Considering he's nearly always associated with battling corrupt politicians and their unjust and ultra-high taxation of the masses, and the well-known "stealing from the rich to give to the poor" mindset and behavior -- not to mention having a swashbuckling, frolicking fun time while doing so -- it's little surprise that Robin Hood is a longstanding favorite among everyone who isn't rich and/or a politician.
In fact, the legend and related story have been around for centuries, with Hollywood joining the act not long after moving images were captured on film. Since then, a wide array of actors have played the part, ranging from Douglas Fairbanks and Errol Flynn in the early days, odd choices such as Frank Sinatra in a musical riff and an animated fox in the Disney cartoon version, and two actors in 1991 in competing versions of the titular film (everyone seems to remember the Kevin Costner role, but not the Patrick Bergin one).
Since then and Mel Brooks' 1993 comedy "Robin Hood: Men in Tights," however, there hasn't been much notable activity in the Robin Hood universe, especially during the first decade of the 21st century. Yet, with the recent upswing in voter discontentment, fears of higher taxes and anger at Wall Street, banking and corporate fat cats only getting richer, it's no surprise that the character is making a return in this summer's big budget "Robin Hood."
What may take some viewers aback, though, or at least those who have fond memories of the character in usual form, is what director Ridley Scott and screenwriter Brian Helgeland have done with the character and related story. And that's turn it into a serious action pic with Russell Crowe as its lead, drain it of most (but not all) of its humor and fun, and stage it as a prequel of sorts situated before the usual setting for which most Hood fans are accustomed.
Granted, this isn't the first time the legend has been rearranged -- beyond the Sinatra and Disney versions, there was also Sean Connery and Audrey Hepburn as Robin and Maid Marion in their later years (in 1976's "Robin and Marion"), not to mention the short-lived TV spoof "When Things Were Rotten." Yet, few have tried so hard with the "epic" angle, and it's obvious that Scott and Crowe are trying to recapture the lightning that struck with their first joint effort back in 2000, "Gladiator."
While that film was a well-made and enthralling spectacle (and spurred four more collaborations between the two before this offering), this one may look and sound the part (with well-known performers, big battle sequences, terrific cinematography and Marc Streitenfeld's sweeping score). Yet, there's something quite tangible missing to bring it up to the same level of filmmaking accomplishment. It's not awful, but it's far from engaging, enthralling or entertaining and instead often feels muddled, recycled and fairly boring.
As a disclaimer, I'm not some Robin Hood purist who bristles at any changes, such as the absence of green tights, relegating the Sheriff of Nottingham (Matthew Macfadyen) to a one-note comic relief sort of character or removing the familiar "Merry Men" moniker from Hood's small band of followers (that being Kevin Durand, Scott Grimes and Alan Doyle) who get a bit more screen time than their law-based counterpart, but essentially disappear in the second half.
That's when Robin gets involved with Maid Marion (Cate Blanchett, who's good in the part) and her father-in-law (the always terrific Max von Sydow), all while dealing with the new king (Oscar Isaac, overacting but at least trying to have some fun), his treacherous friend (Mark Strong doing the bare dome thing since, you know, bald equals bad when it comes to villains) and the only wise person in the court (William Hurt playing, well, William Hurt).
Scott keeps moving from one French and English locale to the next (all given onscreen title cards, although such location identifiers ultimately don't mean or add up to anything), and the scenery is gorgeous when not bathed in mud and muted colors to represent the usual medieval trappings. And there are plenty of battle scenes, with arrows flying, swords swinging and such.
Nonetheless, while it's all technically quite proficient, we've seen similar footage so many times before by now that the material feels far too rote and thus lacks much in the way of spark, excitement, danger or any doubt about the outcome or placement of such sequences (gee, do you think there will be a big battle to conclude the flick where the hero will take on and defeat the villain in hand to hand combat while other fighting occurs all around them?).
As the hero, Crowe is decent enough, but like those action scenes, the fact that we've seen him (and others) do this before, coupled with the big, rallying speech near the end, the slow motion shots of him charging, yelling, slicing and dicing and more means there's nothing unique or memorable about the part (unlike, say, Costner and his varying accent issues). The film is best when Blanchett and von Sydow are doing their thing (and Crowe gets to interact with them), and since the filmmakers have put a revisionist spin on such matters, they probably should have spent more time in that arena, rather than on the battlefields and focusing on the various villains.
Despite the changes that are present, the film simply fails to engage the viewer as well as it should. Had "Gladiator," the "Lord of the Rings" films, "Troy" and others of their ilk never preceded this film, it might have come off as something of an exciting spectacle at times. As it stands, it can't help but feel like reheated cinematic leftovers, stolen from richer films and given to the poor viewers expected to be grateful for the offering. Okay, but nothing more, "Robin Hood" rates as a 5 out of 10.
![[Screen It]](/images/underground_header.jpg)