Robin Hood

"To be hunted all the days of his life, until his corpse unburied, is carrion for foxes and crows."

A few tips for getting the most enjoyment possible out of Robin Hood:

1. Forget that it's an adaptation of Robin Hood, entirely. Just pretend like it's a middling medieval drama/adventure movie starring Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett (who's spectacularly underused), with some very vague connections to the Robin Hood legend. Everything is changed about, added too, and embellished beyond recognition. There's nothing wrong with trying to put a fresh spin on an old tale (if it works), but you'll be greatly disappointed if you expect any more than loose connections to the well-known versions of the adventures of Robin Hood and his Merry Men. 

2. Don't expect Gladiator in England. Robin Hood desperately tries to be epic, sweeping, grandiose, and politically involving, but it doesn't come near the heights of the mega-popular, critically beloved Gladiator. It's not a bad movie, and you could enjoy it (if you keep your expectations at a reasonable level), but it's okay at best and deeply flawed at worst. Crowe doesn't put half the heart, passion, or effort into Robin Longstride that he did into Maximus. The characters are one-note and static, and the plot is overly-ambitious and needlessly complex. There is less than zero chemistry between Crowe and Blanchett. Robin's back-story was a contrived mess that added nothing to the movie except empty minutes to the running time. 

The main flaw with Robin Hood is that it's so preoccupied with being serious and deep, that it forgets to be fun. There's nothing wrong with trying to take a story like this in a more realistic direction, but there needs to be a rousing adventure at its heart. That's what's missing from this film. 

Robin Hood is a shadow of Gladiator. It's a shadow of Kingdom of Heaven, to be honest. But there are moments when the battles are raging and you forget that this is supposed to be Robin Hood, when it's an okay movie. My review seems horribly negative and that's not my intention - my expectations for this were just really high. It felt like Ridley Scott really didn't try all that hard, and the cast and crew followed his example.

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.

Robin Hood is a very professionally made film. Great actors, great production design, great images. It is nice to watch because you feel you are in the capable hands of Ridley Scott. But do not expect to be amazed by the story or the acting. Apart from dame Marion, the characters are two dimensional and predictable. The film pretends to be historically correct, but is of course a well dressed fantasy. There are a few battle scenes, filmed in the Gladiator way. They are exciting, but not very convincing. In fact, they are completely ridiculous when you think you are watching a historically correct film. The worst for me were the boats in the final battle, apparently trying to induce a D-Day feeling.

Overall, the story is off balance. Some scenes have a very slow pace, while other scenes, often key elements that explain how Robin Hood came into existence, are reduced to a few shots and proclamations. The end of the film tells it all: it reminds us that we were supposed to see the story of how the legend of Robin Hood started. The makers just forgot to tell it.

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 enjoyed this movie and was impressed by the amount of detail Ridley Scott puts into his productions.

Yes, it could have been better and I think some of the areas where it failed to meet the excellence of Gladiator were:

* Plot – too convoluted, better to keep it simple and the hate more intense between the goodies and the baddies. * Character development – there was virtually none for the Merry Men. If Little John, Will Scarlet and co are in the movie, please give them something meaningful to say. * Editing - I think the movie fell down in this area and the narrative seemed stunted and disjointed at times. Perhaps the material was not just there in the first place? * A lack of passion – Russell Crowe in particular was too low key in his role but was not the only one. And Russell, I did get confused at times as to what part of old England you came from.

But there were some that put much more into it such as Cate Blanchett and Max Von Sydow (good to see this great old actor can still perform) and the movie did have many good points. It was certainly a lot different to what I expected and some of the sets and scenes were outstanding. Watch for the dazzling credits. Looks from the ending there will be a sequel and with a few improvements, I think it can be great.