The 'Spot The Merry Man' Competition

Let's face it, director Ridley Scott hasn't made a 'great' film since Black Hawk Down. And while ol' Ridders isn't capable of making a 'bad' movie, his output since then hasn't been stellar. Kingdom Of Heaven, A Good Year, Body Of Lies and (I don't care what you say) American Gangster all failed to hit the heights of Scott classics Thelma & Louise, Gladiator, Blade Runner and Alien. His recent films all take themselves a little too seriously and feature scripts that are a little too unengaging and rambling. Robin Hood marks Scott's fifth collaboration with Russell Crowe with the pair of them making a return to the epic swordplay that defined their biggest hit, Gladiator, a decade ago. Unfortunately, Scott can't quite shake his poor form, leaving a movie that, while his best work since 2002, has a few major problems which drag the production down.

First, the bad news.

1/ The plot is nothing original. It basically ignores the bulk of the traditional Robin Hood legend (Robin vs The Sheriff Of Nottingham, Robin vs Little John with quarterstaff's, the outlaw who robs from the rich to give to the poor) and replaces it with a prequel story that predates the legend, opting for a narrative that encompasses English politics and a French invasion plot. Now, it must be noted that this shift away from the traditional Robin Hood story has been described as pointless and ill advised. What's the point in doing a Robin Hood story if you're not going to tell the story of Robin Hood? Well, frankly, I don't care. The story told here isn't a million miles away from the legend we're all familiar with and I applaud the film-makers for trying to do something a bit different.

What really concerns me is whether the new story is worth telling. And the answer? Only just. What you get is a stripped down retelling of the hero myth. You know the one... Man goes on a quest, resolves his father issues and discovers his true worth, becomes a leader of men, defeats the villain and becomes a legend in the process.
So in an attempt to bring us a new take on Robin Hood, Scott gives a story that's even older AND more familiar.

2/ The films other major flaw is the acting.
First off, Russell Crowe under performs to such a degree, it's almost like he's not even trying. His Robin is supposed to be a bit of a rogue, but we can see he's a do-gooder really. He's a mostly charismaless, quiet and charmless soul that often seems to be quite an odd character to be leading men in a campaign to defend England. However, Russell Crowe not trying is 100 times better than Orlando Bloom attempting to emote in Kingdom Of Heaven. Crowe has more raw screen presence than Bloom could summon if he'd received a million years of Shakespearean training.

Blanchett is fine, but oddly for actors of her and Crowe's calibre, there's no chemistry between the two. There love story starts out with them at loggerheads...but there's nothing in their subsequent performances that convinces that they could later fall for each other. Mark Strong is as predictably ruthless as you'd expect from the baddie in Kick Ass, Danny Huston is barking as King Richard, Matthew MacFadyen utterly ineffectual as the Sheriff, leaving Max Von Sydow to steal the show as Sir Walter Loxley. Everbody else just turns up...and then goes home again.

The other acting issue is the accents. Rather than go with the obligatory plummy English accent, which is the norm in period pieces, Scott elects to have his actors perform with regional accents. The problem for the non-British cast is that exactly which region is unclear. Crowe's probably aiming for a Nottinghamshire accent but there's a Celtic twang that seems to slip in and out placing it more Irish/Scottish.
What with Crowe's subdued, gruff delivery it's distracting and unnecessary.

On the plus side:-

As expected, the film is technically pitch perfect. There's few directors on the planet that can photograph as beautifully as Scott. The visuals are far more subtle than anything found in Gladiator and are rich, textured and immersive. Helping this are the epic production designed landscapes of the English countryside. Shots of hundreds of horsemen galloping past the giant pagan white horse symbols embedded into the rolling hill's of the southern counties makes you feel proud to be English. Indeed it's refreshing to have a movie where CGI takes a backseat (the effects are practically invisible) and the castle sieges and beach invasions are done for real.
Marc Streitenfeld actually remembers that it's not enough to simply mimic the style of fellow composer Hans Zimmer, and delivers a score that's both memorable and haunting.

The action, while not groundbreaking as it was in Gladiator, is fast, frenetic and exciting with the attack on Nottingham being a particular stand out sequence. Like Centurion earlier in the year, Robin Hood has a strong sense of time and place, putting the viewer slap-bang into the middle of 12th century society. The film also benefits from the constant threat of invasion by the French, meaning that no matter how often characters get together for a heated chat, trouble in never far from our minds.

Not a great Ridley Scott movie then...one that is flawed both in inception and execution...but it's one that can't be dismissed either. It's much, much better than Kingdom Of Heaven and even if the story doesn't blow you away, there plenty of other stuff to distract you. Or look at it this way; if Sam Worthington can keep you engaged for 2.5 hours running around a blue forest...you'd better believe the superior Russell Crowe can keep you interested running around a green one.

PS. If you want to experience the definitive version of the Robin Hood legend, I'd enthusiastically recommend the 1980's TV series Robin Of Sherwood. Still the best by a mile.