Robin Hood

Movie Information

The Story: The story of how Robin Longstride came to be Robin Hood. The Lowdown: A good cast, solid production values and spectacular battle scenes can't really overcome the fact that the movie spends two-plus hours to establish what earlier versions of Robin Hood did in a scene or two.
Genre: Faux Historical Action
Director: Ridley Scott
Starring: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Max von Sydow, William Hurt, Mark Strong, Oscar Isaac, Danny Huston
Rated: PG-13

I can’t say that I think Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood is a good movie, but it is better than I expected in some ways—especially if you don’t approach it as a Robin Hood movie. Scott’s film is many things, but a Robin Hood picture in the classic sense of the term it ain’t. The movie attempts to show the origins of Robin Hood—in other words, this is Mr. Hood’s backstory—and to do so in an earthy and realistic manner. This immediately raises the question of whether or not there’s a great desire for an earthy and realistic Robin Hood.

The truth is that Scott and company are largely just cashing in on a recognizable brand name. What they’ve given us feels more like a somewhat bloated, generic ancient-times battle picture—with notions of profundity and a dose of modern superhero thrown in. I don’t particularly blame Scott for going for the recognizable—not after Kingdom of Heaven (2005), A Good Year (2006) and Body of Lies (2008) all tanked. Even his most successful film in recent years—American Gangster (2007)—underperformed when you compare budgets to grosses. Scott needs a solid hit and, for that matter, Crowe could also stand one. Whether Robin Hood is that hit remains to be seen.

If you take the film on its own merits, it’s solidly OK. There’s been no skimping on the cast, which is pretty much made of A-listers of some note. Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Max von Sydow, William Hurt, Mark Strong, Danny Huston (in a beguiling Shirley Temple wig), Eileen Atkins and Mark Addy (who better to be Friar Tuck?) are all on the high side of respected performers—and rightly so. They’re good here, even if they somewhat miss the mark of greatness, which is not entirely their fault. Danny Huston as Richard the Lionheart has too little to do. Mark Strong—who is on his way to being the essential bad guy of our age—is fine, but he hasn’t the meatiest role of his career. The weak link in all this is Oscar Isaac (Body of Lies) as Prince/King John. His performance is all in one key: petulant, spoiled-brat villainy. Brian Helgeland’s lumbering screenplay is partly to blame, but Isaac really can’t hold the screen against the others.

In this film, Robin Hood has been rethought, remonkeyed and generally re-everythinged. There’s nary a trace of green hat or green tights or indeed any vestige of green drag of any kind. This is a new Robin for our frankly more drab age. Hell, he’s not even Robin of Locksley (or Loxley as the film has it, which has the downside of looking like he belongs on a bagel). No, he’s Robin Longstride (apparently he has an impressive inseam), but he masquerades as Sir Robert Loxley (Douglas Hodge, Vanity Fair) for reasons at first self-serving and later more noble.

Thanks to a drawn-out death scene, before Sir Robert hands in his dinner pail to some nasty Frenchmen and the duplicitous Godfrey (Strong), he is able to entreat Robin to take his sword home to England and his father Sir Walter Loxley (Max von Sydow). Naturally, Robin agrees, because otherwise there would be no film, and the sword is important to the movie’s notion of Robin Hood. The legend on the sword seems familiar to Robin, and ere long, memories of childhood and (wait for it) daddy issues are brought into play. Why, this isn’t Robin Hood, it’s the angsty modern superhero. It’s Robin Hood as a 12th-century Batman. Did we really need this?

The bulk of the movie—and there’s a lot of bulk—has to do with keeping Godfrey from dividing English loyalty, which would allow the nasty Frenchmen to invade (we keep being assured the Frenchmen are nasty, even if they sound like guards from Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)). When this isn’t happening, Lady Marion Loxley (Blanchett) and Robin are trading barbs on the path to the inevitable romance. The film moves along well enough, but it just isn’t especially compelling or exciting. It’s adequate, it has good actors, and it’s not painful to sit through, but that’s about the best I can say. I’m not sorry I saw it, but I can’t help but wonder why it takes this movie more than two hours to draw a character earlier film versions of Robin Hood managed to create in their opening scenes. Rated PG-13 for violence, including intense sequences of warfare, and some sexual content.

About Ken Hanke
Head film critic for Mountain Xpress from December 2000 until his death in June 2016. Author of books "Ken Russell's Films," "Charlie Chan at the Movies," "A Critical Guide to Horror Film Series," "Tim Burton: An Unauthorized Biography of the Filmmaker."

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

4 thoughts on “Robin Hood

  1. I think there’s some kind of Mark Strong clone army filling bad-guy roles in Hollywood movies. He’s been in at least 50% of the films I’ve seen in the last six months.

  2. Ken Hanke

    What I cannot believe is that in neither the review, nor the podcast (I’m assured it’s coming soon) did I remember to note the strange coincidence that in the space of a week I encountered the outburst “by the bowels of Jesus Christ!” in two movies — Cromwell and this. I mean really, what are the odds?

    Then again, I neglected to mention that there is a baboon (maybe more than one) in Gothic. No stampede, mind you, but Ken was on the right track.

  3. Andy

    The film was, alas, awful and lived down to this review perfectly. “Turgid” is the best one word summation. Put your money instead towards a DVD of “Robin of Sherwood”, the 1980s British cult TV show, and by the far the best interpretation of the Robin legend …

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.