Posted in: Recent Updates | Tagged:

Robin Hood – Shea Hennum Goes To The Movies

Published Mon, 17 May 2010 02:18:07 -0500

Shea Hennum gets up, gets out and takes in Ridley Scott's latest run through Sherwood Forest with men in tights…

We're all pretty familiar with the story of Robin Hood, so I won't go into too much explanation about back-story and such and I'll get straight into the film.

The original story of Robin Hood is about a man who, with his band of Merry Men, would hide in a forest and steal back the tax-money that the king's been collecting from the town. This is changed considerably in the film which is about a soldier who has to follow in his father's footsteps and lead the people into a battle against the French. Yes, I know what you're thinking: they don't sound anything a like. You'd probably be right, but, in Brian Helgeland's (the writer) defense, the film ends pretty much where "the legend" begins. So, this is basically "Robin Hood Begins" (which delivers, at least partly, on the advert's promise of "the truth behind the legend")

The film starts off as an epic war movie, but quickly switches gears, now presenting itself as some sort of sociopolitical-thriller that involves revolution, conspiracy, and betrayal (gasp!). But this kind of genre-switching isn't enough, as it once again makes the ole' switcheroo. By the half-way mark, this film is now a heavy-handed love-story drama that is essentially the story of the creation of the Magna Carta (Which gets written up, but never signed, 'cause the one-time good guy/pseudo-bad-guy-who's-really-just-a-jerk King John sets in on fire). All the flip-flopping of genres isn't really that big a deal, if done well, which this does not, making drastic changes in tone that the entire audience is aware of the second they happen. Though, there are some comedic touches to the film that garnered some laughs from the audience I saw it with, so the script wasn't as bad as some scenes would lead you to believe. But even the humor couldn't make this movie, which was mostly about fighting, exciting; the film moves along at a painstaking pace that would make a snail weep with embarrassment. It feels as long as "Braveheart" actually was. The worst part about the poor writing of the film, though, is the fact that Brian Helgeland is responsible for writing such great films as "L.A. Confidential", "Conspiracy Theory", "Mystic River", and "Man On Fire". The film pales in comparison, and is (all relative (and subjective) of course) like garbage in comparison.

The writing of the film isn't helped much by the acting. That's not to say that the acting was bad per se, it was just…there—I guess you could say. Russell Crowe (who plays Robin Hood) and Cate Blanchett (Maid Marian) don't give bad performances, but not particularly memorable ones either. The main cast all kind of gave mediocre performances that added nothing special to the movie. Most surprising of all was Mark Strong's performance. Strong (Who plays Sir Godfrey, the film's primary villain) is a particular favorite of mine, and I had high hopes for the usually-astounding actor. His performance in "Robin Hood" is, like the other's, just mediocre, not even close to being on the same level as his role "Kick-Ass" or even his turn in last year's "Sherlock Holmes". There was however a saving grace who came in the form of Max von Sydow who plays Walter Loxley (Maid Marian's father-in-law in the film). Sydow is the only one who really adds something to his character, who really makes us sympathize (or feel for in anyway) for him. I don't know if it's "award worthy" but it was without a doubt the best-performed job in the film.

And to worsen the blow that is "Robin Hood" even more, the stylish and slick—the visually stunning—directing style that Ridley Scott is known for was almost completely absent. Sure there were a couple aerial shots of the countryside, and one (yes just one) brilliant-looking bow-and-arrow slow-mo shot, but that was it. Everything else seemed kind of phoned-in, like Scott didn't really care how anything looked.

Another problem I have with the film is Cate Blanchett. Yeah, just her in general. This is a question that has been burning in the back of my head since I saw the film. Why was she cast? She adds nothing to the role, and she's not attractive. Now, the "she's not attractive" part IS subjective and open to debate, but she just doesn't look like someone that the handsome, dashing, and adventurous Robin Hood would fall in love with. Worse still is the fact that EVERY man in the film wants her (so much so that there is even a scene in which a French marauder attempts to rape her). Then she goes and ends the film in hand-to-hand combat with a knight, all geared up and ready to fight, which did nothing for the film accept lower the level of believability and shoot-to-hell the historical accuracy. I just can't find anything about her that appealed to the casting director/producers.

All in all: it wasn't a very enjoyable movie—not if you're paying money to see it, anyways. Not horrible, just mediocre in the truest sense of the word: there just wasn't anything special about it.

So, if you're a big fan of Robin Hood, I recommend a viewing, just so you can see a little more of the character than what we've seen in previous incarnations. But if you're the casual moviegoer, don't waste your money seeing this in the theaters; catch it on DVD/Blu-Ray or one of those premium movie channels. It's worth a rent/seeing on the cheap, but not for the $9.50 that it would cost to see it at the theater.

–Shea Hennum

Enjoyed this? Please share on social media!