Robin Hood comes from director Ridley Scott and stars his frequent lead Russell Crowe. Though their record together is extensive, the movie that is likely to draw a comparison is 2000’s Gladiator. Both films feature battle sequences set during historic times, but other than that they are apples and oranges.
Robin Longstride (Crowe) is an archer serving the army of King Richard during the crusades. The weight of plundering the countryside has taken its toll. Robin sees an opportunity to escape servitude and in the process gains his famous title.
Fulfilling a dying nobleman’s request, Robin and his soon to be merry men set out for Nottingham where he meets the blind Sir Walter Loxley (Max von Sydow) and the diligent Marion (Cate Blanchett). With little left for him elsewhere, Robin agrees to stick around and defend the land. Meanwhile, he doesn’t realize that he’s at the center of a conspiracy to overthrow the kingdom, lead by the sellout Godfrey (Mark Strong).
This is not the story of Robin Hood battling it out with the evil Sherriff of Nottingham and King John. Robin Hood tells the tale that came before the one we are already know. The genius of this approach is that the audience isn’t instantly bored with the concept of a remake with a few shiny bells here and whistles there. Some will dwell on the obvious downside—this is a less joyful Robin than the standard fare and arguably less action oriented. At the very least there are few hijinks.
Back to the Gladiator comparison. With the older film, everything is simple. It’s established very early what’s taking place, who’s the bad guy, and the audience knows an absurdity will be committed to place the emperor in the ring with title character. With Robin Hood, our preconceived notions of the characters work against our prediction for what the film has to offer. I can understand some viewers being upset at the failure to meet these expectations, but when the seemingly secondary love story outshines that which is oft times featured in other films, I can’t but help to be pleasantly surprised if not shocked. Blanchett and Crowe are a great couple who properly mature over the course of the film. Marion in particular has traded in the damsel in distress role, and is now courageous (a tad too much by the end). Aesthetically, it seems Scott has slowly left behind the erratic motion effects made popular by Gladiator. Improved CGI and a universally cooler palette further distinguish Robin Hood.
In the United States, all the major studios want to trim a release down to both A) fit a reasonable run time and B) attain the coveted PG-13 rating from the MPAA. The common train of thought is that a PG-13 film will earn more than an R. Robin Hood is rated PG-13 but plays toward an older audience and I feel that there were some cuts made to make it more marketable. For instance, the conflict that pulls at robin is reduced to a few lines and a hazy dream sequence. Had the film started with the slaughter he speaks of, or shown a proper dream sequence, the audience would have a much better understanding of his character. As is, 30 minutes go by before he starts to develop.
Since it’s my nature to complain, I thought the subplot regarding the rogue forest children was… strange. I understand that they pave the way for Robin Hood as the eventual outlaw, but that doesn’t mean they have to embody the killers from Ils (Them). I also felt that a well-timed speech from Sir Walter was absurd. These aren’t major detractors, but every time I was getting swept up in the film, something like this emerged for me to question.
Robin Hood likely embellishes the historical value of Robin’s actions. However it does deliver the characters we know in a refreshing, less predictable, tale. It’s a radically different take on the familiar and ultimately as enjoyable as any other. ***
Loading ...
Recent Comments