DVD REVIEW:
"ROBIN HOOD" (2010) ☆☆☆ 1/2
My article heading is what I said to sum up my review last summer for Ridley Scott's revamp of classic hero/folk tale "Robin Hood," the honest of men in evil King John's Mediaeval England of tax marauders who brimming with righteous longing fought for equality among Englanders by classically "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor." In more light, adventurous, mostly romantic versions of "Robyn of the Hode," we got Errol Flynn, Disney Animation, and Sean Connery and Kevin Costner as the titular character playing it with silly-confidence or faux rough-n'-tough. Here - with the gruffest of the gruff Russell Crowe as Sir Robin and Ridley Scott, director of those other well made mediaeval sword n' shield epics, "Gladiator" and "Kingdom of Heaven," helming what undoubtably is the most expensive, madly-imagined, and breathiest of the bunch - "Robin Hood" is given a prologue of the most dangerous kind. Scott takes us to a more hell-bent, historically based (if it were historically based) world of Robin Hood showing him as an archer in arrogant, self-serving King Richard's army pillaging-it-up back to England after the Crusades (in this movie Richard The Lionheart isn't the wise-old King of the other, nicer tales). And through a series of happenstance and Robin's near-cunning, he soon finds himself in the Nottingham we all know, banding with his Merry Men, including Little John (here a big, stone-wall womanizer) and Friar Tuck (here humble but boozy), feuding with the Sheriff of Nottingham (the most sleazy culprit of the law if there ever was one), and wooing the maid Marion Loxley (not so maidenly, but a tough, takes-no-shit farmer). We don't get Robin stealing from those rich much, but better instead him the war hero in King John's resistance against the invading French - assisted by back-stabbing English Chancellor Godrey (Mark Strong, playing it up again as the villain) - and climaxing in a raging, mesmerizing battle with swords and arrows and knights and barons and forest kids fighting in the shallow waters of the English coast, crystal-clear in digital clarity and riveting in slow-motion photography. For the story of "Robin Hood," as big as it's interpreted here, it's a battle sequence we could only hope to get. And for the rest of the movie, as well.
Sure, this isn't the Robin Hood we're familiar with, but it's the best we've been given. Robin doesn't steal from the rich and give to the poor, but war and battle works just as well. And director Scott can do it so damn well. I'm going to mention this more, but could we hope to ask more? For Robin Hood? From Ridley Scott? From Universal dishing out, for Scott to make the movie of it's scale, $200 million, where the studio may hit bankruptcy after it's poor box office performance? No, I don't think so.
With raging action, enchanting backdrops, and tough characters that Scott is known for, all in his steely, but beautiful world of the chaotic past (again, if this were real history), this may not have been the Robin Hood of playful romance or of the charming archer and folk hero of those other films or stories, or even the poems that came to bring about the story, that you wanted, but it's certainly the movie with the type of scope, action (with those lush mountains, forests and fields of England, and the breathtaking fights that take place in it) and feuding drama we should, again, hope to get out of the material. I was excited to see it, and I was excited watching it. I loved this movie. I loved it for the action, the drama, the spectacle, the fact that the movie works on all these levels and looks as great as it does, with actors who play as great as they do, and a director and crew who know how to dazzle and excite they hell out of it's audience. However, Most critics, and audiences, too, thought the movie moved too slow, had bad interpretation of it's precious, familiar characters, and was too boggled in historic hogwash that might not have been true to begin with. For one, offering that prologue, though I thought great opening, was too much for the simple folk fable. But, instead, I say, why wasn't there more backstory? More King John tyranny, more Nottingham, and incidentally more Sherif of Nottingham, or (and you must be screaming it!) more of that dashing Robin swiftly and cunningly stealing those gold sacks and defiantly calling from the tree tops "Ha-Ha-Ha!" Why not? The movie could be longer, and better. Scott has made those good, near three hour monster epics before. Why deter of it here? Universal already gave away 200mil and signed away their last endorsement check, why not make this movie longer. The movie might have, I don't know for sure, there might have been more filmed. Anyway, why not some more Hood?
Would you want to sit through a three-hour movie if it wasn't "The Lord of the Rings?" No, I wouldn't think so. And if I was a regular Joe and not a film fanatic I probably wouldn't, either.
"Robin Hood" may not be dashing, but it's dazzling. It may not be romantic, but it's smart. It may not be colorful, but it's beautiful. It may not be bantering at us, but it's exciting and kicking the crap out of us.
The cast is top-motch, with Cate Blanchett as Marion, Max von Sydow as Sir Walter Loxley, William Hurt as Chancellor William Marshall, Eileen Atkins as the King's mother Eleanor, Danny Huston as King Richard, Oscar Isaac as King John, and Matthew Macfadyen as the Nottingham Sheriff (in what little scenes he is given). Russell Crowe brings the mix of tough and suave that we want in our Robin Hood. And we couldn't forget Mark Abby or Kevin Durand as Friar Tuck or Little John, or Alan Doyle or Scott Grimes as Robin's other Merry Men. Mediaeval drama is compelling, especially in the hellish back-drop of historic warring countries, and especially with this great cast we have here.
And a great immersive script by Brain Helgeland, who continues to prove he can write in any genre, for any style; again, should we even note, that wonderful brazen cinematography by Scott's key, key, collaborator, John Mathieson, who helped Scott achieve the vision that makes him the Ridley Scott of mad historic fantasy. Oh, that gritty, blessed style! (And if that brings you down, maybe the movie's more earth tones will keep you in..."Robin Hood" can't be too dark, can it?) There's Robin's iconic music - and all hero's should have melodies, even ones as dark and foreboding as here - by Marc Streitenfeld, a new Scott collaborator and first-timer for a movie on this scale. He did a fine job. And, as always, editing by Peitro Scalia, production design by Arthur Max and costumes by Janty Yates. All part of Scott's impeccable crew. Like Spielberg, or Nolan, or even Kubrick, who couldn't hope to achieve their monumental vision or success without their own great crews. "Robin Hood" couldn't have succeeded, either.
Forget the pans. Out of most mediaeval epics, this is by far the best one recently, and the most crowd-pleasing (so were "Gladiator" and the other critically distasted "Kingdom of Heaven"). There are worse movies of this type, like "Pathfinder," "In the Name of the King" or the recent "Centurion."... And could you spend any more money on any other worse movies on DVD or in theaters?
Maybe "The Last Airbender," a genre misfire. Or "Vampires Suck." I haven't seen it, but I heard it sucks. Yeah, I went there.
ANOTHER NOTE: The DVD Unrated Version has some new footage, about 16 minutes or so. In deleted, now included, scenes we see more of the mangy orphan thieves, the Sherwood Forest Kids, and with them Marion and Robin helping and earning their trust, and with Marion similar to Wendy and the Lost Boys. With Robin in one of these good scenes is captured by the kids, but convinces them of his trust and worth the only way Robin of the Hood can, the whole thing similar to Peter Pan (maybe that was why it was cut. Who knows?). Macfadyen's Sherif even shows up for more screen time when Robin and Marion risk to save a poor calf from a mud pit. Sherif looks on disdainfully as Robin courts Marion, saving her from the mud pit too, after she herself gets stuck (what a stubborn woman, that Maid Marion!). I liked that scene, and all the rest, too, and might even have liked the deleted scenes not included had I taken the time to watch them. Hey, this could have been the better movie after Scott had wanted, and we had, too. "Kingdom of Heaven" was assembled in a Director's Cut after initial release, making that the epic Scott masterpiece, with the more immersive subplots and bang-up action, we should have seen in theaters. Again, who knows? But, I still wonder if there was more... "Robin's Hood's" subplots were deleted from the movie, I'm sure, for pace reasons, but it's worth the extra viewing time. You might like the movie better. I did. And I hope you do.
No comments:
Post a Comment