.

.

ROBIN HOOD

Review by Steve Friedel

This tepid, trudging, redundant revamp of the legendary English outlaw’s early story — “early” as in prior to the archer’s self-exile to Sherwood Forest upon being publicly disgraced by grating little ponce King John (Oscar Isaac, Body of Lies) — aspires to be so much more than the final result, especially when you consider who and what all is involved in this expensive, painfully-researched, egomaniacal production. (King Ego) Director Ridley Scott (American Gangster)? (Prince Ego) Russell Crowe (State of Play)? (Maid Ego) Cate Blanchett (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button)? Any one of those names should make Oscar shudder — yes, even in early May — but all three together? Unfortunately, the path Scott takes is anything but straight as an arrow. Occasionally punctuated by decent acting turns, lively peasant parties (tiki torches… check, overflowing libations… check, yelling drunkards… check, etc.), and tongue-in-cheek olde-style humor (mostly from Crowe), this Robin Hood never quite shrugs itself loose of the olive-drab cloak a too-faithful-to-the-time rendition usually incurs. And when you start feeling “home-sick” for its lighter 1991 predecessor — yep, the one with Kevin Costner as the title character, Morgan Freeman as a Moorish sidekick, and the incomparable Alan Rickman as the sniveling Sheriff of Nottingham — I’m guessin’ that’s probably not what Scott intended.

Scott’s version unfolds during an essentially-destitute King Richard The Lionheart’s (Danny Huston, X-Men Origins: Wolverine) last waning days of the Great Crusades (circa 1100 AD). While English and French conspirators — lead by Godfrey (Mark Strong, Sherlock Holmes) and Adhemar (Denis Menochet, Inglourious Basterds) — aim to take down the king on his final trip home, Richard is fallen by irony (a lucky chef with a crossbow) during a random castle siege (and one reminiscent of the hot-oil pouring skit from “Saturday Night Live” involving Chris Farley as a dad teaching his son Macaulay Culkin about “doing your job right”). Meanwhile, the soldier tasked with returning the crown to England — Sir Robert Loxley (Douglas Hodge, The Descent: Part 2) — is mortally wounded in Godfrey’s ambush (originally meant for the king), but Robin Longstride (Crowe) and his “merry men” (who are severely under-utilized, doing little more than serving shots of comic relief) show up just in time to carry on Loxley’s responsibility. Longstride returns to Loxley’s family — father Sir Walter (Max von Sydow, Shutter Island) and widow Marion (Blanchett) — and assumes the name “Robert Loxley” at the behest of Walter (quite the departure from the narrative we’re more familiar with). Of course, Marion has reservations about the new man, but ultimately succumbs to his rogueish and charming ways (for such a tough woman, she really is pretty easy). Robin lives up to his duty to return the crown, upon which dead King Richard’s younger brother Prince John (Isaac) becomes the new king and his brother’s military advisor, William Marshall (William Hurt, The Incredible Hulk), is replaced by… DUNH-DUNH-DUUUUHH… Godfrey (egads!). King John immedaitely institutes a massive homeland taxation plan on the many lord- and townships, and you can bet there’ll be a citizen’s revolt. However, this is not Robin Hood robbin’ King John of his taxes and giving back to the needy; Scott almost scornfully avoids the “common(er)” idea the plebian audience prefers to see. Instead, his Robin might as well be William Wallace or Rob Roy, grandstanding about liberty and banding the countryfolk together to fight off Godfrey’s calculated French invasion — it’s a tired, ill-conceived decision on Scott’s and his writer Brian Helgeland’s (Green Zone) parts. The film culminates into an all-out beachside bloodfest (complete with French landing rowboats that look, intentionally I’ll bet, like something out of Saving Private Ryan); the battle is relatively brief, somewhat graphic, but simply does not (pardon the pun) make the cut where Scott’s past celebrated/well-orchestrated war scenes are concerned (i.e., this comes nowhere close to the fever-pitch nor impassioned energy of Gladiator by any stretch). And with a twist ending of sorts, NOW… Robin and his brood end up living in Sherwood, free from rule, with the final title card reading “And this is just the beginning…” (or something to that effect). But… THAT’S THE BEST PART! You mean to tell my my butt went numb for almost 2 1/2 hours to set up a SEQUEL?! Excuse me, but I’m a little insulted, Ridley.

There’s very little wrong with the principle acting turns (other than a wee bit of pretention). Crowe (who tangled with Scott on more than one occasion during the filming) does tend towards the “over-scowl” (even slipping into his rote Gladiator persona), but that’s not to take away from an otherwise tolerable, grounded performance with what he had to work with. Blanchett has never looked so… homely (then again, that’s probably sticking with the “genuineness” of the look) and does an admirable job with the Marion character; she’s, not surprisingly, not the damsel in distress, but then neither was Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio’s Marion (so much for originality). Von Sydow, however, is more of the standout; besides the merry men, he’s the only one that looks like he’s having any fun or portraying any real emotion as Robin’s adopted father. And as for Robin’s merry friends — Will Scarlet (Scott Grimes, NBC’s “ER”), Little John (Kevin Durand, Legion), and Allan A’Dayle (Alan Doyle) — are not on screen long enough to make much of a dent in their bleak, boring surroundings. That pretty much goes for the rest of the supporting cast because there are just too many characters to try to keep track of.

If I haven’t made it clear yet, I think the REAL problems start when you brazenly revise the practically magical events around the Robin Hood mythology in a blatant attempt to remove yourself from every other Robin Hood flick before yours. And for what purpose? If you’re gonna do that, you’d better make every moment count; Scott simply doesn’t. Worse still, you then add to the misery by steeping too much of your story in bland period reality; if I wanted that, I’d enroll in a British History class at a local community college and listen to some guy drone on about the “complexities of the monarchy” (couldn’t be much less interesting than this). Adding to the rubbish pile is (once again) Helgeland’s weak writing. With all-too-obvious comparisons to elements of other better epic English period pieces, Helgeland’s script, in trying to be unique, feels suspiciously “been-there / done-that” for all the wrong reasons. May I remind you that he’s done nothing worthwhile since 2003’s Mystic River (and even then, he had some already-brilliant source material to adapt), so Helgeland’s wattage continues to be diminished by his recent bouts with scatter-shot scribing.

.

.

.

Review by Gary Murray

The story of Robin Hood has been told for hundreds of years, a legend of folklore. Since the silent days of cinema, the tale has been recited with various degrees of success. It has elements of romance and adventure, action and righteous determination blended together with a sense of honesty and fair play. The latest take on the tale stars Russell Crowe and is directed by the maverick Ridley Scott.

The film should have been named Robin Hood – The Beginning. It takes place before all the fictions of fable are spun. If one is expecting the Robin Hood legend, with all the tales of the Merry Men, they will be disappointed. This film is as far removed from the Errol Flynn as the Kevin Costner version was a few decades back.

The film starts with Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe), just another archer with King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston) during the Crusades. Though he is a good soldier, he is also a man who tells the king what he thinks no matter how it will affect him. The film opens with the destruction of a French castle. It is one of the most impressive displays of what a real attack would have been like, with burning bridges and buckets of flame. We also meet the beginning of the Merry Men, but without the spinning yarns of legend… they are just guys who fight for God and King.

The other part of the plot is Marion (Cate Blanchett), a woman who cares for the Nottingham estate of her father-in-law Sir Walter Loxley (Max von Sydow). We find that she has been having her own problems with the local sheriff, with the kids who live in Sherwood forest and with the church who has taken all of their planting grain.

The third part of our story is Prince John (Oscar Isaac), a brash young man who beds the French princess, aiming to make her a Queen once he becomes King. He just needs King Richard to die and his mother to get out of his way.

After that stunning battle in France, the death of Richard does happen. It also gives Robin and his men a chance to escape a campaign that they no longer believe in. While they make their way from France, the convoy that brings news of the King’s death is attacked by elements of the French King. It seems that there are plans for an invasion of the Isle by the Frogs. Robin and his men break up the ambush. These Merry Men decide to go to England as knights, to deliver the crown to John and a sword to Sir Walter.

Once in England things become more complicated. In Nottingham, Robin meets Marion and tells her of her husband’s demise. Sir Walter, blind and feeble, claims Robin as his long lost son. Robin also meets Friar Tuck (Mark Addy) and learns the benefits of sweet honey mead. The film twists and turns with different elements trying to best each other all the while leading to King John, banding with the Northern Nobles to defeat the French on the field of honor.

The entire reason to watch this Robin Hood is for the finish. The ending battle looks like a cross between the end of 300 and the beginning of Saving Private Ryan. We get a rain of arrows and a shoreline of dead bodies. The transports that take the French across the channel look almost like the ones used on D-Day a few centuries later. The ending is a melee of blood and brains, fancy camera shots and stunning visuals. It just took way too long to get there.

Russell Crowe seems to be playing Robin Hood as the long lost incarnation of his Gladiator character. There is the same yell, the same scowl. One has to wonder if he has lost the range as an actor he showed in earlier roles. We get so much of the same. Max von Sydow just chews up every scene he sinks his teeth into. He has gone from acting to overacting and Director Scott was just afraid to have him tone it down. Cate Blanchett is wasted in a role that is underwritten. This is a man’s world and the women are a mere afterthought.

Much better was Mark Strong as Godfrey, the turncoat and double agent. He just puts a fresh spin on sinister, giving a reading better than all the Oscar winners in the cast. The biggest find of Robin Hood is Mark Addy as Friar Tuck. He truly finds life in the secondary character, giving much needed levity in this morose dragging of celluloid.

The modern film techniques played against ancient text has worked well for Ridley Scott in the past, but here it just doesn’t find that spark. Time and time again, one is taken out of the story by elements of storytelling. There is just too much trying to deliver excitement that it just makes the result dull and listless. By the time we get to the ending, we no longer care about who wins. Scott doesn’t deliver the audience a hero.

So where does this all add-up? There are three great parts to this version of Robin Hood – the battle at the castle, the ambush, and the ending battle. That is about 30 minutes of this two-hour extravaganza. The rest of the flick just moves around showing motives of each player. Imagine watching a chess match and not understanding the game – that is the best way to sum up this flick. The biggest problem is that it feels like little more than a set-up for the next installment, with a cliffhanger ending.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
•