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.
Scott and screenwriter Brian Helgeland set out to tell yet another adaptation of the man referred to here as Robin Longstride who adopts the name Robert Loxley as invading French forces threaten the English coast following the death of King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston). With the French threat looming, the taxation of the people of England becomes a catalyst for civil war, following the unceremonious crowning of Prince John (Oscar Isaac) as the new king of England.
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.
