Robin Hood

Quick, what are some words that come to mind when you think of a Robin Hood movie? Most likely, those words did not include muddy and dark, moody, talky, and zero chemistry. And yet, we find all of those things in director Ridley Scott's take. The movie is supposed to be the true story that set about the famous legend, so we're getting a realistic and dark take on the events that led up to the story. I have no problem with that, but does that have to mean the filmmakers had to remove almost everything from the legend, to the point that we're left with little to grasp onto?

To be fair, this is not a bad movie, just an indifferent one. The movie looks like it cost a lot to make ($200 million, according to some reports), there are a lot of fine actors up on the screen, and the movie itself is never actually boring. It's just so drab and ordinary. We expect at least thrilling adventure, but there's a surprising lack of swordplay and battles, and way too many scenes of people standing around, discussing 12th Century British politics about taxes and invading French armies. You know the movie is in trouble when Robin himself, the master thief who stole from the rich and gave to the poor, disappears into the background in almost every scene he's in. Russell Crowe plays him here. This is the fifth movie he's done with Ridley Scott in 10 years, and easily the most forgettable role he's been given in their partnership. He has a steely gaze, he pouts, he shoots an occasional arrow or leads a charge of soldiers, and he sometimes hangs out with Marion Loxley (Cate Blanchett), whom he is supposed to be romantically involved with eventually, but we sense no sparks between the two actors. When he tells her he loves her late in the film, it is wooden and unconvincing.

At the beginning of the film, Robin is a soldier fighting for King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston), and his crusade against the French army. Richard is slain in battle, and Robin assumes the identity of a fallen knight (Douglas Hodge) to return the King's crown to his homeland. With Richard dead, his wormy and jealous brother John (Oscar Isaac) takes the throne, and immediately starts taxing the poor. There's another villain, in the form of John's most trusted follower, Godfrey (Mark Strong), who is plotting to betray his kingdom for the French army. Meanwhile, Robin sets about tracking down the family of the fallen knight whose identity he is using, and befriends the aging Sir Walter Loxley (Max Von Sydow) and his daughter-in-law Marion (who was the wife of the knight). We get a series of events that are supposed to lead up to Robin turning against the cruel King John and becoming an outlaw, but the film never gives us enough reason to care. The characters rarely rise above two dimensions, and although famous faces like Friar Tuck (Mark Addy), Little John (Kevin Durand), and the Sheriff of Nottingham (Matthew Macfayden) show up, they leave absolutely no impression whatsoever.

Much of this has to do with the fact that the script seems far more interested in the backstory, than the characters inhabiting the plot. It goes to great lengths to explain everything, but never gives us enough reason to care. When Robin and Marion share the same room for the night, there is no sexual energy. When Robin and his friends rob a carriage in order to help a poor farm village, the movie seems to be paying lip service to the legend, rather than explaining it. And when Robin leads a massive army in a charge against the invading French forces, there is no excitement. It's just a lot of swords flying around, and faceless extras getting stabbed. Sure, it's shot well enough, but we have no emotional investment with anyone on the battlefield. In fact, the main thing that stands out about the climactic battle is that when the French boats arrive on the British shore, it looks uncannily like the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan. Other reviews have already dubbed the scene "Saving Private Robin Hood", so I know I'm not alone in my observation.

Despite my many complaints, I must state once again that I was never bored by Robin Hood. Just indifferent to the characters. I didn't object to any of the main performances, although William Hurt in a supporting role was a bit too dry, and seemed to slip in and out of his British accent. Cate Blanchett actually brings a lot of spirit to her portrayal of Marion, and would probably stand out even more if her character was written stronger. And although Russell Crowe often seems to be filling space rather than creating an actual character, he at least is not phoning his performance in. And at least you can see where the film's budget went into nearly every scene. The set pieces look authentic, and it's impressive to see the hundreds of extras engaging in a massive battle sequence. It's less impressive when you realize you don't care about any of them, or even know who most of them are.

You might remember a movie from 2004 called King Arthur, which tried to take the legend of Camelot, and make it into a realistic and gritty medieval drama. Robin Hood tries to do the same thing, and suffers from a lot of the same problems as that film. It also suffers from a bit of an identity crisis. We see bits inspired by Scott's earlier films, Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven, bits inspired by Braveheart, and so on. Even though the movie has obviously been made with care, we sort of have to wonder why, since there's not a lot here to be excited about in the first place.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

0 comments