We don’t mind The Dark Knight being a downer, but did they have to make Robin Hood into a humorless scold?
Director Ridley Scott’s retelling of the rich stealing, buckle swashing hero zaps the fun right out of the iconic character.
Russell Crowe doesn’t get pinned by a British accent like his most famous predecessor, Sir Kevin of Costner.
But after two-plus hours of this not so merry man you wonder why they even bothered to bring the defibrillators out for this slumbering franchise.
That doesn’t leave audiences with a “Speed Racer” sized debacle. Scott is too talented a director not to whip up a stunning action piece or two, and the world of Robin Hood never looked more authentic.
It’s still a mystery as to why make such wholesale changes to a beloved character in the first place.
Crowe plays Robin Longstride, an archer fighting in King Richard’s army during the Crusades. When the king is killed, Robin and some new pals, or merry men, as it were, leave military life and head to England. Robin wants to return a slain knight’s sword to his family, which introduces him to his widow, Marion (Cate Blanchett), and her feisty father (Max von Sydow, all class).
Marion is about to lose her farm to the wicked Sheriff of Nottingham, but Robin saves the day by impersonating her late husband so she can keep her estate.
Excited yet?
Meanwhile, a new, young King (Oscar Isaac) has emerged, as has his wicked advisor (Mark Strong) who promise to give Robin fits in the final act.
“Robin Hood” opens with a thrilling castle assault, and Scott is on firm, familiar ground here. But the middle of the film really has no action, just soporific story subplots which make us long for the strained whimsy of “Robin Hood: Men in Tights.”
Crowe seemed an ideal casting choice to reboot this legend, but he’s far too dour to demand our attention. Where’s the fun, the sense of excitement Robin Hood has brought to generations of movie goers? He doesn’t have to replicate Errol Flynn’s iconic take on the character – who could? – but shouldn’t a spark of that old soul remain?
The film’s political potential is barely tapped. We hear about the joy of liberty and freedom, and later a line of dialogue alludes to a world in which no one is rich … or poor. Liberals and conservatives will both groan in frustration.
“Robin Hood” is an origin story that can’t be bothered to remind us why we loved the character until the film’s final sequence. The conclusion all but begs for a sequel, as if they’ve given us many reasons to spend more time with this sullen archer.
(Photo: Russell Crowe is the latest actor to play the famed archer Robin Hood. Universal Pictures)
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Dear Hollywood: just because the “grittier, more realistic” approach worked so well in your Batman reboot, doesn’t mean it would improve every franchise. So far, you’ve turned Superman into Creepy Deadbeat Dad Man, James Bond into an even more boring version of Jason Bourne, and now Robin Hood into a depressed Braveheart.
Quit sucking all the personality out of our favorite characters, and (here’s a thought) just go back to making them fun again. Okay?
Russell Crowe and his acting career is a complete mystery to me. Apparently, he is one of the few male actors who meet the strict eligibility criteria set forth by the Hollywood suits to play virile, manly men. The question is, if he is one of the chosen, what exactly are the criteria? I watched the terrific “Master and Commander” again last night. What Crowe brings to the physical presence of the courageous Jack Aubrey is that of a bloated – “stocky” might be more politically acceptable term – lead-footed poseur. Sorry, but Burt Lancaster this guy is NOT. Maybe even worse is the voice; or lack thereof. It’s not exactly whiny or high pitched; it’s just… well, not there. You have to strain to hear him. If you want to see an actor who can fill the role of a “commander” watch the famous scene where Gregory Peck walks into the briefing room and introduces himself to his WWII bomber crews in “Twelve O’Clock High.” That, my friends, is a guy for whom you would volunteer to jump into a flying tin can and laugh at those Nazi swine. Crowe… not so much. His continued A level career – I guess – speaks more to the capacity of the competition from other post-modern male actors than his inherent “talent.” All that said, I’ll probably see it (rental) because Scott knows how to make a historical swords and battle movie.
I have seen this film version of Robin Hood twice and for the record neither I nor my companions fond Crowe’s Robin Hood to be cranky or morose! The Robin Hood of previous Hollywood flicks is basically a Hollywood creation. I rreally doubt that the English population of the 12th century was in a cheery, hail-well good fellow mood as those old versions showed us. This Robin is a thoughtful fellow and kind hearted, not grim. Look I enjoyed this movie it didn’t have any of the usual summer superhero/comic book schtick going on. This is a well-made ,well-acted film, Scott is a visionary director. Decide for yourself.
As always, cinematic taste is a subjective thing — but, having said that it seems trashing Russel Crowe is becoming the fashionable trend among critics/fans lately. Not a good actor? What? The man is immensely talented, and has made some of the finest films of the past decade. Teamed with Ridley Scott, he’s *nearly* can’t-miss. (I say “nearly” because I did see their rom-com “A Good Year”; I admit it, that film was pretty forgettable, at best.). I haven’t seen “Robin Hood” yet – am very much looking forward to it. But I recall Roger Ebert’s (television) review of “Gladiator” ten years ago. I hadn’t seen that film at that point, either. He panned “Galdiator”; Dixie Whatley, his guest co-host that week, indignantly, passionately tok issue with him. Then I went to see “Gladiator” and came away with a highly-elevated opinion of Ms. Dixie (and I normally find myself agreeing with Ebert’s cinematic, if not his political, views.) I’m hoping I will be similarly thrilled to find this newest Crowe/Scott pairing treating me to a great film, even if some of the critics don’t get it.