Robin Hood (B or 3/4 stars)
No, you're not hallucinating. There is another 'Robin Hood' at your local theater. And this version, directed by the great Ridley Scott (Alien, Thelma & Louise, Gladiator, Matchstick Men), functions as a sort of prequel to all the Robin Hood tales we've come to know. The film begins with Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) as an expert archer in the army of King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston). When said king is killed during a French castle assault, Robin & his Merry Men obtain the crown & return it to London so that the next ruler, a piggish Prince John (Oscar Isaac), can place it atop his curly locks. But John proves to be a corrupt ruler. Desperate to repair his weakened country, he needs revenue, & appoints Godfrey (Mark Strong) as his main tax collector. But Godfrey is ruthless; & since he really works for King Louis of France, he's more interested in instigating English civil unrest than fulfilling King John's demands.
All the while, Robin travels to Nottingham, a town suffering from the tyrannical Sheriff of Nottingham (Matthew Macfadyen), and crippling taxation. There, under the secret identity of Sir Walter Loxley's (Max von Sydow) deceased son, Robin falls for the spirited widow, Lady Marion (Cate Blanchett); who's skeptical of his motivations, and is slow to warm to him. Hoping to earn her love & save the village, Robin assembles some men who'll go into bloody battle with him. You see, Robin & Godfrey become enemies after the latter attacks Nottingham. So not only is Robin fueled by revenge (for Walter, Marion, & the rest of the free people of England who are being corrupted under new rule), but he believes he can also help England unite against a French invasion (great climax scene). So, that is the narrative of this 2010 version of 'Robin Hood'. Most of the characters of Robin Hood lore are here, including: Friar Tuck (Mark Addy), a bee-keeping priest who's willing to fight; & Robin's Merry Men (from King Richard's Crusade), including Little John (Kevin Durand, of Lost).
Ridley Scott's 'Robin Hood' is, in my opinion, an okay movie, & provides a satisfactory theater experience. I like how this prequel/origin story, of sorts, blends together elements of fact, fiction, myth, legend, adventure, & history. I appreciate that it's a slightly different Robin Hood than we've ever seen before (in countless versions). This is a Robin Hood for the grown-ups (realistic, visceral, but not grim). The attention to detail is superb; from the style of dialogue, to the interpretation of events, to the locales (Sherwood Forest!), the gorgeous cinematography, the tremendous sets, the 12th century costumes, some subtle make-up work, a rousing musical score (by Marc Streitenfeld), & crisp sound design; not to mention some brilliant editing (particularly during the castle sieges, one-on-one combats & bookend battle sequences). Visually, & tonally, Scott has created a convincingly raw, gritty, war torn England of the 1100's.
The main problem with 'Robin Hood' is its script (which underwent several re-writes). Since this is a prequel/origin movie, the focus will always be on set-up, character introduction, & development of said characters. The actual 'stories' tend to get shortchanged. Now, I don't think the story here is bad. But it isn't consistently engaging. I wouldn't say bland or self-serious, as some critics have said. I've seen hundreds of bland & self-serious movies to know what those terms mean. No, the action is great, there is light humor sprinkled throughout, & the climactic shoreline battle pitting the English against King Phillip's (of France) invasion caps the movie off in fine manner. But the impact is muted because 'Robin Hood' really feels like a 140 minute Part One of a monstrous 4-hour Epic. You almost expect the word 'Intermission' to come on the screen; even after the final battle concludes.
Russell Crowe always brings a quiet, guttural intensity to whatever role he's in. He slimmed down, pumped up, & made for a convincing 40+ yr. old Robin. But he has to create so much out of so little (in the script). Same for Cate Blanchett (as a stunning brunette Marion), Eileen Atkins, Danny Huston, Lea Seydoux (the beautiful Isabella), the actors playing Robin's Merry Men, etc.. They're all good, but strain to make something of their underwritten roles. Mark Strong can play a villain in his sleep; his Godfrey is no exception. And Oscar Isaac plays King John with manic fun. Overall, I was entertained by the spurts of camaraderie, romance, villainy & action enough to 'not mind' the incomplete mythology that the movie provides. But it could have been great.
All the while, Robin travels to Nottingham, a town suffering from the tyrannical Sheriff of Nottingham (Matthew Macfadyen), and crippling taxation. There, under the secret identity of Sir Walter Loxley's (Max von Sydow) deceased son, Robin falls for the spirited widow, Lady Marion (Cate Blanchett); who's skeptical of his motivations, and is slow to warm to him. Hoping to earn her love & save the village, Robin assembles some men who'll go into bloody battle with him. You see, Robin & Godfrey become enemies after the latter attacks Nottingham. So not only is Robin fueled by revenge (for Walter, Marion, & the rest of the free people of England who are being corrupted under new rule), but he believes he can also help England unite against a French invasion (great climax scene). So, that is the narrative of this 2010 version of 'Robin Hood'. Most of the characters of Robin Hood lore are here, including: Friar Tuck (Mark Addy), a bee-keeping priest who's willing to fight; & Robin's Merry Men (from King Richard's Crusade), including Little John (Kevin Durand, of Lost).
Ridley Scott's 'Robin Hood' is, in my opinion, an okay movie, & provides a satisfactory theater experience. I like how this prequel/origin story, of sorts, blends together elements of fact, fiction, myth, legend, adventure, & history. I appreciate that it's a slightly different Robin Hood than we've ever seen before (in countless versions). This is a Robin Hood for the grown-ups (realistic, visceral, but not grim). The attention to detail is superb; from the style of dialogue, to the interpretation of events, to the locales (Sherwood Forest!), the gorgeous cinematography, the tremendous sets, the 12th century costumes, some subtle make-up work, a rousing musical score (by Marc Streitenfeld), & crisp sound design; not to mention some brilliant editing (particularly during the castle sieges, one-on-one combats & bookend battle sequences). Visually, & tonally, Scott has created a convincingly raw, gritty, war torn England of the 1100's.
The main problem with 'Robin Hood' is its script (which underwent several re-writes). Since this is a prequel/origin movie, the focus will always be on set-up, character introduction, & development of said characters. The actual 'stories' tend to get shortchanged. Now, I don't think the story here is bad. But it isn't consistently engaging. I wouldn't say bland or self-serious, as some critics have said. I've seen hundreds of bland & self-serious movies to know what those terms mean. No, the action is great, there is light humor sprinkled throughout, & the climactic shoreline battle pitting the English against King Phillip's (of France) invasion caps the movie off in fine manner. But the impact is muted because 'Robin Hood' really feels like a 140 minute Part One of a monstrous 4-hour Epic. You almost expect the word 'Intermission' to come on the screen; even after the final battle concludes.
Russell Crowe always brings a quiet, guttural intensity to whatever role he's in. He slimmed down, pumped up, & made for a convincing 40+ yr. old Robin. But he has to create so much out of so little (in the script). Same for Cate Blanchett (as a stunning brunette Marion), Eileen Atkins, Danny Huston, Lea Seydoux (the beautiful Isabella), the actors playing Robin's Merry Men, etc.. They're all good, but strain to make something of their underwritten roles. Mark Strong can play a villain in his sleep; his Godfrey is no exception. And Oscar Isaac plays King John with manic fun. Overall, I was entertained by the spurts of camaraderie, romance, villainy & action enough to 'not mind' the incomplete mythology that the movie provides. But it could have been great.