Robin Hood is a frustrating movie in so many ways.
It is not only a cobbled together rehash of every other
historical epic Ridley Scott has ever made, but it is also
an abysmal re-telling of one of the great stories of all
time. More so the film is perhaps the most prime of
examples of the remake/rehash/prequel trend that is
currently eating away at the foundations of Hollywood. I
wish I had some sort of pithy way of addressing the film,
but alas, none is to be had. Robin Hood, hype aside is a
weighty studio dud, gleaming with the oily interference of a
Hollywood
gone bizarre.
Review - Robin Hood
You know the story of Robin Hood: an archer and his squad of
forest-living outlaws steal from the rich and give to the
poor to spite the crushing hand of the tyrannical Prince
John (a truly sniveling Oscar Isaac) and his henchman the
Sheriff of Nottingham (Matthew Macfayden). Ridley Scott and
Russell Crowe adhere to the tenants of the story, but place
it in a grim, gritty joyless England, where Robin Longstride
(Russell Crowe)is an archer gone AWOL from the English army,
and his Merry Men are a quartet of drunken soldiers, loyal
to the cause of money and notoriety. Also present are Maid
Marion (Cate Blanchett in admiral form), her father (the
lord of Nottingham played well by Max Von Sydow), and a
traitorous killer in league with the French (Mark Strong,
seemingly in every movie I've seen this summer).
It's basically the story of Robin Hood, but Scott's
portrayal tries to inject it with a sense of realism, seeing
Robin Hood as a leader of men, not a goodhearted outlaw
thrust in to a situation bigger than he knows.
And this is where the story falls apart. Ridley Scott and
company want to make an epic picture where there are epic
battles and clashing soldiers and kings fighting kings.
Yet, the character of Robin Hood is an outlaw-cum-hero who
fights for riches and that's about all. When Scott takes
the character and dresses him up in the rags of a leader of
the commoner, it turns the story in to Gladiator-meets-Braveheart and
what we're left watching is a surprisingly bland, formulaic
bit of historic fluff. Oh sure, there's a mystery of
Robin's path (one hastily explained) and a sword with
cryptic words written across it, but these are just means to
an end. Plot advancers shoved in to the story, so when the
film ends, Robin Longstride is Robin Hood, and quite sadly,
Ridley Scott and Scott Free Productions can ladle another
swimming pool of money in to their golden pick-up trucks
when the sequel and its inevitable follow-ups hit the big
screens.
The relationship between Robin and Marion, the characters of
the Merry Men, the appearance of The Sheriff of Nottingham
all fall victim to this inherently poor story choice. The
characters don't exist to be enjoyable characters, they
exist, most tellingly in the awkward romance between the two
leads, to push the story forward so when the credits roll
Robin Longstride and folk are ensconced in Sherwood Forest
ready to turn the tides against a noxious king.
Don't let anyone fool you, this is a prequel, the start of a
trilogy, a pilot for a television show. All the characters
of classic Robin Hood are there for the viewing, but they’re
half-assed, hinted at, so when 2013 rolls around we the
viewers are still hooked ready to be lured in to another
lukewarm telling of the tale. Get this straight: I
will not be lured, this is the last Ridley Scott Robin
Hood film I ever see.
Noah Sanders is the blog/news editor at Light In The
Attic and a contributor at Sound On The Sound and
the KEXP blog. He also has his own
Criterion-based film site, Criterion Quest.
If you'd like to contact Noah in regards to his
writings here at Side One: Track One then please do
so
here.
- Noah Sanders
-
-
Unless
otherwise expressly stated, all text in this blog and any
related pages, including the blog's archives, is licensed by
John Laird under a
Creative Commons License.
