Robin Hood

A disappointing film without much heart—or action.

Ridley Scott is a master of visual craft. Infatuated with detail, he consistently makes movies that are pleasing to the eye. From dazzling imagery to ornate settings, such effects have become his trademark. Scott’s style nevertheless is too often void of depth and loaded with manipulative themes—the murder of family in Gladiator, unjust war in Kingdom of Heaven and racism in American Gangster—that cover up the absence of value. And his newest work, an origins story that hardly deserves the title of Robin Hood, epitomizes this superficial garishness, as he uses visual splendor to suck the life out of a cherished fable.

While preparing the way for a futile franchise, this pragmatic rendition centers on a stern, humorless Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe), a skillful archer serving King Richard the Lionheart. Returning to England after fighting in the Crusades, Robin assumes the identity of a knight from Nottingham, the husband of Lady Marion (Cate Blanchett), and soon finds himself defending England from the French Army, led by Prince John’s henchman, Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong).

Though set on innovation, Scott fails at creating something useful by historizing a legend, transforming romanticism into realism. He consumes his film with the specifics of 12th Century Europe: Every castle, landmark and event is named. Each costume, weapon and tool is accurate. His effort to precisely paint his backdrop is striking, and the result is transparently rewarding. Unmistakably, Scott and his cinematographer, John Mathieson, have attained visual brilliance.

And because of this focus, Scott neglects the same elements absent from nearly all his films, specifically those of the last decade. His characters exist merely as archetypes instead of real people. Despite evidence of daddy problems and resentment, Robin lacks a certain drive and humanness that viewers can relate to. Scott and screenwriter Brian Helgeland’s interest in history also makes the hero far too somber. For a noble adventurer, Crowe’s Robin Hood doesn’t smile much, nor does he seem to be too adventurous.

As for the Merry Men, their connection to Robin is never established. After causing trouble while at war, the strangers plan an escape to England, where they suddenly become best friends. The villains, however, are the shallowest characters of all. They are the usual flat, greedy jerks, who want to rule the world. Yet, how Sir Godfrey, a mere servant, gained so much authority is unknown. And the historical fickleness of Prince John (Oscar Isaac) is overstated. The only convincing character is Marian, as Scott is wisely known for strong female roles; though, without the others following suit, such feminism carries no weight.

It’s not that Helgeland’s script is shoddy, either. While at times cheesy, the dialogue is wholly believable, and hardly cliché. The writing suffers where it’s overly simplistic, for the narrative itself is bland, especially throughout the first hour; it makes you wish there were more battle scenes and less lackluster drama. And this eagerness to remain grim provides a few unintended laughs, particularly in regards to the orphan scavengers who steal from Nottingham. These juvenile rogues are supposed to be spirited, but they seem more like ridiculous, masked Children of the Corn, momentarily turning Scott’s history into hysteria.

These flaws are unfortunate because, even beyond the visual effects, Robin Hood has a lot going for it. Besides casting the overused, unfunny everyman, Russell Crowe, Scott and casting director Jina Jay have chosen a brilliant group of actors, who perform as well as the material lets them. Cate Blanchett, nearly incapable of doing wrong, turns Marian into a courageous and sophisticated woman—but still too chic for the original perception of her role. Kevin Durand is an amusing Little John, a character not seen enough. Even Oscar Isaac distinguishes himself as Prince John, despite his part’s messiness.

Crowe and Blanchett, moreover, do an outstanding job of selling the romance between Robin and Marian. In spite of the lovers’ relationship being different than that joyous, youthful love known to the tale, it’s at least conceivable. And all this good comes together nicely in composer Marc Streitenfeld’s quiet, fitting score that picks up at just the right moments.

Alas, the satisfying elements of the movie can’t surpass its sluggish entanglement in detail. Scott works his same old tricks of shrouding mere eye candy and a lack of substance with sentimentality, violence and themes of vengeance, encouraging his audience to cheer on a skewed concept of justice. But the remolding of a legend is what ultimately kills his film. Scott has turned a myth, a concept essentially, into a history which emerges as dry, insensible clutter that simply looks nice—the kind of stuff the real Robin Hood would defy.

11 Comments

84,029

Vintage85 reviewed…

Not way off base enough for exclamations points and for it to be stated twice :) It showed Robin and the 2 other archers interacting a lot in the beginning and developed a sense of camaraderie . Little John didn't have as strong a connect. I did say later on that I didn't think all the characters were developed that much and that since it is about Robin Hood's beginnings maybe some of the other characters didn't need to be, but I don't think it is way of base to understand that the bond between soldiers that have fought together for any length of time goes beyond the bond of brothers.

84,029

Devon reviewed…

Robin Hood was amazing. Sure it wasn't all happy and full of good feelings. Just gonna throw this out there. Living under many old English kings probably wasn't that enjoyable. Robin fought for a noble cause, which I see you wrote nothing about. It's a story about someone who thinks they are worth nothing rising up and becoming something. Hence the inscription on the sword. "Rise and rise again until lambs become lions." Throughout the movie he truly discovers who he is. And as mentioned in an above comment, not many movies portray villains as deep. Plus it had a lot more substance than Iron Man 2.

84,029

Thomas Riepe reviewed…

The inscription was important to the movie, but the action and plot did not support that enough, it wasn't believable.

And as far as the villain is concerned, the villain just kind of jumped in to the plot.

there were some great parts, but overall, this movie really was just a flat out disappointment. A good movie, but not a GREAT movie.

84,029

Iamthefreeze reviewed…

Robin Hood, Maid Marion, Prince John and his Merry Men seemed a bit older in this film. Maybe its just me, but I would of expected a younger cast.

84,029

TheBrooks reviewed…

Saw it last night. It was such a lackluster picture that the scenes with the charismatic Alan-a-Dale leading the revelry of a raucous campfire like Bruce Springsteen was my favorite part.

Please log in or register to review

Advertisement