Cannes Movie Review: Robin Hood (2010)
A plodding bore with too many problems to list them all
Photo: Universal Pictures
Ridley Scott's Robin Hood comes in at two hours and twenty minutes and that is the only thing epic about this slow, plodding bore. I typically look at a Scott feature as a film I can count on for quality and certain entertainment. Scott and star Russell Crowe also typically make for a solid duo, starting with Gladiator and the flawed but still enjoyable American Gangster and 2008's Body of Lies, which I know I enjoyed more than most. However, Robin Hood fits in with their awful 2006 teaming, A Good Year, more than any one of those other three films.
For starters, even calling this Robin Hood is a bit misleading. Through its trials and tribulations on its way to the big screen, this film was initially titled Nottingham, which would have been a more apt title, but still unsatisfactory as the film isn't exactly about Robin Hood. Instead he is just part of a larger, and rather uninteresting story.
The cast includes Russell Crowe, Mark Strong, Cate Blanchett, Scott Grimes, Kevin Durand, Alan Doyle, Oscar Isaac, William Hurt, Danny Huston, Luke Evans, Max von Sydow, Mark Addy, Eileen Atkins, Léa Seydoux and Denis Menochet. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"Robin Hood" is a Universal Pictures release, directed by Ridley Scott and is rated PG-13 for violence including intense sequences of warfare, and some sexual content. The running time is 2 hours 11 minutes.
Much of this should sound familiar, but otherwise we aren't following the conventional tale of Robin Hood and his merry men battling the Sheriff of Nottingham (played here by Matthew MacFadyen). Instead, the Sheriff is a secondary character who seems to have been left in the background in hopes of following this up with a sequel (seriously) as the open ended conclusion insinuates. As seems to be the case recently, whenever films are unable to commit to telling one story at a time they fall to pieces and Robin Hood is no different.
While the number of Robin Hood films are too many to count, this film isn't lacking in uniqueness as a result of that fact. This feels like a Robin Hood story forced into a screenplay that's part-Gladiator, part-Peter Pan and even a little bit of Lord of the Rings as Cate Blanchett as Marion Loxley leads what looks like a crew of adopted Hobbits into the climactic battle.
To that effect, Marion's miniature minions makes for another point, light-hearted moments are absent from this feature. It's sour faces, an occasional joke between the characters (if you can call it that) and the rest is just 13th century day-to-day distress dealing with too many taxes and Prince John's evil tax-collecting villain, Godfrey, a character well-played by Mark Strong, but his consistent turns as men with evil personas is now a tired cliche that has run it's course.
The only time I ever found myself interested in Robin Hood, outside of my initial excitement in seeing it, was seeing Max von Sydow as Sir Walter Loxley. It took me back to a movie from 1958, conjuring memories of Sydow as Antonius Block. I was staring at the knight that challenged death to a game of chess over 50 years ago, and now he's blind, holed up in his castle and sought for tax evasion. Sydow's time onscreen is limited, but it's the most interesting of the film.
It's unfortunate, but Robin Hood is a snoozer and one rumored to be budgeted near $235 million, a hefty sum for sure, and one I can't see being made back in theaters. If you still plan on seeing it, lower your expectations and be prepared for the long haul. This isn't the same Robin Hood story you've seen so many times before as it has its own variations and a greater emphasis on the impact of King Lionheart's campaigns, but there's nothing to keep you interested in this slightly altered story. It's almost as if Scott and team felt the alterations were the exciting part. Sadly, they're not.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 41 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Ouch. In all honesty, the movie looked pretty boring anyway. Then again, you're talking to a guy who can't stand epic period piece action-adventure movies (especially ones set in Medieval times).
I'm gonna guess this is another misfire for Universal Studios. Hopefully this film cleans up overseas, because they've been aching for a hit movie for more than a year now.
Well put. To rest. Ridley is just about the most overrated director in town (the list is really long) and he follows the theory that the more mundane the story the greater the movie will be. Why in hell does he have to take a perfectly entertaing piece of story and butcher it in the name of originality? Sometimes we just need the entertainment.
scott is not the most overrated director in town, everybody even legendary directors make one bad movie in their career, it only makes them better coz the good ones actually learn from their mistakes, i dont see anyone who has seen black hawk down and gladiator can call call scott overrated, that comment just made everyone in here a little dumber.
I knew it, thanks brad.
Brad, you review is making the same mistake certain other reviewers have…you're trying to compare it to the Robin Hood tale we all know – a tale that is no less fictional than Ridley's version. Once you step back and forget the original movie, this is a good movie. Perfect? hell no, but solid for sure.
Not at all. In fact, I didn't even mention a single other version in my review. To that point, I'm not talking about the facts of the Robin Hood tale, just that Scott and Co. offered a different version than what we're accustomed to, and seem feel that was all that was needed to make it a good movie. But it's not, in fact their attempt at retelling the Robin Hood tale gets so muddled, lost in terrible editing, abandoned storylines and characters that are introduced and then discarded there's no end to the complaints I could have made. But in interest of keeping the review as short as possible you have what I offered above. Truthfully, I could have gone on for much longer.
you just got told
I agree. I am a big Robin Hood fan, while it didn't follow the same story, it was an interesting take on the Robin Hood tale. Crowe did an excellent job as this new re-envisioned Hood. Was it perfect or what I thought it would be, no, but it sure is better than the 2nd half of the BBC television series (halfway through season 2 and onward).
oh crap, that bad huh? me and my friends are gonna see it on saturday. not worth it? damn, i really was looking forward to this.
I knew this was gonna be crap. BOMB!!!
i am going to see this movie dis spite Brad's review. I have read a lot of his reviews and although most of them fit what i agree with in them. There have been some where i completely disagreed with. Not to say his reviews are bad in anyway , i have just learned there is such thing as my own opinion. This D rating has come as a shock for this movie. I will be seeing it and hoping that it wont be disappointing
As you should, and I hope you like it more than I did. Please come back and share your opinion once you have. Looking forward to your thoughts.
I saw the movie on opening day in Michigan. It has been something of a hobby of mine since I was a boy. I am now 62 and a retired professor. I dearly wanted to like this movie as I was so very disappointed with Costner's treatment of, well, Costner as Robin. Because of this desire, I consider myself a fairly strict critic. As such, I can say that I loved the movie. I would give it a 9 and perhaps later, something more.
This movie shows us an entirely new Robin, one who could easily have lived, served his King and his country, and then been punished by a jealous and vindictive ruler such as John. The movie offers a very different approach to a legend that has changed many, many times over the 700 years or so since we know of its creation. The film retains the most central characters and gives them new life, free from their cliched prisons. Is Robin dour, heavy, very serious? Please. The kingdom has been robbed of its treasure in the name of fighting foreign wars (something not unknown in our time) and is left without a generation of men. Robin is an honest and courageous man at the word of none other than Richard himself. His integrity we later trace back to a rich source and it is validated by both Walter Loxley and William Marshall.
We see this Robin do a bit of forest shenanigans over a shipment of seed, but most of the movie is spent showing him fit into his future place in the kingdom and of his pivotal role in fighting a traitor and helping to defeat an invasion and introduce a bill of rights that was to become known as the Magna Carta.
The battle scenes are magnificent, the costumes on a scale with any other of the great medieval epics, the sets amazing, the plot credible (more than in most Robin Hood movies), and the central characters are rich, fully developed, and fully alive.
Robin Hood is, at its heart, a story of hope, of better days ahead, of making a difference, of coming in and saving someone and/or something, of sacrificing self for a greater good. Crowe’s Robin does all of these things. He leads a cavalry charge in time to save the village that is the home of his new love, Marion. In so doing, he saves this village from a fate such as those inflicted as for example on Soissons in 1414. He prevents innocent villagers from being trapped in a village building and burned alive.
Robin is thus a man of integrity, courage, loyalty, self-sacrifice, vision, and skill in battle. The characters and actors are wonderful. The sets are amazing and the action is convincing and compelling. It is also done so in such an effective manner without bathing the viewer in an ocean of blood and gore. If all of this does not make for an exciting and satisfying movie, then none such movie exists.
It wasn't that terrible. Predictable yes but I never found it boring. As usual Cate Blanchet shines in her role. She's the new Meryl as far as I'm concerned and can out act anyone as she did in RH with Russel Crowe and even the great Max Von Sydow.
This had a good action scenes and good acting. Unbelievable was the band of merry men all having six packs and the fact that everyone was travelling in England like they were all a couple of hours from each other. It would take several days to travel anywhere in England by horse.
A good solid C+ IMHO.
I'll wager that the director's cut will be significantly better, as is the case with most of Scott's work.
I love it… I think it's good movie. Predictable, yes. But I don't think it's D…
Even I could feel Robin Hood was more impress the audience here than Iron Man 2 (now this one is over-rated)
The acting was okay, the story flows nicely, there were many sub plot but it build the momentum at the end. It was great…
This movie is worth to watch at big screen, trust me, you won't disappointed. But as Brad said, please lower your expectations a bit.
Regards from Indonesia
Great review Brad. I was never quite sure whether to go see this one in theatres, and this and it's awful RT score has settled it for me. I'm not a big fan of big action adventure epics anyways, so I was only going to see this if it was getting reviews like Gladiator received.
I will be brief; I agree with Brad's review entirely. I went with all the hopes of watching an epic and got an epic – bore. Sorry Mr Scott, this is definitely not good – despite the money spent.
I'm shocked to see the review as I had high expectation from this one. Will watch it for sure cuz I love epic period movies.
I'm here at my desk, sipping my coffee and completely bummed that this movie doesn't sound as good as I was hoping for. I really wanted this to be a great movie. I'm yet to see it, but I usually end up agreeing with Brad's reviews (like Iron Man 2). What a downer.
It's always like that with Max von Sydow! He is so talented and good, but rarely gets much time on the screen! I guess it's because it's old now… But he has always been great in whatever he does, and it can be everything from Bergman movies to Rush hour 3.. He is always the person u remember the most from the film, it doesn't metter how much time he gets. But imagine if he could get a little bit more time,like a starring role, that would be amazing.
just saw it yesderday!
if the movie isn't the epic movie i waited ,it's always a strong movie and Crowe in "robin " is really convincing!
Why is anyone surprised, Ridley Scott is way overrated. Every single one of his films was overpraised in its time and upon further viewings you realise that they were mediocre or awful. i.e. Kingdom of Heaven, Gladiator, American Gangster (man was it bad), Thelma & Louise, Black Hawk Down, Body of Lies and so on & so on.
The only one I will agree with is "American Gangster." I also see you left out "Blade Runner" and "Alien," two of the greatest sci-fi movies ever made.
I'm still going to see "Robin Hood" tomorrow, just with slightly lower expectations.
Lowered expectations will definitely help you. I am very curious to see how the early commenters on my review react once they get to see it.
Actually I just didn't want to start a firestorm but Alien & Blade Runner not too hot also (great production design but average-Alien or awful-Blade Runner(saw the director's cut: it is cool looking but makes no sense) Just my opinion.
I'll also throw in a GI Jane, White Squall & Hannibal to further my point. I did enjoy Matchstick Men but not your "standard" Ridley Scott movie. I can't tell people what to like but probably not gonna check out Robin Hood.
Honestly, the usual Robin Hood story in and of itself would be boring to sit through again, I'm looking forward to a different take on it.
i find it funny how people argue over other people's opinion, they know they cant do a damn thing to change that, just coz someone doesnt like something, doesnt mean its bad, just watch it and judge it yourself, some of my favorite movies are the ones that got panned by critics mercilessly, but i dont give a rats ass, i enjoy them on dvd anytime i feel like, and i dont call it guilty pleasure either, i firmly believe those movies are great, atleast in my eyes.
I just came back from the theater and I must say I was pleasantly surprised. This new take has great actors, nice costume, great camera direction and a solid story.
The acting is very good and especially Cate Blanchet shines. Max von Sydow's English is getting better with every movie and he can finally portray someone without a Swedish accent.
The costume is well done and almost as historically accurate as one can ask from a movie that tells a mostly fictional story.
There are a few issues of course, that makes me lower the score.
Comical relief is avoided mostly, but could have been left out altogether in my opinion. Luckily the people used for comic relief are not the ones you'd expect.
And the final battle which is a big part of the movie annoys me greatly in it's composition, and you will see why when you watch the movie.
And what in the world *is* that weapon that Little John is wielding? Could they not come up with something more appropriate?
The trailer for this movie is very misleading, it tells the classical story of Robin Hood so it's what you're expecting to see. You go to see it and you're watching a story of king vs king where Russel plays a character who no-one knows and yet somehow everyone loves after he has done bugger all.
Give me $200 mill, I'll make you a handful of better movies.
I loved every second of this movie. I am a Crusades junkie and Ridley Scott knows how to tell a Crusader story. Every Robin Hood film doesn't need to be filled with merry men robbing from the rich to give to the poor. (Even though that's never been an appropriate explanation of what he does). I was never bored with this film and the running time didn't feel like it lagged at all. The weapon Little John carries is very appropriate for a man his size by the way. It is sort of a elongated (and more polished) barbaric mace. A man of his stature would most definitely have been seen carrying something like that. I just watched Robin Hood today and will be going again to see it tomorrow.
Oh and how could anyone forget to mention Black Hawk Down in the list of Ridley Scott's greatest?
I enjoyed it even thought it was not at all what I expected. It was a bit hokey and folkish, but I was never bored. The action was sparse, but solid, and all the actors did a great job.
I'd give it a 7/10
another very enjoyable movie that should do well at the box office and will probably be panned by experts(?)such as the one here. first, if you are going to see this movie and aren't really into this genre, i'm betting you won't like the film. if you like these types of films and you don't enjoy this one then it is probably because your nose is so far up in the air it interferes with your eyes being able to see the screen.
Watched it twice yesterday. I seriously love every second of it.
Saw it the other day. For what it's worth it's the strongest summer movie so far. Personally, I thought "Iron Man 2" was shockingly mediocre. At least Scott was ambitious in his retelling of the Robin Hood legend. Yes, it's too long, it's hacked to bits (a problem I have with 90% of film editing today), Russell Crowe seems a bit lost in his approach to the role and the story tries to cram too many characters and sub-plots without ever really delving into any. I didn't care. it was enjoyable enough, had great cinematography (when a shot was actually left on screen more than two seconds) and clicked along at a pretty decent pace. In all seriousness, it's all just filler until "Inception" comes along. Aside from a few comedies and some late summer action flicks (Scott Pilgrim), there's not a whole lot to be excited about. "Robin Hood" is well-made and is reasonably entertaining. Offers more new material than "Iron Man 2" did.
it took too long for crowe to shag marion,
so not realistic; actually i might have missed
when it all happened. but i think it was at the very end;
for the rest, the review published here is so good,
i agree 100%;
Scott has a very slow and slightly depressed look at life. He has a very visual style which makes him special. Crowe does angry and self-pity very well, but he's not so good with the "middle emotions" that is all the emotions that go in between angry and self-pity; (that is all the other emotions a person can feel other then angry and self-pity).
So at the end of the day we take the story of the "Merry" Adventures of Robin Hood with fast clever action of a clever outlaw and make it the depressing slow moving Adventures of Robin Longpants. Robin Hood goes from being a jolly joker playing mind games on the Prince and Sheriff to an angry old man only able to feel angry or self-pity. And maid Marion becomes the widow Marion. Old Man Robin and Marion don't get together out of a love at first sight that knows no bounds or class restriction and even a castle wall that won't keep them apart, no theirs is a marriage of convenience, so she can own land. Romantic love falls outside Russell's range and isn't on the map in Scott's cynical world view.
i agree wih you 100% brad this movie was not what i expected it to be
I want the Screenplay to Robin Hood. Can somebody send me a link?
I don't really give weight to what people say about the movie. What counts is the story of the movie being told in another approach. Mr. Crowe is a brilliant actor and I'm sure his role is well-played. Scott's already a legend and made his name in filming.