Monday, May 17, 2010

Robin Hood Review



**Spoiler Alert**
Just a heads up :)

Although benefiting from stunning visuals that beautifully capture rural England, as well as a few intense action scenes, Robin Hood is brought down by a plot that changes even other more loose adaptions so much that the newest installment to the folklore tale "series" can hardly be called "Robin Hood" in good conscience.  Additionally, Robin Hood, which attempts to recreate Russell Crowe's well known epic Gladiator, fails to do so because of the lack of the adventure thrill Gladiator had. With that being said, Robin Hood is undoubtedly an intense and entertaining action flick, yet it does not rival Gladiator due to it's lack of thrill. 

However, it's more than just the lack of thrill that doesn't make Robin Hood a great movie, it's the plot that hardly deserves to call itself by the name of Robin Hood because of it's total lack of resemblance to any other movie or TV adaption of the folklore tale. The very fact that I had to put a spoiler warning for seemingly such a well known story confirms the fact that the plot to Robin Hood is so dissimilar to other adaptions. In fact, it's more than just dissimilar. It's the complete opposite. Literally, the plot to Robin Hood undermines the entire spirit and nature of the whole tale by producing a movie with a plot practically opposite to any other adaption. 

The primary change in the plot is the relationship of Robin Hood and King John. In the movie, Robin Hood and King John, two bitter enimies in all other adaptions, actually fight alongside each other. King John, although implementing a heavy tax on peasants in the beginning, promises to lift the tax for his subjects' support in the defense of Englad from a French invasion. It is not until the very end of the movie that King John actually declares Robin Hood to be an outlaw, and even still, it is done abruptly and without explanation- almost as if it were done to make screenwriter Brian Helgeland feel better about himself for completely changing the plot of Robin Hood from the traditional adaptions.

But it's more than just the relationship of Robin Hood and King John that is completely changed in the newest adaption of the tale, it's also the feel and spirit of the tale that is lost. This feel and spirit that I'm referring to is the defining principle of Robin Hood: "stealing from the rich and giving to the poor." Despite it's central role in the tale, the principle of stealing from the rich to give to the poor is not at all made the focus of the movie, and is actually only portrayed in one scene. The principle is introduced again, however, it is at the very end of the movie and is portrayed very briefly as more of refuge or aid for peasants rather than the stealing of food and money from aristocrat landlords, as Robin Hood is typically portrayed as doing. 


Now despite all it's plot changes and lack of the tale's spirit, Robin Hood benefits greatly from good performances from Russel Crowe (Robin Hood) and Mark Strong (Sir Godfrey), the main protagonist and antagonist in the movie. As always, Russel Crowe brings a sort of excitement and epicness (even though I hate sounding like a middle schooler) to his characters. Mark Strong, on the other hand, portrays well a bitter, heartless, and power-hungry military leader who ultimately betrays John and turns to the French to aid them in their invasion. But it's no surprise- Strong always plays the antagonist well, as illustrated in Sherlock Holmes and Kick-Ass. 


Additionally, Robin Hood benefits from amazing visuals and intense battle scenes that make the movie undoubtedly entertaining and one definitely worth seeing in theaters. The film's sweeping wide angles capture beautifully the lushness of England's forests and countries, as well as the castles scattered across such a landscape. Furthermore, the film is benefited from intense action scenes propelled by Russel Crowe and Kevin Durand's (Little John) performances. While Crowe delivers his usual intensity to battle scenes, Durand, along with other characters from Nottingham, bring a sort of comedic presence to bits of the film, particularly in action scenes. For example, when Nottingham is being overtaken by Godfrey's men in the name of the King's tax enforcement, Friar Took (Mark Addy) sneaks out of the church where he was subdued and returns with several bee hives which he throws at the French soldiers. This subtle comedic presence balances out well the intensity Crowe presents in battle scenes. 


In conclusion, Robin Hood is certainly an entertaining film with many good characteristics- good preformances from Crowe and Strong, excellent visuals, and intense battle scenes-, however, it lacks completely the traditional feel of the tale and changes the plot so much other adaptions that it hardly deserves to call itself Robin Hood. 


*** Out of *****



3 comments:

  1. Sorry if this was repetitive, contradictory, or just plain bad. haha I wrote just about all of it in computers class. :P

    Oh, and dontchya like the clever title? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. so... i didn't read all of it, but i am curious as to why you think it is trying to be a recreation of Gladiator, as you say in the first paragraph? other than them being in the genre of historical fiction/adventure i don't see many similarities besides the Russell Crowe/Ridley Scott duo. Then again, the movie "A good year" also had that same duo in it and had nothing at all in common with gladiator... not that anyone expected it to i'm just trying to illustrate my point. anyway.. its late, sorry if i'm rambling on

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, A Good Year was a romantic comedy. The reason I think Robin Hood is meant, at least in part, to be a Gladiator spin off is because it's the first Scott/Crowe duo of the same adventure/epic genre. The only other movie besides A Good Year made with the same Scott/Crowe duo (I think) since Gladiator was American Gangster, but again, that isn't in the same genre as Robin Hood and Gladiator.

    So that's pretty much why. Thanks for the comment :)

    ReplyDelete