When is a Robin Hood story not a Robin Hood story? When it’s Ridley Scott’s new film, “Robin Hood.”
Scott’s latest team up with Russell Crowe (their fifth so far) tells the origin of the 12th century outlaw who robbed from the rich to give to the poor. Except this Robin isn’t a dashing outlaw yet. He hasn’t found his purpose; instead he is a simple yet exceptional archer who has come home from the Crusades to find England a wreck under the rule of Prince John (Oscar Isaac). Think of it as “Robin Hood Begins.”
All the legendary characters are there such as Maid Marian, Little John, Will Scarlet, Friar Tuck and The Sheriff of Nottingham. They all have their parts to play, but not exactly the parts the audience expects. To see each of them on screen but not quite as the world has come to know and love them is both exciting and slightly frustrating. But this is what “Robin Hood” is, attempting to show where these characters come from and why they either hate or love each other.
That idea in and of itself is a perplexing one. If a story like Robin’s has been loved for so long as it is, with or without back-story and deeply rooted motivations for its characters, then is an origin really necessary now? Probably not, but at the same time, the story has been told enough times that something different is understandable.
Crowe makes a good Robin. He’s not the devil-may-care swashbuckler he has so often been portrayed as but is much more stoic, intimidating and focused than Errol Flynn or an animated fox. Robin here is sure of himself but not much else. Childhood trauma and father issues give him pathos and a grim outlook, which may be a turnoff to many who like their Robin carefree and romantic. This is the story of how he turns into the righteous man who sacrifices everything he has for the downtrodden.
Cate Blanchett makes for a unique Marion: more world-weary and independent, a good match for Crowe’s Robin. The two play off each other well, with their romance more of a mature and responsible love than a whirl-wind love affair that we see more often out of the two characters. The rest of the supporting characters play their parts well, with Max von Sydow bringing great gravitas and class to his role as Sir Walter Loxley. He provides much of the exposition in the film, but he does it well and is a warm yet strong presence whenever on screen.
Mark Strong, who seems to be today’s go-to villain with roles as the bad guy in “Sherlock Holmes” and “Kick-Ass,” plays the treacherous Sir Godfrey. He’s cruel, devious and, above all, easy to hate. With Prince John not much of a villain in the film, more of a weasel that serves to annoy the audience, Strong provides a decent villain for Robin to fight against.
For a film about an archer that defends the poor, there is a lot of political scheming and plotting in “Robin Hood,” in fact, it’s the driving force of the story. As such, exposition and royal dialoguing tend to take the place of swashbuckling action and adventure, surely a letdown for anyone believing the film to be the action thrill ride it has been marketed to be. There are long stretches where there isn’t any action. Instead, the film chooses to explore the political realm and Robin’s experiences as a child. Some of it works and some of it is too tedious and longwinded.
But when the action gets going, it definitely works. Scott shoots the action much like he did in “Gladiator,” down and dirty, with the audience right in the middle of it. Although the PG-13 rating puts some restraints on how far it goes, it still provides plenty of thrills. It’s just that those thrills are rather spaced out and not all of the gaps are very riveting.
“Robin Hood” is definitely different from many of the archer’s stories that have been brought to the screen in the past, and it’s not the best of them either. For those who want their Robin to steal and compete in archery contests, this is not the movie for you. If you are in the mood for a period piece with some solid action in it, then “Robin Hood” is much more likely to please you.
