Robin Hood ***
Back in 2000, director Ridley Scott and star Russell Crowe scored a big box office and critical success with historical epic Gladiator, a film which spawned a fascination with historical epics in Hollywood, numerous other forays into the genre appearing during the following years, among them 2003’s Edward Zwick directed and Tom Cruise starring The Last Samurai, 2004’s Wolfgang Petersen directed and Brad Pitt starring Troy, 2004’s Antoine Fuqua directed and Clive Owen starring King Arthur, 2004’s Oliver Stone directed and Colin Farrell starring Alexander and Ridley Scott’s own 2005 film Kingdom of Heaven starring Orlando Bloom. Audience interest in these fims, however, was very short lived. While the likes of The Last Samurai and Troy proved fairly popular with moviegoers, although failing to live up to Gladiator in US box office takings, the latter mentioned historical epics flopped completely in the states, even though they did still deliver solid takings at the international box office. And this has been the state of the historical epic genre ever since, films within being largely ignored by American moviegoers and attracting only a solid but not great audience elsewhere. Now, Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe have teamed up once again for their second stab at the historical epic, this time taking on the well known British legend ‘Robin Hood’ – the first Robin Hood movie since 1993’s Robin Hood: Men in Tights and the first serious movie since 1992’s Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves – and aiming to provide a fresh take by showing “the man behind the legend”. But can the duo, whose track record as of late has been very hit and miss, attract the audience that made Gladiator into such a hit or will Robin Hood 2010 go the same route as many other historical epics have before it?
In 13th Century England, expert archer Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) is a veteran of King Richard The Lion Heart’s (Danny Huston) campaigns against the French. After Richard’s death, Robin returns to a England under siege from the tyrannical King John (Oscar Isaac) and travels, along with his companions Little John (Kevin Durand), Will Scarlet (Scott Grimes) and Allan A’Dayle (Alan Doyle), to Nottingham, a town suffering from the corruption of the despotic Sheriff (Matthew Macdfadyen). There, he encounters the spirited widow Lady Marian Loxley (Cate Blanchett) and her father-in law Sir Walter (Max von Sydow). Hoping to learn about his past, earn the hand of Maid Marian and restore the fortunes of the local people, Robin becomes a forest crusader. He assembles a tough and resourceful gang whose mercenary skills are matched by their appetite for life. Assisted by Friar Tuck (Mark Addy), they take on the indulgent upper class, aiming to correct the Sheriff’s injustices. However, Robin and his gang of honourable bandits soon find themselves in the middle of something much bigger when the treacherous Godfrey (Mark Strong) betrays the country to France by attempting to incite civil war within England, leaving the country open to invasion by the armies of France. Suddenly Robin is not only integral to the fate of Nottingham Forest but to all of England as his destiny begins to unfold.
The titular character in Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood is not the Robin Hood that you know and love and Scott’s decision to portray a Robin Hood completely different to the many past incarnations could be viewed as either a brave and bold move or a rather foolish one.After all, the legend of Robin Hood has a fond place in many people’s hearts and messing with a well loved formula isn’t always a very good idea. Consequently, at least some viewers may not be particularly happy about the changes that have been made for this reimagining of the Robin Hood legend. The Merry Men, long a major staple of the stories, are largely absent, the characters featuring but only sparsely and then not being particularly merry, and the closest the film really gets to them actually being the Merry Men is one slightly self knowing line of dialogue – “the more the merrier”. The characters of Robin Hood and Maid Marian have also been reinvented, Robin now a much more troubled character, haunted somewhat by faint memories of his distant past and Marian no longer a damsel in distress, in fact being quite handy with a bow and arrow. And, perhaps most significantly, it is hard to ignore the fact that, in many ways, this is a Middle Ages war movie disguised as a Robin Hood adventure. While the character of Robin Hood is undoubtedly at the heart of the story, many of the plot’s events don’t directly involve him, something that may frustrate avid followers of everything Hood. This film, of course, is not a complete retcon of the legend. In fact, it could be viewed as an origin story of sorts, like Robin Hood Begins if you will. It isn’t too hard to see how the story could connect to the legend, particularly in the scenes where Robin Hood and his gang are doing their thing in Nottingham Forest – which are incidentally, the most enjoyable of the film, even more so than the many battle sequences – and the closing scenes that hint at a sequel where we will no doubt see a much more familiar Robin Hood. Additionally, many of the familiar characters are still present just not as you have seen them before. These things aside, however, the film is first and foremost a historical war epic and in this regard the film does mostly deliver, on the technical side of things at least. The battle sequences are all truly epic in their scale and provide plenty of bow and arrow action, being both well shot and executed. Be warned though though that the violence is actually quite brutal, and definitely pushes against the boundaries of its 12A rating at times. While the battle sequences are indeed well done though the film is still at its best during simpler scenes, when emulating the Robin Hood we know, e.g. the aforementioned scenes of Robin Hood and his gang doing their thing. While historians will no doubt find many holes in the details, to those who aren’t history experts, i.e. most casual moviegoers, the film’s presentation of the period and place will seem very authentic and true to life. As you would expect from a film such as this, there is tremendous attention to detail, with costumes, locations, sets and props all creating a convincing look and feel of the period. The only gripe on the location front is that, particularly early on, many of the locations are very nondescript, so much so that were it not for the on screen text informing us of the locations where the scenes are set we would have absolutely no idea of when the film was moving from one place to another. In fact, most of the locations could quite literally be anywhere. During the climax of the film, we do get a bit more variety with quite some beautiful location work but sadly these locations don’t feature more greatly.
While the film does indeed look authentic, the same cannot entirely be said of the way it sounds. While it isn’t really a criticism of the film, not being an issue at all really, the dialogue is definitely not period authentic but then again I highly doubt many people today would be able to follow it if it were in ye olde English. This, however, is made up for by the fact that, for a change (for this kind of ilm), the actors actually do the correct accents, with the entire cast actually attempting the British dialect (obviously some actually are British). The cast are probably the one thing in the film that cannot be faulted in fact. Russell Crowe delivers a typically intense performance in the leading role; Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of Maid Marian is one that embodies modern female sensibilities while never betraying the period setting; Mark Strong, once again on villain duties, is superbly sinister, even if his performance is perhaps just a variation on other recent villainous roles he has played; and Oscar Isaac is also very good as a very different kind of bad guy. Strong performances also come from the likes of Danny Huston, Max von Sydow and William Hurt (the latter playing William Marshal). Additionally, Mark Addy (along with, to a lesser extent, Kevin Durand, Scott Grimes and Alan Doyle) is very amusing in providing the comic relief. Unfortunately, Matthew Macfadyen hardly gets any screen time, the character of the Sheriff of Nottingham hardly featuring at all, surprising considering his substantial place in the Robin Hood legend. Unfortunately, great performances alone do not make for a great movie and the surpisingly complicated storyline combined with the bum numbing 2 hour 20 minutes running time make for a film that isn’t exatly easy viewing. So, while this latest incarnation of Robin Hood is undoubtedly a well made film but this critic was quite bored in fact and definitely not very merry upon leaving the cinema. Put simply, if you enjoyed the likes of King Arthur and Kingdom of Heaven you will probably have much appreciation for this film but if historical epics aren’t really you’re thing this will probably seem exactly the same as countless other films before it, being too much like other historical epics and not enough like Robin Hood.
—————————————————————————————————————————————
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
© BRWC 2010.
We hope you're enjoying BRWC. You should check us out on our social channels, subscribe to our newsletter, and tell your friends. BRWC is short for battleroyalewithcheese.
Trending on BRWC:
Civil War: The BRWC Review
Puddysticks: Review
NO COMMENTS