Like most of his films, Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood is a polarizing affair. If anything it shows that audiences and critics alike are not entirely comfortable with an original (new) take on a familiar (old) story. This is the only reason I can come up with for the film’s poor critical review consensus. Compare this film to the recently released Iron Man 2, for instance. Both follow almost the same formula but with different results. Robin Hood has just a 45% “freshness” rating on RottenTomatoes.com, where as Iron Man 2 has a 75%. Both these films promise the audience action, but are not “action-packed”; they have an action scene at the beginning, a final climactic action scene at the end, and a rather long, drawn-out middle section with muddled plot linking the two action pieces together. Both movies are packed full of A and B-list actors playing both main and supporting characters, and in both movies we find these characters fighting each-other for sufficient screen time. In both these movies the cast gets the job done, with a few breakout performances but not from who you’d expect. Finally, both these movies are directed proficiently with excellent production values and top-notch special effects.
What explains the difference in reception then? Iron Man 2 has no preconceptions (besides those who read the comic books…but that’s a different story). The story of Robin Hood, on the other hand, has been done countless times before, and that is what people expected, with a little Gladiator thrown in to modernize the film for contemporary audiences. This movie is not like that. At all. Instead, this is a historical thriller, weaving fact and fiction to create an Oliver-Stone-like story line where the man named Robin Hood is nothing like we’ve seen before, at least not yet. This is where the majority of the audience rolls their eyes and tunes out. They don’t want to have to relearn a complicated new story, wading through historical references to make sense of the action and romance. They don’t have the attention spans to pay attention for the required 2.5 hours anyway, especially when summer blockbuster season is here and everyone wants movies for their eyes and not their brains. They just want the Robin Hood they all grew up with, plain and simple. Its a shame then, because this is really an enjoyable movie despite a few (deserving) faults. Besides, since when does Ridley Scott make simple movies anyway? Moral of the story, don’t judge a movie by how its advertised. Judge it by its own merits.
Synopsis: Robin Longstride is an archer in King Richard’s army, an army that has spent the last 10 years on a crusade through Europe to the middle east and back. When King Richard is killed, his knights are ambushed by Godfrey (who is betraying England to help the French invade) on their return home. Longstride and his men find the ambushed knights, and steal their clothing to secure a safe voyage back to England. In doing so, Longstride promises to return the sword of a fallen knight, Robert of Locksley, to his father, Walter, in Nottingham. Upon returning to England, Robin heads to Nottingham, where he finds the decade-long absence of King Richard to have taken its toll on the people, who are now poor and hungry due to the crown’s needs to secure wealth to fund the crusade. In Nottingham, Robin meets Marian, who was married to Robert, who is all but powerless to stop what is happening to her fellow countrymen. For this reason, Walter suggests that Robin stay and impersonate his son, to help the people. Meanwhile, the new heir to the thrown, King John, is an incompetent king, unsure of what to do and more importantly, unable to gather the support of the people. Frustrated, he becomes influenced by Godfrey into forcibly collecting monies from the people to pay the country’s debts. Godfrey, still functioning as a traitor, uses this opportunity to violently repress the people in the name of the crown, disrupting people’s trust and thus their willingness to fight for the crown against a French invasion….
Acting: Good (20/25)
- Russell Crowe as Robin Longstride: Okay – He gets the job done, but you never feel emotionally attached. This role needed more originality.
- Cate Blanchett as Marion Loxley: Good – Another A-list celebrity giving a so-so performance. At least her character has a little attitude with the whole women scorned thing, but otherwise not a memorable performance.
- Mark Strong as Godfrey: Great – Cold and terrifying at the same time. His character needed more screen time.
- Oscar Issac as Prince/King John: Great – Believable in his ineptitude, an enjoyable, if predictable character.
- Supporting cast: Great – The supporting cast really makes this movie enjoyable. William Hurt, Max Von Sydow, Danny Huston, and Kevin Durand all give stellar performances.
Script/Plot: Okay (15/25)
- Dialogue: Good -Much of the dialogue is dark, and a surprising amount of it is humorous tongue-in-cheek stuff. So therefore, if you like that sort of humor, you will be entertained. If like your humor fed to you, then you’ll find this movie very boring. This isn’t a movie for children, or even most teens, because the dialogue is at a level higher than its PG-13 rating might suggest.
- Script: Bad – The movie certainly has a lot going on, and at 2.5 hours it is rather long. However, the only way to tell this story better would have been to make the movie even longer, and that will probably be left for the director’s cut. I would agree that there are probably too many characters, but many of the characters that have a minor impact on the plot are actually the most entertaining, so the movie would lose something if they were taken out.
- Plot: Okay – I found the plot to be very interesting, but it is complicated. There are a lot of similarities between Scott’s own Kingdom of Heaven in the way that the story is unveiled. Even though the movie may be called Robin Hood, he is not the primary focus through much of the movie, which may disappoint a few.
- Themes/Messages: Good – The main theme of this movie is not revealed towards the end, but perhaps it would have been better to introduce it at the beginning so that the characters are developed accordingly. Nevertheless, the movie makes some important points, maybe not directly, but through the actions of its characters and their relationships with one another.
Direction: Good (21/25)
- Professionalism: Great – Its a Ridley Scott movie, and the man is a directing legend. Of course its professional.
- Flow: Good – The movie isn’t driven by action, so it can seem a little slow at times, but Scott knows how to keep it interesting by framing the characters well and inserting establishing shots, which help to establish the scope of the film.
- Editing: Okay – Yeah, there are a few cliches, but they don’t dominate. Plus, you should be focusing on the storyline. The opening scene is excellent, with compelling action created by careful attention to detail.
Special Effects: Good (22/25)
- Special Effects: Great – The action scenes are artistically created and enjoyable, but its the prop and setting construction that steals the show.
- Music: Good – Impacting and dramatic, but not memorable.
- X-Factor: Okay – At first glance, this movie looks like just another historical action film by Scott with help from Crowe, and while that is true, it is the creative story line that this movie should be remembered for.
The Verdict: (78/100) = C+
- What’s Good: An original story set in an interesting time period told through excellent direction and cinematography from Scott, with witty dialogue and an enjoyable supporting cast.
- What’s Bad: Its not exactly action-driven, with a complicated plot that strays from the simple formula set up by previous Robin Hood films. It is ironic then that what the movie needs is even more originality, both from the lead actors and the film makers.
- In summary: A historical epic starring a man who happens to be named Robin Hood.
My previous review: Rated: American Gangster (2007)