Saturday, May 15, 2010

A Reel Review: ROBIN HOOD




Famed director Ridley Scott throws the traditional Robin Hood script/storyline out the window in his version of the outlaw. And why not? From Errol Flynn to Sean Connery to Disney to Looney Tunes to Kevin Costner to Mel Brooks, the Robin Hood tale has been told more times than can be counted. To keep things fresh, and to avoid the label of “reboot” or “remake”, Scott and his go-to-guy Russell Crowe have put together a prequel of sorts, telling the tale of how Robin and his Merry Men made it to Sherwood forest in the form of outlaws.

Just after the death of King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston), Robin (Crowe) and his companions flee the army and make their way home. On the road back, they get mixed up in political warring and turmoil which puts Robin in the place of a dead husband, married to Maid Marion (Cate Blanchett). Aided by new companions Sir Walter (Max Von Sydow) and Marshal (William Hurt), Robin looks to uncover clues to his childhood while doing what is right for the deprived people of Nottingham.

The prequel-concept works, providing the viewer can throw out any preconceptions of the Robin Hood tale seen so many times. There are enough elements here to make it feel like a Robin Hood film (ambushes in the forest, archery, merry men, and a drunken friar), and the action and political backstabbing give it just enough movement and depth. What is lacking here is a reason to believe in the characters. Robin changes from let’s-get-rich-fellas, to let’s-save-the-poor-fellas seemingly overnight, and Marion’s detesting of Robin to beaming at him also happens too quickly. Robin’s Merry Men, including Little John and Will Scarlet (Kevin Durand and Scott Grimes), are perfectly cast and offer some great moments together, but they are also underdeveloped and a little underutilized. In the villain category, Mark Strong turns in a great performance as the treacherous Godfrey, and Oscar Isaac’s Prince John is also made to be despicable enough to warrant some hate from the audience.

With characterization lacking from the heroes of the film, ROBIN HOOD clunks and stutters quite often. The battle sequences and buildups and done nicely, and the dialogue is written well enough where the political chess-matches are kept interesting. The battles move well and the accompanying score is perfect. However the end-battle on the beach seems a little scattered, and the inclusion of Marion and the good Friar in the fighting comes off as just plain dumb and pointless.

Crowe does a fine job here, providing he can be accepted as a gruff and brooding Robin. Blanchett seems to borrow elements from the various strong-armed female characters from her resume, but still manages to be a joy to watch. Robin and Marion should have been the true heart of the film, and although the two have great chemistry together, and their scenes are backed by some great scoring, somehow the emotion is just not there. Robin’s “I love you” scene comes way out of left field, and is sure to roll some eyes.

ROBIN HOOD succeeds providing viewers can also throw out the traditional story and accept it for what it is: How they got there (Sherwood Forest is not seen until the last 30 seconds) and why. It lacks the charm and the heart of the 1938 and 1991 versions, as well as the iconic punch that Scott’s GLADIATOR had. It’s gritty and down-to-earth, as great strides were taken to re-create that medieval world and seperate it from Hollywood glitz. It’s flawed and imperfect, but still a good movie. Only Ridley Scott can pull that off.

BOTTOM LINE: See it.

No comments:

Post a Comment

A few rules:
1. Personal attacks not tolerated.
2. Haters welcome, if you can justify it.
3. Swearing is goddamn OK.