Robin Hood

Mine is about to become a very lonely voice among the online movie reviewing community. I appear to be one of the few people who actually liked Ridley Scott’s new historical adventure film, Robin Hood. If there’s one thing that the iconic director knows how to do, it’s how to make epic movies. His directorial filmography contains some of my favorite films: Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, among many, many others (some of which may surprise you). Movie fans were naturally excited when it was learned that Scott was slated to direct a Robin Hood movie and assumed that the legend would be given the Gladiator treatment.  It was actually given more of the Kingdom of Heaven treatment, and I think that ended up disappointing a few worked-up movie fans.

In order to enjoy Robin Hood, you should forget everything you know or think you know about the story. Don’t make the mistake of going into it expecting a rehash of the Erroll Flynn classic or the animated Disney version or even the Kevin Costner fiasco. Scott’s Robin Hood is none of those stories. It’s actually something of a prequel. It’s Robin Hood before he became Robin Hood. If you go in expecting to see Robin and his band of Merry Men frolicking about Sherwood Forest, then you’re bound to be disappointed (as apparently many critics were). This Robin Hood is an origin story, plain and simple.  It’s not based on any semblance of fact, but, of course, none of the traditional Hood stories are.

Russell Crowe, appearing in a Ridley Scott film for the third time, plays Robin Longstride, a skilled archer in King Richard’s army which is looting its way across France back to England. Robin and his trusted companions, Will Scarlett (Scott Grimes), Little John (Kevin Durand), and Alan A’Dayle (Alan Doyle) decide to desert and make their way to England on their own. On the way, Robin and his men come across a group of Richard’s knights who have been ambushed by French agents, led by Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong), a traitorous friend of Prince John. Robin promises the fatally wounded Sir Robert Loxley that he will return Robert’s sword to his father in Nottingham. To secure passage to England on the king’s ship, Robin and his men pose as knights (Robin assuming the guise of Sir Robert himself).

Eventually, the adventurers make their way to Nottingham where Robin relays the news of Sir Robert’s death to his wife, Marion (Cate Blanchett) and his father, Sir Walter (Max von Sydow). Robin is persuaded by Lord Loxley to continue to pose as his son in order to prevent his lands from being taken away from Marion upon his death. Meanwhile, Godfrey, with a small army of French troops, has been waylaying the countryside, stirring up dissent among the Barons against Prince John, who has assumed the throne in Richard’s absence. Godfrey, who is in league with King Phillip of France, means to incite a rebellion that will weaken the country and make way for the coming French invasion. Robin is called upon to help unify the Barons with Prince John against the French. A climactic battle ensues on the southern shores of England as the French soldiers storm the beach, a la Saving Private Ryan.

In the end, Robin makes the transition to being Robin Hood when John, jealous of Longstride’s newfound popularity, refuses to sign a charter of rights and declares Robin an outlaw. End film.

So, it’s partially understandable why some have panned Robin Hood. It’s far removed from the story we’re familiar with.  Robin and his Merry Men don’t even take up residence in Sherwood Forest until the very end of the film, and there’s very little stealing from the rich and giving back to the poor. The whole film is clearly a setup for Robin Hood 2, a prospect which now may be unlikely given the response from the media. Perhaps if the film had been marketed as an origin story from the outset, things would have been different. As it is, audiences have been disappointed by seeing something other than a traditional form of the Hood legend.

It’s unfortunate really. Despite what many have said, I feel that Robin Hood is a good film. I personally wasn’t at all bored, but maybe my attention span isn’t as limited as some. Maybe I enjoy good character development more than most. True, Scott’s film takes its time, and the action sequences are few, far less than what some were expecting and hoping for. Nevertheless, I was interested in the character and his journey from reluctant (though skilled) crusader to willing hero of the people. It’s not a perfect movie, but it’s still much better than what you may have heard, especially from the critics.

The bottom line is that people felt a little cheated by Robin Hood. They were lead to believe that they were getting an action-packed adventure story featuring Robin and his Merry Men, Sherwood Forest, the Sheriff of Nottingham, etc. What they got was something slightly different, and now they’re crying foul. Hopefully more people will see it for themselves and make up their own minds. This film is much, much better than 90 percent of the trash that’s being released in theaters these days, but I guess some just can’t handle being disappointed by not having their expectations fulfilled. Maybe that’s why I try to go into most movies without any expectations at all (well, as few as possible anyway).

I personally hope there is a Robin Hood 2. My interest is piqued, and I’d like to see the more traditional Hood tale be told with these particular actors in these roles, especially some of the supporting cast such as Scott Grimes (who blew me away) as Will Scarlet and Kevin Durand as Little John. I also really liked Mark Addy’s subtle portrayal of Friar Tuck. I liked these characters so much that I would probably pay to see them in their own film. Crowe is adequate as Robin Hood, and Cate Blanchett is somewhat under-used as Marion. Still, I’d like to see more. Hopefully, Ridley Scott will get the chance to show us more, but not if the online media have anything to say about it.

by Stuart Benedict