Robin Hood: Review

Robin Hood
Directed by: Ridley Scott
Starring Russell Crowe, Kate Blanchett and some guy from Great Big Sea


The best part of Robin Hood is the end credits.

This is not a good sign.

What exactly is wrong with Robin Hood? It’s not like Ridley Scott is some hack—Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise and Black Hawk Down, to name just a few pieces of Scott’s considerable body of work. A fine collection of actors has been brought together as well; Russell Crowe, Kate Blanchett, Max Von Sydow and William Hurt are a few names most producers would be ecstatic to have attached to their projects.

No, Robin Hood suffers from something else. It just seems to wonder through the story, trying to get a foot-hold somewhere and never quite succeeding; and worse, it’s a pale reflection of other, similar but better movies. Obviously, the first reminder/let-down is Gladiator, another Scott/Crowe flick about a brave, truthful warrior who must fight tyranny against all odds. Robin Hood is Gladiator’s poor, somewhat embarrassing cousin. Where Gladiator is clear, concessive and compelling, Robin Hood is disjointed, lumbering and muddled. Other movies are planted in one’s mind while watching Robin Hood as well. With Kate Blanchett involved in a film about a woman fighting for her standing in “old-timey” England, we naturally think of Elizabeth, especially when she dons her armour. And the scene where the French land in England is straight out of Saving Private Ryan, just sub in the arrows and shields.

Some have criticized Robin Hood for being historically inaccurate, which is kind of like saying Miracle on 34th St. isn't factually correct. It’s not that the history is inaccurate, which it is (Robin Hood’s dad wrote the Magna Carta! No Way! Totally Dude! What’s the Magna Carta?); it’s the process of bringing all the historical “tweaks” together that bogs the film down. We are an hour and twenty minutes into the film before Robin Hood does anything at all like Robin Hood. It’s not that I don’t like a good back story, Batman Begins does a good job with it; but Robin Hood seems to be trying to give every character and every historical event its own private back story, so we end up with plenty of back story and not enough story itself.

Despite the strong actors, the acting isn’t always bang-on either. Russell Crowe is believable, but has picked some weird hybrid accent of Irish/Scottish that is for the most part indecipherable. There are a few times in the film when actors speaking French have subtitles, but I longed for them more whenever Russell was speaking. Kate Blanchett is good, so is William Hurt, and Oscar Isaac is petulant enough for Prince/King John. And I have to mention Great Big Sea’s Alan Doyle as one of Robin Hood’s Merry Men. He is primarily the minstrel and he doesn’t speak all that much, but it’s a bigger role than any Canadian actor had in Chloe, so good for him.

So, should you see Robin Hood? Well, there is lots of action for a movie that still feels slow. The film looks pretty good. Kevin Costner is nowhere in sight. Mark Strong makes a pretty cool bad guy. The Bloor has the best popcorn in the city, and like I said, the end credits rock. So if you must--see it, but only at the Bloor; to support our beloved theatre … and for the popcorn.

Point of Interest: The film ends by suggesting that the legend is “just beginning.” So, now that they've got all the crap out of the way they'll make a good movie, just not this one. Funnily enough, you sort of do feel like you’d want to see the next movie. The next movie looks great, fun and exciting; man I wish I could see that movie. Ironically, we probably won’t see that film since Robin Hood didn’t do all that well with the critics and more importantly, with the North American snack bar audience.