Ryan McNeil
For the second time in a week I bought a ticket for a film, with chatter of bad buzz ringing in my ear. At least this time, it wasn’t an entire week’s worth of bad buzz. At least this time around, the chatter wasn’t based on comparing a sequel to its original.
I think what might have people down about ROBIN HOOD isn’t that it lets them down, so much as it comes from the fact that the story we’re told isn’t the story we thought we’d get.
Our story begins in the late 12th Century. Richard the Lionheart is in the final throes of his crusades, when he gets killed in battle. As the battle continues to rage, four infantrymen break free from the stockade and make a break for home. The group is led by an archer named Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe). As they try to flee for home, they come across the king’s guard getting ambushed by traitorous knight Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong).
Thinking quick, Robin and his men disguise themselves as the fallen knights, knowing it will ease their passage home. Amongst the guard is Robert Loxley who with his dying breath, begs Robin to take news of his demise to his father in Nottingham. He likewise entrusts Robin his sword, asking he return it to its rightful place in his father’s hand.
Successfully passing as knights, the men return to England, and hand over the crown of the fallen king to the queen mother. The crown is swiftly passed to Prince John, the next in line, who very quickly shows his hand at being strict where it comes to his subjects paying their due taxes. He likewise appoints Sir Godfrey to go about collecting what he’s due, unwittingly empowering Godfrey to hasten a French invasion.
Robin meanwhile is off to Nottinghma where he meets Lord Loxley (Max Von Sydow) and his daughter-in-law Marion (Cate Blanchett). Upon learning of Loxley’s death, they both convince Longstride to take his place, in order to avoid having their property taken by the crown. Longstride agrees, and somehow, an entire town accepts him as Loxley…even though they look nothing alike.
Sheriff of Nottingham? Peripheral character. Outlaw? Not so much. Astounding feats of Archery? Once in a while. Mis-marketed film? You betcha.
The production of ROBIN HOOD was plagued with indecision, and that indecision has led to much dissatisfaction with the film. What we have here is an origin story…but you’d never know that from the bold title, nor from any of the high energy marketing. At one point in the film I thought to myself “Geez, it feels like we’ve been setting up Robin’s back story for a while”. Then I looked at my watch and realized the film had forty minutes left to wrap things up.
Had this film been billed as ROBIN HOOD: SECRET ORIGIN, reaction to it might have been a bit more favourable. As it stands, it contradicts every legend of Nottingham ever told: From Errol Flynn to animated foxes, no movie has ever put the man in tights into this particular narrative. That said, this isn’t a bad movie, it just won’t be what audiences are expecting.
Russel Crowe does a serviceable job, even if he doesn’t have much chance to rob from the rich and give to the poor. His accent is indeed slightly muddled, but I’ll give him points for attempting one (take note Kevin). In some ways, he is playing ‘Maximus-with-a-Bow’…but he doesn’t hold the film back and is as good as he needs to be. Nobody in the cast is really given much to work with, but of everybody Mark Strong seems to most understand what he’s there to do.
Strong is the dastardly villain in this story, and its a role he’s perfected well in the last eighteen months. After him, Oscar Isaac has his moments, but doesn’t have a clear enough part to dig in to. He’s slimy, weaselly, and cowardly…but is never needed to be one of these traits for any longer than two minutes at a time.
Since ROBIN HOOD is Ridley Scott’s film, I tried to consider where it would fit within his spectrum of films, and sadly it isn’t as good as GLADIATOR or KINGDOM OF HEAVEN (the latter was hardly a hit with audiences of critics). For me much of the reason comes down to never tapping into the determination of either of those films. Both of them were stories centred around one man trying to rise to a challenge. ROBIN HOOD spends so much time with Longstride trying to take Loxley’s place in many ways, that by the time occasion comes for him to rise, we’ve stopped caring.
I enjoyed what I saw in ROBIN HOOD – bad marketing, and strange story be damned – but I don’t know who else will. Those looking for Russell Crowe to kick ass and take names would be better served renting GLADIATOR. Those looking for the legend of an archer and his band of merry men would be better served renting Errol Flynn’s 1938 classic. If you’re looking for a decent tale of medieval life, and a notion of where the whole legend begins, give this movie a look.
Oh – and if you want mullets, no accents, and Canadian power balladry…well, you know what to do…
It looked interesting until I saw the PG-13 rating and had a huge feeling that they were just going to hold back from the insane violence.
The fact you looked at your watch speaks volumes for the pace of the movie. I have just scheduled my finished review to publish tomorrow.
By the way now I see what you mean about the poster!
The 1938, Errol Flynn version is the best, and will always be the best.
I'm actually very disappointed with this one, mostly because it started out as such a brilliant concept. The original script cast the Sheriff of Nottingham as to good guy and Robin Hood as the bad guy. I was totally down with that! Why they scrapped it, I'll never know.
I agree with pretty much everything you say here. It's not a bad movie, but it is not a Robin Hood movie.
@ CMRok… This film was missing a few details, but I'd never say it could have been improved by an influx in violence.
@ Andy… Yes and no…I wasn't looking at my watch because I was bored. I just suddenly found myself aware that we'd been learning about Robin's backstory for a while, and I time-checked to get an idea as to where we were in the grand scheme of things.
@ Sebastian… Yeah, I'd be wicked curious to see that original idea come to fruition. It's as if Scott wanted to slant the legend, but didn't slant it far enough.
(Sorry, the Earth suddenly shifted and I wrote "Holding odd…" rather than "Holding off…" This time for sure)
Holding off reading your review. First draft COULD be published today, but the second comes out Tuesday, LNTAM-side. We'll talk then.
WV: "panticat" (WTF?)
Eh, I really don't know what to make of this. It looks like "Gladiator" in a different dress. I was rather excited about it and I know what Ridley Scott is capable of, but now that I've heard it's more of a mixed bag I'm kinda wondering whether I should check it out on the big screen or not.
Great review.
"the story we're told isn't the story we thought we'd get" – I thought the point was that it was different, but you're probably right that it wasn't marketed very well.
I liked it (as you know!) and agree with a lot of your points. I don't think it was as good as Gladiator, though for me it was more enjoyable than Kingdom of Heaven.
Nicely reviewed!
@ Yojimbo… Lookin' forward to it. Perhaps we can evoke the KICK-ASS shennanigans.
@ Atroxian… I would say approach this cautiously. Perhaps wait until it hits a cheaper screen, or at least until a week where there's nothing playing that you want to see.
It's really not bad – it's just not a 'rush-out-and-see-it' sorta flick.
(Oh, and welcome to my humble blog btw, thanks for reading!)
@ Captain D… I didn't get the new story angle at all from the way this thing was marketed. I thought we were just going to get a grittier re-telling of the legend. Goes to show what I know!
Thanks for reminding me…I really have to track down a copy of KINGDOM OF HEAVEN on dvd.
I have to say I spent most of the movie wishing that Alan Rickman would show up in some way.
The token appearance of the Sheriff of Nottingham was silly and redundant. They might as well have left him out all together. I mean really, considering what they did to Richard, continuity wasn't a high priority for them any way.
I haven't seen it yet, but it looks interesting. As much as I like the 1938 version with Errol Flynn, there is something about it that is a little off-putting. You would have to read my review of the movie to see what I'm talking about. As for this version . . . well, I can only wait and see how I react to it.
This seems to be the general consensus on "Robin Hood" — I'm not so sad I skipped it last weekend.
Besides, Mel Brooks ruined the whole Robin Hood legend for me. All I can think of is the "Men in Tights" dance-and-song sequence.
@ Danger… I wouldn't say continuity was the low priority for them…accuracy certainly, not continuity.
Perhaps you're on to something – maybe the movie would have been more fun if Matthew MacFadyen had threatened to harm another character using a rusty spoon.
@ Juanita… (Welcome to the blog!) I'm somewhat ashamed to admit I've never actually seen the 1938 version. Perhaps I should step that one up the rental queue!
@ Meredith… If it's song-and-dance numbers you like, you might be happy to know that there are a few scenes in this version where the minstral strikes up a foot-stompin' ditty of celtic merriment!
I enjoyed Robin Hood quite a lot and it is perplexing to see people all over the map when I thought it was quite satisfying. Personally, the movie kept me engaged the entire time and I did not feel the need to look at my watch even once. It's beautifully shot, well acted and at least much more substantial than your average summer blockbuster. That some people rate it as low or lower than crap like Transformers 2 is utterly shocking.
I haven't seen Robin Hood yet but it was one of the few films I was actually looking forward to this summer. I'm disappointed by all the negative buzz around it. I will still see it for myself, but I have such low expectations now.
I don't have a problem with its being an origin story although you made a good point about the marketing. I didn't realize it was supposed to be an origin film until I read a review for it. Can I ask: where does the movie end? Does it seem like it's set up for a sequel?
I've always loved the story of Robin Hood. The Adventures of Robin Hood with Errol Flynn is probably still the definitive version, however, I've always had a soft spot for the so-bad-its-good Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves with Kevin Costner.
Great review. I hope to see it soon myself, despite the fact that it doesn't seem to rise above mediocrity.
@ Castor… Yeah, I hear ya. I did enjoy it (hence the positive star rating), and only glance at my watch out of curiosity where pacing was concerned.
I'm really not sure what people wanted this film to be. Perhaps there's just an overall weariness of Crowe. Regardless – I'm with you, to rank this down with some of the big budget crap we've seen in recent years would be completely unfair.
@ Laura… If you go into it knowing that you're getting an origin story, you might like it even more than I did! The film ends with Robin being declared an outlaw, with he & the merry men starting their commune life in Sherwood Forest.
Check it out – I'm already lookin' forward to reading your take on it!