Issue date: 4/1/10 Section: Film & Music

Russel Crowe says "whatever you knew about Robin Hood is a previously understandable mistake."

En francais, Ridley Scott's latest is called "Robin de bois", translated as "Robin of the wood". And frankly, the French title works better when you realize what this movie both is and isn't. When people think of "Robin Hood" as a legend, most will default to a man in green, his cocky entourage, and medieval vigilante justice. Ridley Scott has a similar idea, but that's not what's being showcased here. The Robin Hood of 2010 is a legend not yet realized. Robin Hood is an origin film; a movie made to reveal the back story of the man deeply entrenched in English folklore. And while that may be interesting for a super hero movie, a la Spider-Man or Batman Begins, it fails to really excite when you realize what Scott has in store.

The film revolves around medieval England, circa 1200 AD, where England and France are at war. King Richard of England is crusading with a vast army, which includes the rather average Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe), who sees the King's conquests as "godless". Richard is killed in battle, and the internal chaos among the army allows Longstride to go AWOL with like-minded men. Soon a new, albeit corrupt, king is appointed (Oscar Isaac), and Longstride and his mercenaries head to the town of Nottingham to escape the bloody civil war erupting in England. The fight comes to them, however, and Longstride is looked at to defeat both the invading French armies and pillaging Englishmen.

At today's press conference for Robin Hood, Russell Crowe was asked about how the film feels more like a prequel than any sort of typical Robin Hood movie, to which he replied: "whatever you knew about Robin Hood is a previously understandable mistake". Soon after the film opens, you realize that this is a "new game", as Crowe puts it, and the man in green tights is no longer the focus. Crowe said that "many Robin Hood [films] have been made, but not with a satisfactory human element", and that's more the direction where Ridley Scott has taken the legend. Perhaps, but then calling the film Robin Hood feels like a misnomer. That's because Crowe's character is never referred to as the titular role; only Robin Longstride or "Robin of the hood". This raises an interesting question: if Ridley Scott wanted to make a movie detailing the human aspect of the English folk hero, why name his movie after the fictional, more embellished character?

Some may remember how 007 flick Casino Royale featured a "Bond that bleeds", and I think that's an apt description for Robin Hood. It's a brutal affair, but one that you won't really care for. You'll see ye olde clashing and slashing, (and some neat "Arrow-Cam" action) but you won't see Longstride stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, which is what we've come to expect and know from the stories. Call me olde-fashioned, but Robin's back story is just not that exciting, or interesting, for that matter. In fact, it feels tired and rehashed. Oh well. Perhaps with Robin Hood 2, we'll see what we want: thin arrows hittin' fat wallets, and Robin "da Hood" Longstride repatriating the taxes to the poor.

1 1/5 stars (out of four)

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools