Robin Hood review

Walking into "Robin Hood" this evening I stepped with heavy doubts. Simply put I read bashing after bashing of the film and with them pretty much saying the same things about it both things that were good and things that weren't. After the 148 minutes of crashing, bashing, slashing and galloping I could see why people weren't so loving of Ridley Scott's new epic vision of the birth of a legend however I wasn't one of those people. Granted I can't say I love "Robin Hood", but it was an entertaining and well made adventurous battle movie. And that right there is why it's getting handled this way critically. Is this really a Robin Hood picture as we know it? No. It's maybe... 30% a Robin Hood story. Traditionally Robin Hood films are high, frolicking adventure tales of nobility, honor, friendship and love. Robin is a quirky sort of man that loves causing trouble for those who abuse their authority and harm the good english people for personal profit. He vies for the love of Maid Marian and loves the adventures he has with his merry men. By the way I'm not saying this as some back-handed insult, I think that stuff's great and really feel like there are so few adventure tales told in todays cinema, because not as many people are interested or it's simply done in a very watered down, highly commercialized way as to never stick out too much.

Ridley Scott's "Robin Hood" is about the birth of who that character COULD become given another film or what not. So instead of high adventures and swashbuckling, it's waring, ravaged lands, people being burning alive in houses, grit, grime, crime, corruption and betrayal. On second thought maybe I do kinda love it. The thing of it is (and I REALLY do get this) is that most critics (or at least the ones I read) have a certain expectation of the character and story due to be accompanied with this stuff and as you can see this ain't what's expected. This is a battle movie that at times attempts to bring about the concept of high adventure, but it's never frolicking, it's still brooding. And a heavy thanks to that goes to Russell Crowe, king of the brooding actors. But that's not to say some fun is had here and there. Once in a while he interacts quirky and freely with his men as does he with Marian played by Cate Blanchett. The moments are far between but there are little kick back and relax moments that occur when there is no fighting to be done.

Really the story is about the death of King Richard the Lion Heart, played by Danny Huston and the crowning of the tyrannical and oppressive King John the lying dick wad played by Oscar Isaac. John doesn't really give a damn about the people, just about money and power. Mark Strong plays Godfrey who is secretly working for the French and is bringing them into England to try and take over while Richard and his troops are still at war. Robin and his men fought with their king till his death in which they fled and aimed to get home rich. Well long story short shit gets poppin' and things don't go the way they're planned and now Robin, Marian and the merry men gotta go get badassed up and roll on these jive suckas. Again if you're a lover of the legend, not your cup of tea, however I'm not so in my book that's a simple case of bring on the mayhem. And it's Scott at his best bringing a stylish and grim eye to the battlefields that's still impressive even after seeing his proof that he's the best at this several times before.

Personally when it comes to the stories of Robin Hood I've never been a huge fan. I don't think I find them boring, I just don't find them too interesting. On film I've seen Flynn as Robin (cool, but I preferred 'The Count of Monte Cristo'), Kevin Costner (nice cast, boring as shit movie), Mel Brooks' 'Robin Hood Men in Tights' (which is fairly funny, until compared with other Brooks films in which it doesn't hold a candle) and then Disney's. That last one's probably my favorite and even then I wasn't a grand lover. Oh and that crappy TV show. So for me it's like going in with a blank slate and just hoping to, at the very least be entertained. As a Ridley Scott fan I'll say that visually it's quite a notch in the belt. I wasn't so sure from some of the trailers, but it appears that he went to great lengths to not show case the same landscapes we've been seeing since 'The Lord of the Rings' while also digging back into his stylistic past to present a much more interesting looking color palate. I will say it's biggest flaw is Brian Helgaland's screenplay which is pretty point blank and lacks much of the complicated depth we get in most of Ridley's pictures. It's not one dimensional story by any means, but considering both of their last couple films I would've expected something much more complex than this.

At the end I can say it was a good ride and one of the more rich looking and flowing summer films I've seen thus far. It's not a perfect film either for it's genre or Ridley Scott, but it's like B-Ridley Scott. You know like "Black Rain", "Legend" or "The Duelist". I'd also think it might treat people differently by knowing what kind of picture it is before hand rather than thinking it'll be like all the other Robin Hood films of the past fifty years. It's not that and really it's not a re-tread of "Gladiator" either (still not a big fan of that one by the way), it's more like grim adventure on an epic scale. Now if down the line things worked out and an idea for a sequel made on the concept of the stories we all know, but using this film as the foundation; that would be something interesting to see. I imagine it'd be dark yet still thriving with frolicking adventure. Best of both worlds I think.