Robin Hood is one of the most oft-filmed cinematic subjects on record. So if one plans to do it again, the end results better be either a load of fun or have a new approach. This somber entry into the pantheon by director Ridley Scott is decidedly NOT a load of fun, but it definitely does have a new view. One that renders it fairly pointless, as I will discuss below.
The story centers on Russell Crowe's Robin Longstride, who with his compatriots stumbles across the dying Robin of Locksley (the real "Robin Hood" of legend). In an act of charity, he agrees to return the man's sword to his father (Max Von Sydow). Once there, he gets roped into pretending to be Robin of Locksley to aid Von Sydow and the dead man's widow Cate Blanchett due to political and economic issues. In the background, there is a lot of murky political maneuvering with a confidante (Mark Strong) of the callow Prince John (Oscar Isaac) acting as a double agent and provocateur to foment a French invasion. The ultimate goal seems to be whether Crowe's Robin can rally the citizens and his men to defend England and Prince John against the invasion, when they really do not serve defending.
While the production is solid, the screenplay is obtuse and often times needlessly dense. There are a ton of supporting characters and the film does a poor job of differentiating them. Robin's band are immensely forgettable and the casting director should have been replaced, because too many of the political players sound alike and resemble each other to such a degree that they blend together. Except for William Hurt who, for some unknown reason, is cast as a British politician, but who never attempts a British accent and seems to be wandering through the film in search of his paycheck.
Crowe is solid, if a bit dull as Robin. He is also a bit long in tooth for the part. Strong trots out his trademark scowl, but little else. Isaac seems more bratty than menacing as Prince John. Best performances come courtesy of Von Sydow, who is both appealing and convincing (and should have been in a better film), and Blanchett, who balances Marian's restraint with some wry wit. The final battle is noisy and confusing.
What makes the film pointless is that it gives us no reason why it should even be part of the Robin Hood canon as opposed to just being about new characters. It keeps some of the names, but very little about the legend itself. This counterfeit Robin never gets into robbing from the rich and giving to the poor - the whole point of the character. Matthew MacFadyen's Sheriff of Nottingham is barely a cameo part with nothing to do. In fact, the film ends before any of the elements of the legend even come in to play. It is akin to going to see a film about "James Bond" only to find out that it is not really about "James Bond", but about a plumber going about his life doing things that have nothing to do with "James Bond", and then at the end we get a blurb telling us that after the conclusion the man went on to become "James Bond". It may be true that this fake Robin went on to become the Robin Hood of legend, but Scott and company give us no evidence to believe this and fail to tell that story at all.
The story centers on Russell Crowe's Robin Longstride, who with his compatriots stumbles across the dying Robin of Locksley (the real "Robin Hood" of legend). In an act of charity, he agrees to return the man's sword to his father (Max Von Sydow). Once there, he gets roped into pretending to be Robin of Locksley to aid Von Sydow and the dead man's widow Cate Blanchett due to political and economic issues. In the background, there is a lot of murky political maneuvering with a confidante (Mark Strong) of the callow Prince John (Oscar Isaac) acting as a double agent and provocateur to foment a French invasion. The ultimate goal seems to be whether Crowe's Robin can rally the citizens and his men to defend England and Prince John against the invasion, when they really do not serve defending.
While the production is solid, the screenplay is obtuse and often times needlessly dense. There are a ton of supporting characters and the film does a poor job of differentiating them. Robin's band are immensely forgettable and the casting director should have been replaced, because too many of the political players sound alike and resemble each other to such a degree that they blend together. Except for William Hurt who, for some unknown reason, is cast as a British politician, but who never attempts a British accent and seems to be wandering through the film in search of his paycheck.
Crowe is solid, if a bit dull as Robin. He is also a bit long in tooth for the part. Strong trots out his trademark scowl, but little else. Isaac seems more bratty than menacing as Prince John. Best performances come courtesy of Von Sydow, who is both appealing and convincing (and should have been in a better film), and Blanchett, who balances Marian's restraint with some wry wit. The final battle is noisy and confusing.
What makes the film pointless is that it gives us no reason why it should even be part of the Robin Hood canon as opposed to just being about new characters. It keeps some of the names, but very little about the legend itself. This counterfeit Robin never gets into robbing from the rich and giving to the poor - the whole point of the character. Matthew MacFadyen's Sheriff of Nottingham is barely a cameo part with nothing to do. In fact, the film ends before any of the elements of the legend even come in to play. It is akin to going to see a film about "James Bond" only to find out that it is not really about "James Bond", but about a plumber going about his life doing things that have nothing to do with "James Bond", and then at the end we get a blurb telling us that after the conclusion the man went on to become "James Bond". It may be true that this fake Robin went on to become the Robin Hood of legend, but Scott and company give us no evidence to believe this and fail to tell that story at all.