Robin Hood Reviews
Robin Hood review
Posted : 1 year, 12 months ago on 29 March 2022 08:53Conversely, my main problem with this film is that it doesn't feel like a Robin Hood movie. If anything it feels like a sequel to Gladiator, but with a less compelling story and bad dialogue. Yes I understand it is an origin story, but the film's tone is rather too serious. This is not helped by the sluggish pacing in the latter half further disadvantaged by somewhat dull chemistry between Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett. The story doesn't always know which direction it wants to go, and I actually found myself confused by some scenes, and the film is much too long, an hour and three-quarters is a perfect length if done right. Then there's the script, which didn't flow very well at all. Also, Crowe didn't work for me. He tried hard to create a commanding and charismatic presence, but what let him down were his dialogue and his accent which came and went. I was disappointed in Cate Blanchett too, she is a fine actress who has given mesmerising performances particularly in Notes on a Scandal and the Elizabeth movies, but she isn't given very much to do apart from a nice touch where she joins in for the final battle. Ah yes the final battle, this was a disappointment actually too. It was well shot with some good sword play and the like but it was badly paced and kind of ran on a parallel with Saving Private Ryan but less gut-wrenching and compelling.
So all in all, a disappointment. Not the worst of the year, but it is to me the worst Robin Hood film and quite possibly Ridley Scott's worst film overall too. If you want the definitive Robin Hood, watch the Errol Flynn film, that is simply timeless with plenty of wit, great performances and one of the best scores of all time. 4/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Attractive and yet bland and over-long
Posted : 8 years, 11 months ago on 12 April 2015 05:38To me, the film didn't rely on plot so much and focused on too much sword fighting. There are also plot holes including the characters zig zagging across the world to various countries and all of them oblivious to Geography! This film could be slightly better if it were shorter and relied less on sword fighting. Yeah, the score and visual style are nice but the film is overly bland and bloated in length! Only for Russell Crowe die-hards!
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Robin Hood review
Posted : 11 years, 9 months ago on 13 June 2012 11:450 comments, Reply to this entry
Robin Hood review
Posted : 12 years ago on 18 March 2012 04:21Russel Crowe as Robin is an archer in King Richard's (the Lionheart) army in England during the twelfth century. England’s downfall is on owing to taxation on their own people. Kingdom needs money so they take from the less powerful. After Richard killed in a battle, this injustice is taken even further when King Richard brother John (Oscar Isaac) takes over, serving the country as a tyrannical king with close friends, Godfrey (Mark Strong), in all the wrong places. Robin, along with his merry men and the aid of William Marshall (John Hurt), takes it into his own hands to reconstruct England’s laws and taxations, determined to overthrow the established values at all cost.
Robin united England Knights against the onslaught of French but as the danger evaded the King John forget his promise to make England peoples nation and declared Robin as OUTLAWS.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Robin Hood
Posted : 12 years, 3 months ago on 8 December 2011 05:03But it didn’t have to be this way. Robin Hood started life as a spec-script called Nottingham in which we are treated to a sympathetic sheriff as our heroic figure. He would have been emotionally torn between following a king who was corrupt and dipping into madness on one hand, and on the other would have had a vigilante running amok in the wilderness. It sounded like a clever, unique, and engaging reexamination of an oft-told tale. So, naturally, what we got was another version of the familiar.
Perhaps if Ridley Scott hadn’t tried to treat a myth, something he tackled so well in Legend’s directors cut, as a starting ground for historical accuracy and period-perfect detail we would have had something special. Instead, we’re given something that looks detailed and beautiful on the screen, but in its storytelling and heart is hollow and dull. And its revisionist slant on true history offers up no favors. It can’t get the myth right, or the actual history, so why treat it all so painfully serious?
Little is asked of the actors, but they try to create in this bore. It’s a triumph of cinematography, art direction and costuming. Otherwise, it’s a listless affair that just makes one long for the innocence and joyous joie de vive that Errol Flynn’s take on the character so perfectly captured. A myth is a myth, and trying to graft onto it anything of serious historical document or examination is going to make it collapse in on itself.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Robin Hood review
Posted : 13 years, 2 months ago on 15 January 2011 11:180 comments, Reply to this entry
An average movie
Posted : 13 years, 3 months ago on 22 December 2010 10:220 comments, Reply to this entry
A Classic Tale Revised.
Posted : 13 years, 5 months ago on 26 October 2010 01:07Being a Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett fan, I had to see the film regardless of critics and skeptics. This tale is portrayed much darker than you would expect it to be. The length of the film was exceptional, I am rather fond of "long" movies. Mine as well get your monies worth right? Anyways Russell is a fantastic Robin 'Hood', due to his great acting ability as the "hero" or "leader".
It's a very interesting take on the story and has some humorous elements to it. King John of course is an uber "douche" and you strive to see another film of this to see what happens haha.
Regardless of the possible "inaccuracies" or portrayal of the story, Ridley does an astounding job of directing in a Peter Jackson type style, that I adore. The Celtic/Irish melodies really strike me with joy, I love them and they're througout the film. Well done Ridley..well done.
Rating: 8.8/10
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Robin Hood review
Posted : 13 years, 6 months ago on 28 September 2010 12:530 comments, Reply to this entry
Darker, grittier take on the Robin Hood legend
Posted : 13 years, 9 months ago on 27 June 2010 11:47
The legend of Robin Hood is a Hollywood staple that has served as fodder for countless adventure films. Due to remakes and reinterpretations on a regular basis, the story was drained of tension a long time ago, leaving almost no new ground to explore. Mel Brooks' Robin Hood: Men in Tights in 1993 was the last cinematic take on the story, though the last serious adaptation was the critically-panned Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves from 1991. Thus, a new Robin Hood flick was overdue since it can be argued that the current generation of movie-goers deserve a new version. Famed director Ridley Scott accepted the challenge of helming this new adaptation, and, to his credit, has succeeded against all odds. 2010's Robin Hood is a darker, grittier take on the character with first-rate production values, which is the way Robin Hood should have been transplanted to film a long time ago.
The Robin Hood equivalent of a superhero origins story, this movie takes place before Robin is an outlaw - and even before he's known as Robin Hood. Before robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, Robin Longstride (Crowe) was an archer in King Richard the Lionheart's crusade army who decided to desert once the king is killed during battle. Escaping into the forests with Will Scarlett (Grimes), Little John (Durand) and Allan A'Dayle (Doyle), Robin assumes the identity of fallen soldier Robin of Loxley, and returns to England to pass on Richard's crown. He visits Nottingham as well, whereupon he's implored by Robin Loxley's blind father Walter (Sydow) to continue assuming Loxley's identity. Meanwhile, the traitorous Godfrey (Strong) tears up the English countryside in a mad plan of profit and murder which would facilitate a French invasion of England.
A lot of recognisable characters from Robin Hood lore make appearances throughout the movie. In addition to Robin himself and Marion (Blanchett), Friar Tuck (Addy) is introduced, as well as the various constituents of Robin's "Merry Men". The proverbial Robin Hood villain, the Sheriff of Nottingham (Macfadyen), was allotted a minor role, and is by no means the central villain of the film.
For Robin Hood, Ridley Scott and his team have laid the groundwork for a version of the legend based in the reality of the period. Essentially, it offers a glimpse into each of the story's characters, and we get a real sense of Robin Hood's influences and personality, giving the film something to do other than detail the do-goodery of Robin's Merry Men. Make no mistake: this is a far different Robin Hood - in fact, this is more Braveheart than a story to do with the hero of Sherwood Forest (Bravehood?). It's a love it or hate it affair, too - either you'll be willing to enjoy a different take on the character, or you'll yearn for colourful Errol Flynn-style antics (it is entitled Robin Hood, after all). In this sense, what people will love about this version is exactly what others will hate. Not that Robin Hood is perfect, mind you - even if you roll with the punches, the film's political machinations lead to a meandering, convoluted, long-winded middle period that swerves too far away from the sense of adventure which constitutes the movie's core. More importantly, it's emotionally aloof when it should be affecting or uplifting. Also, the filmmakers betrayed the character of Marion with a ridiculous third-act gimmick. It won't be spoiled here, but rest assured you will either laugh or growl "WTF?!"
Over recent years, too many directors have grown mesmerised by video-game syndrome that they are positively clueless when it comes to staging action scenes (see Clash of the Titans), hence it's wholly refreshing to witness an action-adventure helmed by a director who knows his craft. There are various battle scenes throughout Robin Hood which were handled great with artistry and skill. Given that Scott's filmmaking trademark is the visual quality of his movies, it should come as no surprise to learn that Robin Hood is visually impressive. The camerawork by seasoned cinematographer John Mathieson (in his 5th collaboration with Ridley Scott) is stunning, and captured the harshness of medieval life with such detail that nothing breaks the illusion of this being set in the 12th Century. Most impressive are the sweeping shots during the battles, often accompanied by the transfixing, atmospheric score courtesy of Marc Streitenfeld. However, a PG-13 rating was mandatory for maximizing box office profits, disallowing serious bloodletting and sexuality. It weakens the film's impact. One must wonder if this is the studio-mandated trim, and if Ridley Scott's vision of the movie is a longer, more fully-formed, more violent R-rated version.
The entire cast is superb from top to bottom. Amidst all the battles and archery antics, Crowe is a completely believable Robin Hood who's a man of both thought and action. To the actor's credit, his performance is underplayed and this lack of bravado seems appropriate for this take on the legend. Cate Blanchett, meanwhile, is a magnificent, tough Marion who manages to be every bit the match for Robin. Mark Strong, who has recently played villains in The Young Victoria, Sherlock Holmes and 2010's Kick-Ass, is still a solid antagonist, though he has become type-cast in these types of roles. Among Robin's Merry Men, the standouts are Mark Addy as Friar Tuck and Kevin Durand as Little John. Both men look their parts, and managed to add a touch of humour to the serious nature of the adventure. The elders of the cast are equally outstanding - Max von Sydow is warm and captivating as Sir Walter Loxley, while William Hurt is memorable as Sir William Marshal. Oscar Isaac, meanwhile, is an effective King John.
Rather than a light-hearted, swashbuckling tale, 2010's Robin Hood presents the infamous character in the context of a dark medieval war epic, and it's a change for the better. Literally, the film ends with the beginning, as King John declares the hero of Sherwood Forest to be an outlaw and a title card proclaims "And so the legend begins". While many will deem this 140-minute prequel long and unnecessary, it's vital for both putting the character into perspective and ensuring this take is something unique. Thankfully, this origins tale is nothing short of enthralling and fascinating.
7.3/10
0 comments, Reply to this entry