Robin Hood

(2010)

Directed by

Ridley Scott

Review by Terry Plucknett

Posted - 5/17/10

About a couple times a year, movies come along that when you hear about the premise through a trailer or the web or word of mouth, the only reaction you can have is, “What?!?”  This reaction is not out of disgust for the project or anything like that, but simply out of sheer confusion of the premise placed before me.  Robin Hood was my first “What?!?” film of 2010, and out of sheer curiosity and intrigue brought about by my confusion, I was compelled to go see it.  After viewing it, as little sense as it makes, it was exactly what I expected.

Robin Hood marks the fifth collaboration between director Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe.  In this film, Crowe dawns the green Hood as the protector of Nottingham.  However, this movie is not your typical Robin Hood tale.  This tells the story of how Robin Hood became the legend we all know and love.  This formula creates a film thrust into the middle of a medieval war where one of the major players ends up becoming the outlaw of the Hood.  Robin Longstride started as an archer in King Richard the Lionhearted’s (Danny Huston) Crusade army.  When King Richard is killed and his knights are ambushed, Robin takes three of his friends (Kevin Durand, Scott Grimes, and Alan Doyle) and masquerades as the deceased knights sent to tell of the king’s passing and present the crown to the new king, King John.  After returning the crown and delivering the message, Robin embarks on a quest to fulfill the dying wish of the head of the knights by returning his father’s sword to his hometown of Nottingham.  Once he again delivers the somber news, he is asked to continue his masquerade as the fallen knight by the late-knight’s father (Max von Sydow).  This includes inheriting his wife (Cate Blanchett).  Once placed in this position, Robin uses his power to help defend the British crown from an advancing French army.

There are some things this film does well, and some things it does wrong.  It does end up being a fairly engaging story by the end that draws you into what is happening.  It also comes with some quality acting from Crowe and Blanchett, who are always solid, as well as some supporting characters like Durand, Grimes, Doyle, Huston (who needed more screen time), von Sydow, and Mark Addy as the town Friar.

However, there were some odd things about the film and how it was made.  In a sense, this film is almost backwards.  Where most films start with some light-hearted banter so you can get to know and care about the characters.  Then once the characters have been established, it gets into the serious moments where the tension is felt more so by the audience now that they care about the characters.  This film seems to be the exact opposite.  It starts with some serious, tense-filled moments involving characters we do not know or care about.  Then as the movie progresses, more and more of the light-hearted banter between characters takes place.  This makes for a film that gets better as it goes along, but it also makes for a film that is quite boring for the first half hour or hour.  Another thing that contributes to this is the way the story is told.  The first hour is dedicated to introducing every major and minor storyline that comes into play throughout the film.  Once we get halfway through the film we start to see how all the pieces fit together to form a plot, but until then the story seems to be all over the place with no set plot or direction.  Adding to this is the seriousness brought to these opening scenes which makes one think that the film is taking itself way too seriously for the action film it turns out to be.  This unnecessary intensity was one of my initial fears of what the movie might be, and I was right.  However, I will say the last half the movie did wonders to save it from being a total disaster.

Another glaring flaw to the film is some odd casting choices.  I know Russell Crowe is Ridley Scott’s boy, but if you are going to make a film about the beginnings of Robin Hood, why cast a guy in his mid-40’s to be your leading man?  Every other Robin Hood was much younger than the man playing the younger version of Robin Hood.  This primary casting led to other choices that were older than their roles called for, like Cate Blanchett.  Although both of these did a great job in this film, as they always do, their roles simply did not fit them.

My last flaw with the film is more one of personal preference and pet peeve than anything else, but I hate it when in battle scenes the cameras are so zoomed in on one or two characters that you can barely what is happening in the battle.  It makes it so frantic and choppy that you lose track of what is happening in the battle.  Add to this one of Roeper’s great pet peeves of the cameras being unsteady, and it just makes the shots that much more frantic and choppy.  This is how the battle scenes are shot, which I think takes a lot away from what is actually happening in the battle.

As negative as I am about this film, it actually ended up being better than I expected.  Like I said, the ending did wonders at saving the film.  The stories tied together nicely in the end, and as long as you were paying attention through the boring beginning, everything made sense that took place and nothing seemed out of place.  However, half a quality film does not salvage the half of the film that was not up to par, so I cannot fully recommend it.  Do not go into this film expecting to see another story of how Robin Hood avoids the law as he takes from the rich and gives to the needy.  Although there are definite hints to that future lifestyle, this is just not that Robin Hood.  Expect a sequel to come and produce the Robin Hood we all know and love though.

Rating: