Prime Time Geek

During Episode 116 I promised a review of Ridley Scott’s new film ‘Robin Hood‘, starring Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett. It’s a little late, and much virtual ink has already been spent on a very mixed set of reviews for this latest Scott-Crowe collaboration, but I still wanted to put in my two cents. I’m here to tell you to NOT believe the detractors–it may not be what you’d expect from a film entitled ‘Robin Hood’, but it IS enjoyable thanks to the chemistry of its cast and the skill of its director.

The plot: Robin Longstride (Crowe), a humble archer in King Richard the Lion Heart’s army returning to England from the Third Crusade, finds the country turned upon itself by the taxation of Richard’s brother, John, and resolves to lead the impoverished against the wicked tyrant while also winning the heart of Maid Marian (Blanchett). From that synopsis, the film doesn’t sound all THAT different from the last big screen Robin Hood adaptation, 1991’s Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, now infamous for Alan Rickman’s over-the-top turn as the Sheriff of Nottingham and Kevin Costner’s atrocious English accent. But Ridley Scott promised audiences a different take on the Robin Hood legend in published interviews: he promised audiences the story of how Robin becomes “Robin Hood”, how the legend begins. To do so, Scott, Crowe, and screenwriter Brian Helgeland (L.A. Confidential, A Knight’s Tale) give a story and a film that has much more in common with Braveheart than Prince of Thieves, with a lot more history and a lot less swashbuckling than we’re used to seeing in Robin of Sherwood celluloid. That’s not to say that ‘Robin Hood’ is historically accurate: Helgeland uses English history like a salad bar, taking what he likes or needs to make his story work and leaving the rest. Some of the details regarding King Richard’s return from the Crusades and his successor King John’s harsh but necessary taxation policies in particular are reasonably accurate, and that’s important to a script that relies on political intrigue for a great deal of its tension. Other plot points adhere closely to some of the more commonly-drawn conclusions about the “true” Robin of the Hood. The aim clearly is to show a story from whence the legends could have sprung, and to show us a man whose courage in the face of a king would have people telling stories for centuries. But does it WORK? My answer is a qualified ‘yes.’

If anything, the film suffers from a pacing problem–the first 45 minutes of the film are slow and could lose the attention of less patient viewers. But once Scott has his Robin back in England and on screen with Marian, the chemistry and charisma of the two leads, together with deliciously vile villain turns by Oscar Isaac as King John and Mark Strong (Kick-Ass, Sherlock Holmes) as Godfrey, get the movie really rolling. Strong, in particular, stands out, simply because he’s been Hollywood’s “Dial-a-Villain” of late–if there’s a role for a scene-chewing bad guy out there, casting directors seem to be calling Strong’s agent first, and with good reason. (He’s even been cast as Sinestro in the upcoming Green Lantern film starring Ryan Reynolds!) And the quality of the battle scenes, especially the final sequence, is exactly what you’d expect from the man who gave us Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven. If you enjoyed the bloody sword-on-armor action in those films, you won’t be disappointed by this outing.

What surprised me most about ‘Robin Hood’ was that amidst all the battles, the speeches about “liberty by law” and fighting the good fight, and the political maneuvering, Scott and Helgeland also include many lighter moments in the film, showing that it’s not all toil in the mud and misery in 12th Century England. Going into the film, I expected a tone and a heaviness that I found in Kingdom of Heaven, which was appropriate for that film but I thought would make a Robin Hood movie devoid of fun. I’m glad to say I was mistaken; while this film doesn’t have any real laugh-out-loud moments as other Robin Hood swashbucklers tend to do, there is fun to be enjoyed here, focused generally around Robin’s loyal friends Little John (Kevin Durand), Allan A’Dayle (Alan Doyle), and Will Scarlett (Scott Grimes). More critical viewers might find Robin and Marian’s courtship a bit quick, but it has charm, nonetheless, thanks to the talented people playing the roles: you buy into their story simply because Crowe and Blanchett will you into doing so.

Most of the negative reviews I’ve seen out there focus on the fact that there’s not enough fun in this relatively long film, or it’s not a “true” Robin Hood story because of its narrative focus. I suppose what they’re saying is true–there isn’t a whole lot of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor in this film–but if Scott and Crowe HAD gone that route, then surely critics would be complaining about how the film was simply more of what we’d already seen. Once again, if you go to see this film, I would ask that you judge the film based on what it is, rather than dismiss it because of what it is not.

It’s not a Robin Hood story you’ve seen before.

It is exciting, engaging, intelligent, and fun.

Grade: B+