Tuesday 8 June 2010

REVIEW: Robin Hood

Hello friends! After some encouragement by four (FOUR!!) whole people and almost getting published in a fake student magazine thingy I have decided to give this blogging malarky another crack. I'm not promising anything as I'm prone to MASSIVE PROCRASTINATION but hopefully I'll stick around this time. Maybe I should be (re)starting with something a bit more broadly appealing than Robin Hood but put it this way - it was either a review of this or Sex and the City 2...Yeah. Glad you agree. Off we go, then!

Oh, wait, one last thing. As always my review will probably contain spoilers. In fact, it will. Sorry!

If we're going to be pedantic about such things (and I am) this film should really be called something like Robin Hood - The Early Years, Robin Hood - The Beginning or even, if we must, Robin Hood: Origins. And even with some of those titles we'd still be on slightly shaky ground. You see, most of this film does not concentrate on the character of Robin Hood. It concentrates on Robin Longstride That Guy Who Used To Be A Soldier For King Richard And Then Conned His Way Into A Cushy Role Impersonating A Knight Of Nottingham. You could not with any real credibility say that this guy was Robin Hood until at least two-thirds of the way through the film and he certainly doesn't become the Robin who lives in the forest with a band of Merry Men until the FINAL SCENE. As a result, if you go to see this film expecting forest hi-jinks involving theft from the rich of gold, food, supplies and the like that are then provided to the poor, you will get it only once in the entire film. What you WILL get is a story exploring how shit King John was, how he screwed everyone over, and some historically dubious background to some of the events leading up to the signing of the Magna Carta. That's fine, it's the right setting, the right kind of themes, but couldn't we have a proper Robin as well? It would actually be a pretty decent story then. I heard Russel Crowe say on Friday Night With Jonathan Ross that he and director Ridley Scott came up with a big story and split it in half, suggesting there will be a sequel. I don't particularly think 'Robin becomes Robin Hood' should really be a half-way point. But whatever. Let's move on.

As big a problem as I might have with the story, you can't really fault the direction and general look of the film. As you would expect of a summer blockbuster with a $200 million budget its all very authentic and you can easily buy into being back in 12th century England. To be fair, some of the locations are stunning and the final battle between England and France on the beaches of the south coast looks great. There is no doubting that Ridley Scott is still a great director and his crew certainly know what they're doing. The problem is there's very little soul or emotion to the film and I blame this on Russel Crowe's portrayal of Robin.

I do not like Russel Crowe. He says things in a boring, gravelly, monotone voice and constantly has a look on his face that says "someone just fed the dog my last rolo." I swear he smiles once in the entire film. OK, he doesn't have much to smile about with the state England is in but meanwhile he is supposed to be falling in love. This requires emotions such as joy and happiness and often neccessitates a charming nature which the girl cannot possibly resist. Russel Crowe is one of the least charming people I can think of. And I can think of Pierce Morgan. I am reliably informed by Phil that he does show emotion in Ridley and Russels other, very popular (amongst other people) film, Gladiator. I hope that when I am inevitably made to finally see the film that this 'emotion' is not actually him just shouting a lot. In a gravelly monotone voice. It may lead to a fatal blow to the TV screen.

Anyway, I haven't got a lot more to say about the film. It's just...bland. A couple of the performances are noteworthy with the two main antagonists of King John (Oscar Isaac) and Godfrey (Mark Strong) being suitably evil and villainous. Marion (Cate Blanchett) is fairly interesting and adds a bit of wit and humour to proceedings at points whilst also clearly being a very strong-willed woman. Everyone else kind of just wanders through the film though without having much impact. The Merry Men are very merry (read: drunk) but don't do a lot. Friar Tuck is also merry and doesn't do a lot. Truly captivating.

I am being a bit harsh on the film. But that's just my grumpy way. It's not awful, far from it. It's fine. Watchable. Some good action scenes and much better than some of the trash that gets put out. But you'll never get truly invested in it and it probably won't be what you're expecting. If you wish to remind yourself of my scoring criteria check HERE. And, in light of the conditions of which I have set myself, I feel I have to give a slightly harsh...

5/10