Riddley Scott film shamelessly takes all the fun out of the folk legend

May 15, 2010 13:21 GMT  ·  By
Ridley Scott presents Russell Crowe in “Robin Hood,” a prequel to the folk legend
10 photos
   Ridley Scott presents Russell Crowe in “Robin Hood,” a prequel to the folk legend

The world remembers Robin Hood as the merry bandit who, accompanied by his Merry Men and occasionally receiving a helping hand from Maid Marion with whom he engages in delicate flirtatious conversations as befits decorum of the age, stole from the rich and gave back to the poor. Robin Hood was charming, lively and, above all, fun. Those looking to find this Robin in Ridley Scott’s new movie, somewhat deceivingly called “Robin Hood,” will be terribly disappointed, for this hero is dead serious, means business and will not crack a smile if it cost him an arm and a leg. Which is not necessarily all that bad.

Under the skilled direction of Scott, who is now on his fifth collaboration with Russell Crowe, and based on a story and a screenplay by Brian Helgeland, the Robin Hood we know morphs into the Everyman he was before becoming a folk legend. Whether he will acquire a sense of humor and learn how to have fun later on, as he takes residence in Sherwood Forest, is to be determined in the sequel. In other words, this film is a prequel, one meant to show how Robin Longstride (only at the end of the film gets the name that will propel him among world’s greatest heroes, “of the Hood”) became a populist outlaw, a champion for human freedom and equal rights for the common man, to protect him from tyrants that do nothing all day but hang around the palace, covered in gold, eating grapes and looking lovely.

In trying to come up with a backstory to a very well-known legend (a very tough task by all counts), the film plays on the very democratic idea that a common man can actually change the course of history and shift the balance of power. Russell Crowe’s Robin is a mercenary, an archer in the army of Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston), who has bankrupted England with his Crusades. On his way back to his country, Richard plunders French castles (a brilliant opportunity for Scott to hold a genuine seminar into 12th century military war tactics) and mixes with his soldiers, trying to find honest men who’d speak the truth to his face. In one of these attacks, he’s shot in the neck with an arrow by a French chef, who, being French and all, was serving soup to the soldiers resisting the attack and thought he’d take up a bow and see what he could do – yet another instance of Everyman making history happen by chance.

Back home, Prince John (Oscar Isaac) spends most of his time engaging in playful activities in between the sheets with a French import whom he later weds, while also showing the essential traits of the moody, yet fashionable monarch who can doom an entire country to utter poverty for a mere whim. Upon Richard’s death, John becomes king. Also upon Richard’s death, Robin assumes the identity of a knight, Sir Loxley, and sails to England to deliver news of the monarch’s death to the court and his sword to his family. Once there, Robin becomes somewhat of a drifter: a mercenary who is out of a job, open to new ideas. He also meets Maid Marion, who is Loxley’s widow: no blushing maiden here.

Cate Blanchett is Marion, a woman so tough she could even teach Robin a lesson or two. She’s gracefully aristocratic to the letter, yet does not shy away from heading out in the fields to work the land. She’s also a pioneer of freedom, constantly attempting to get the Sherriff of Nottingham (Matthew Macfadyen) to see that King John needs to stop starving the people by taxing them for absolutely everything. Her father-in-law, Sir Walter Loxley (Max von Sydow) asks Robin to assume the identity of his dead son in a bid to help Marion keep the lands after he’s gone, but he also has another agenda on his mind. And this is only the beginning – are we not entertained?

The premise of “Robin Hood” is an excellent one: a regular man, albeit forged in the heat of battle (many critics claim the resemblance to Maximus in “Gladiator” is not a purely incidental one), can do extraordinary things if placed in extraordinary circumstances. Thus, what the film actually does is take a man who is generally agreed not to have existed and put him on the historical map by having him mingle with real people. Unfortunately, the result is not what one may expect, for the abundance of details and the myriad of things the viewer is forced to take in clash in the most unpleasant ways.

The film has solid acting performances and even better photography and choreography of the battle scenes, yet it fails to strike a note with the viewer. It’s not necessarily that it’s not fun, that Robin Hood is now no different from other Hollywood mainstream heroes who populate blockbusters (at this point, saying that Robin is no longer British would not be that far-fetched, having been stripped of the very thing that made him stand out), that’s bothering. This is a film made of rigid pieces that clash and grind against one another, and the result is a loud noise that leaves one terribly dazed: though very faithful in painting life in England of the 12th century (you certainly don’t wish to have lived then!), it lacks character definition and a compelling story. “Robin Hood,” critics say, is like a beautiful shell that is empty – but also makes annoying noises every now and then.

Both Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett, but also Mark Strong, who plays his first by-the-book villain (Sir Godfrey) with such dedication he even manages to outshine Robin, are brilliant in their parts – yet their talent seems wasted on such one-dimensional characters. Crowe is comfortable with playing these strong types who can barely contain their fierceness under the weight of social norms, but his Robin is not relatable or endearing in any way. On the same note, Marion is at best admirable, though one can’t help wonder what she and Robin have in common other than having been thrust in the same nasty situation by forces outside of their lives. In short, while the parts that make “Robin Hood” are great, the sum of the parts leaves much to be desired: the film implodes after the 20 minutes, and this leaves yet another 2 hours of dragging on, with scattered exceptional moments that are like sparks that fail to start a fire.

“Robin Hood” runs for 140 minutes and is rated a strong PG-13 mostly for violence, including intense sequences of warfare. It opened at the 2010 Cannes Film Festival and the UK on May 12, arrived in US theaters on May 14, and will conclude its run on May 21 in Vietnam.


The Good

“Robin Hood” is a Ridley Scott movie and even the uninitiated can see that from the first 5 minutes. Shot mostly in grayish (bluish) tones, with jaw-dropping photography and superbly orchestrated fight sequences, the film is a realistic picture of life in England in the 12th century. Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Mark Strong and many other wonderful actors put on solid performances, showing that a film can have both good action and good acting.

The Bad

“Robin Hood” is not a bad movie, yet it lacks that certain “je ne sais quoi,” as the French call it. Though analyzed by parts it’s great, while being watched, it leaves a certain impression that something simply doesn’t click. The tortuous, heavy plot and the lack of witty dialog (or any kind of dialog, for that matter), together with the lack of attention to the human side of the story, make of it a film that can be quite a pain to watch at times. As a prequel to the all-too-familiar Robin Hood story, it comes across as shamelessly redundant.

The Truth

Fans of historical movies or period pieces will love “Robin Hood,” as also will fans of any of the great actors who appear in it, or of Scott’s work. Though certain elements will be duly appreciated while “Robin” runs on the screen (be it the great musical score by Marc Streitenfeld, the acting or the gorgeous photography), the moment one leaves the theater, one realizes its impact is a minimum one. “Robin Hood” is, sadly, a forgettable experience that had the kind of potential few other movies can boast of.

 

Photo Gallery (10 Images)

Ridley Scott presents Russell Crowe in “Robin Hood,” a prequel to the folk legend
International poster for “Robin Hood,” by Ridley ScottRussell Crowe is Robin Hood: a mercenary out of a job, on his way to becoming a legend
+7more