredictability to what's going to happen, and once you get a sense of where you are, when you are and what the fight is about it's easy enough to understand what's going on. Russell Crowe did a commendable job, I thought, in this alternate portrayal of Robin, and Cate Blanchett was most certainly a different kind of Marion. She's not the Maid Marion of legend. She's tough, she's a fighter, she goes into battle with the French - although not leading the battle, there's almost a Joan of Arc quality to her (minus the voice of God.) I was quite taken with Oscar Isaac as King John. He took the part and made it real. John came across as I would expect him to from the historical record - shifty and conniving, untrustworthy, quite willing to make and break whatever alliances are necessary at any given moment to ensure his survival as King and sometimes quite befuddled by his responsibilities. Perhaps a weakness was the fact that there was no real focus on Robin's men. Really only Will Scarlett (played by Scott Grimes) and Friar Tuck (played by Mark Addy) were significant elements in the story, and even they weren't particularly important.

The sets and setting were good. This felt like I imagine England in the late 12th-early 13th centuries would have felt like. Rough, brutal, dirty. It worked for me. The battle scenes (and there are a lot of them) are very well done. Since the movie ends with the caption "And so the legend begins" one wonders if a sequel might be in the works, perhaps detailing the struggle leading up to the actually signing of Magna Carta? If so, I'd definitely watch it. This was quite good! (8/10)

I'm relieved to see that so many other reviewers felt as I did --- although I also feel for those who participated in this movie and gave their all. I write movies myself, and have been on the receiving end of a lousy review, both from viewers and critics, and it "hoits." Nevertheless, honesty is our best friend, and so I'll add my impressions as a viewer.

I'm an Anglophile (American but majored in English lit and have avidly read British authors and legends from earliest to present day.) I read a version of Robin Hood as a child, as did we all. And what I loved most about Robin and the Merry Men even then was the camaraderie, the rough humor and loyalty to larger ideals. I loved the intimacy and "smallness" of the story in its magnificent forest. It invited the reader in to live with Robin and his band. I believe that this is what has charmed through the ages: Robin was a rebel and a leader --- irreverent and good-humored and fearless; quick to fight and to forgive, a foe of hypocrisy and unfairness. A trustworthy comrade. A marksman par excellence. A risk taker for the fun and hell of it.

This movie delivered none of that. It left me unengaged. And yes, sadly, Russell is far too old to be the youthful rebel that Robin was. And Cate... well she might have been the mother of Maid Marian, but she too, sadly, was miscast in this and we lose her great talent in a role that's unsuitable and drawn with too-broad strokes. A middle-aged woman hurling threats of emasculation, that is such a turn-off and risible as well. Oy, made me cringe and flinch (and I'm female too).

Even as a prequel, I didn't buy the setting. Huge battlefields, castles, large farms... we lose the intimacy and the character. Robin was a forest dweller above all --- he knew forests that are long since sacrificed to the hunger for wood and war. That would have been a fascinating fantasy scenario for Ridley Scott to recreate; those ancient, almost unimaginable first-growth forests... but this movie was not about Robin the forest outlaw. I do understand but still take issue with that strategy.

The movie was structurally difficult to understand, if not downright incomprehensible. That smacks of a script that did not know where it was going and as a result got overworked. For me, creating a a script is like kneading bread dough. You have to stop at just the right moment. If you continue kneading, the dough gets tough, loses its flexibility, rises poorly and the loaf is tough and and heavy. So... throwing in huge battle scenes that the audience really has no investment in was a costly error.

I could not help but compare this to Gladiator, which many others have, apparently: why did that formula work and not this? You still have the misunderstood, heroic but unwilling warrior who would rather make love and plant his fields; the crafty and corrupt ruler and his minions, the betrayal, the battles and carnage; Russell Crowe showing prowess and perfect "fight faces" (that must strike terror into hotel employees worldwide); the love interest, smoldering sensuality plus a good heart...

Well, we all grew up with Robin Hood, whereas Gladiator was a completely fresh plot line. But in trying to make Robin Hood fresh, Scott sacrificed the essence of his hero.

Had I presumed to write this movie, I would have placed the band in the forest, their natural habitat, and told the story of how Robin got there only in brief, sharp and poignant flashbacks that gave insight into who he is now. I would have replaced those tiring battles with the intimate skirmishes that Robin was known for; tests of archery and cudgeling that we loved in the book. I would have beefed upthe roles of the Merry Men we all knew and loved, rather than creating new characters out of whole cloth --- like the blind patriarch whose son's identity "Robin" stole ...what was that about? All that face-feeling and havy-handed declaiming over a character nobody, including Robin or Marian even knew --- that original son... I'd rather have seen more of Friar Tuck or Little John...