"Robin Hood" (2010): (Rating: An extremely generous 6 out of 10).
"Robin Hood" plays like a supposedly commercially cunning stylistic cross between "Gladiator", "Saving Private Ryan" and "Batman Begins". Okay, so it's a prequel, an origin story and Sir Ridley and Russell obviously hope it will be the first part of a trilogy. Shame on them. Do they need the money so badly? Ignoring the heart and soul of an enduring and inspiring romantic legend, these buggers have aimed their arrows squarely at the wallets of the mass market and gone for the lowest common denominator. One film pleases all, so to speak. And sadly, a lot of undiscriminating modern cinema-goers will enjoy what they have served up.
The new "Robin Hood" was, for me, a bitterly disappointing film and, with a running length of nearly 150-minutes, a sometimes boring one too. It's big and sprawling, and, with Sir Ridley at the helm, it is certainly well made on a technical level. But does it have heart and soul and emotion and a stirring story? No ways. After about 120 long minutes we get the French invading Britain in an expensive, GGI-laden action sequence which seems to have been inspired by the Normandy landing scenes in "Saving Private Ryan". What it is this? Sir Ridley's homage to the Spielberg flick. Only, instead of machine gun bullets tracing through the water as soldiers stumble across the sand at the bottom of the sea trying to avoid a rain of death, it is arrows.
Then, five minutes before the picture ends, the story I wanted to see finally arrives on the screen. But shorty after this, the words "And so the legend begins" appear, and the movie ends.
I'm a fan of Russell Crowe and I thoroughly his performances in films such as "Romper Stomper", "LA Confidential", "Gladiator", "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World", "Cinderella Man", "The Insider" and "The Sum of Us". Hell, i even enjoyed his work in "State of Play" and the remake of "3.10 to Yuma".
But his surly Robin Longstride, the man who will perhaps - if this picture makes enough money to allow the sequel to be made - become the Robin Hood we know and love, is not one of his finest screen moments. The character is merely another figure in a sprawling cinematic landscape created by Sir Ridley. He never registers on an emotional level, and Crowe,IMO, despite looking fairly buff, is too old for the part. What a waste of a good actor.
Blanchett, who I also enjoy, fares slightly better, but she is miscast in an underwritten role. Her Maid Marion is an interesting creation, but we never get to now her well enough. Even the Sheriff of Nottingham (an ineffectual Matthew Macfadyen - looking like a chubby version of Dermot Mulroney) is a minor character in the picture.
In the supporting cast, Mark Strong - as the wicked Godfrey, and Max Von Sydow as the blind Sir Walter Loxley, have their moments, and Eileen Atkins is good in her few scenes. Then there are Mark Addey (Friar Tuck) and Kevin Durand ( Little John) who are, I presume, supposed to be the comic relief. Not that I laughed much. Danny Huston doesn't exactly shine as King Richard the Lionheart either. And William Hurt is wasted as William Marshal.
I saw "Robin Hood" in South Africa. The cinema was surprisingly full and the multiplex mob seemed to enjoy the film. But I found it an utter disappointment, It didn't stir me, it didn't amuse me and it didn't thrill me. And I'm usually quite easily to please. "Robin Hood" is nothing more than an expensive attempt to steal from the poor and desperate (cinemagoers), who will go looking for spectacle and excitement in all the wrong places. Isn't a film like this supposed to bring joy to the poor and downtrodden.
It seems as if they wanted to pull in the "Gladiator" crowd. But that was silly because this film suffers hugely by comparison, as does Crowe's performance.
Watching this version of the tale, only made me ache for Errol Flynn and Olivia De Havilland in "The Adventures of Robin Hood", now that was a Robin Hood picture. "Robin and Marion", the Lester flick, was also more romantic than this current version. Hell, even the Costner version was more fun. Boo.
While I didn't enjoy "Robin Hood", it still looks likely to pull in about $300 worldwide, so sequels could still be on the cards. In my heart of hearts, however - and it pains me to say this, I hope it does not do sufficient numbers to generate sequels.
I saw "Robin Hood" a day after watching Miley Cyrus in "The Last Song". So I thought, how bad can it be?" Sir Ridley, Cate, Russell in warrior mode. it can only be an improvement on The Last Song". Sadly, it wasn't. At least "The Last Song" was shorter.
If anybody with a passion for cinema lusts to see this film, I would suggest they wait for the DVD release, and then approach it with low expectations. Very low expectations! I suppose the upside is that I didn't have to pay to watch the film. But even that brings me little cheer.
"Robin Hood" plays like a supposedly commercially cunning stylistic cross between "Gladiator", "Saving Private Ryan" and "Batman Begins". Okay, so it's a prequel, an origin story and Sir Ridley and Russell obviously hope it will be the first part of a trilogy. Shame on them. Do they need the money so badly? Ignoring the heart and soul of an enduring and inspiring romantic legend, these buggers have aimed their arrows squarely at the wallets of the mass market and gone for the lowest common denominator. One film pleases all, so to speak. And sadly, a lot of undiscriminating modern cinema-goers will enjoy what they have served up.
The new "Robin Hood" was, for me, a bitterly disappointing film and, with a running length of nearly 150-minutes, a sometimes boring one too. It's big and sprawling, and, with Sir Ridley at the helm, it is certainly well made on a technical level. But does it have heart and soul and emotion and a stirring story? No ways. After about 120 long minutes we get the French invading Britain in an expensive, GGI-laden action sequence which seems to have been inspired by the Normandy landing scenes in "Saving Private Ryan". What it is this? Sir Ridley's homage to the Spielberg flick. Only, instead of machine gun bullets tracing through the water as soldiers stumble across the sand at the bottom of the sea trying to avoid a rain of death, it is arrows.
Then, five minutes before the picture ends, the story I wanted to see finally arrives on the screen. But shorty after this, the words "And so the legend begins" appear, and the movie ends.
I'm a fan of Russell Crowe and I thoroughly his performances in films such as "Romper Stomper", "LA Confidential", "Gladiator", "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World", "Cinderella Man", "The Insider" and "The Sum of Us". Hell, i even enjoyed his work in "State of Play" and the remake of "3.10 to Yuma".
But his surly Robin Longstride, the man who will perhaps - if this picture makes enough money to allow the sequel to be made - become the Robin Hood we know and love, is not one of his finest screen moments. The character is merely another figure in a sprawling cinematic landscape created by Sir Ridley. He never registers on an emotional level, and Crowe,IMO, despite looking fairly buff, is too old for the part. What a waste of a good actor.
Blanchett, who I also enjoy, fares slightly better, but she is miscast in an underwritten role. Her Maid Marion is an interesting creation, but we never get to now her well enough. Even the Sheriff of Nottingham (an ineffectual Matthew Macfadyen - looking like a chubby version of Dermot Mulroney) is a minor character in the picture.
In the supporting cast, Mark Strong - as the wicked Godfrey, and Max Von Sydow as the blind Sir Walter Loxley, have their moments, and Eileen Atkins is good in her few scenes. Then there are Mark Addey (Friar Tuck) and Kevin Durand ( Little John) who are, I presume, supposed to be the comic relief. Not that I laughed much. Danny Huston doesn't exactly shine as King Richard the Lionheart either. And William Hurt is wasted as William Marshal.
I saw "Robin Hood" in South Africa. The cinema was surprisingly full and the multiplex mob seemed to enjoy the film. But I found it an utter disappointment, It didn't stir me, it didn't amuse me and it didn't thrill me. And I'm usually quite easily to please. "Robin Hood" is nothing more than an expensive attempt to steal from the poor and desperate (cinemagoers), who will go looking for spectacle and excitement in all the wrong places. Isn't a film like this supposed to bring joy to the poor and downtrodden.
It seems as if they wanted to pull in the "Gladiator" crowd. But that was silly because this film suffers hugely by comparison, as does Crowe's performance.
Watching this version of the tale, only made me ache for Errol Flynn and Olivia De Havilland in "The Adventures of Robin Hood", now that was a Robin Hood picture. "Robin and Marion", the Lester flick, was also more romantic than this current version. Hell, even the Costner version was more fun. Boo.
While I didn't enjoy "Robin Hood", it still looks likely to pull in about $300 worldwide, so sequels could still be on the cards. In my heart of hearts, however - and it pains me to say this, I hope it does not do sufficient numbers to generate sequels.
I saw "Robin Hood" a day after watching Miley Cyrus in "The Last Song". So I thought, how bad can it be?" Sir Ridley, Cate, Russell in warrior mode. it can only be an improvement on The Last Song". Sadly, it wasn't. At least "The Last Song" was shorter.
If anybody with a passion for cinema lusts to see this film, I would suggest they wait for the DVD release, and then approach it with low expectations. Very low expectations! I suppose the upside is that I didn't have to pay to watch the film. But even that brings me little cheer.