Robin Hood

In Hollywood's latest attempt to ruin childhoods everywhere, Ridley Scott presents a "dark," "revisionist" take on Robin Hood. Robin Hood (2010) is both a horribly misguided piece of tosh and a grab bag of scenes and ideas from dozens of other, better films. In short, it sucks.

Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) is an archer serving with Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston) in the Crusades. When Richard is killed in a battle with French troops, Robin and his buddies return the crown to England, with Robin posing as Robert Loxley (Douglas Hodge), son of a nobleman (Max Von Sydow) living in rural Nottingham. The new King John (Oscar Isaac) is oppressive and inept, turning the nobles against him; treacherous nobleman Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong) connives with France's King to conquer England. Robin woos Maid (really Widow) Marian (Cate Blanchett) and tries to organize Nottingham against Godfrey's scheming.

Ridley Scott was once the director of intelligent and exciting sci-fi films (Alien, Blade Runner). While I'm not the biggest fan of either, at least they showed a degree of creativity and original thought. The last decade of Scott films, notsomuch. Gladiator was a serviceable sword-and-sandal flick burdened with an underdeveloped political subplot cribbed from Spartacus. Black Hawk Down is a decent war flick if you haven't seen Saving Private Ryan/We Were Soldiers/Windtalkers/etc. Kingdom of Heaven was a nice try at an old-fashioned epic, ruined by Orlando Bloom and simple-minded "religion=bad" preaching. American Gangster was a good if derivative crime flick, but Body of Lies was a dull misfire. Robin Hood continues this trend, showing that Scott has long since lost his talent.

Robin Hood boldly posits itself as showing "the man behind the legend", an idiotic conceit since Robin Hood never existed. At least Batman Begins didn't posit Bruce Wayne as a real person. The purpose seems to disabuse its audience of the notion that Robin Hood wore green Technicolor tights or was a cartoon fox, surely a noble and worthwhile pursuit. Bloating the film up to epic length doesn't help matters. Not every movie needs to be Lawrence of Arabia or The Godfather, least of all one about bloody Robin Hood. The irreverent joy and fun of Errol Flynn's Adventures of Robin Hood, the Disney animated version, Robin and Marian or even Kevin Costner's early '90s take is completely absent here, replaced by dour, grimy gloom.

The movie is dark, nasty, and brutish, though painfully long. The action scenes are extremely violent and brutal for PG-13, proving yet again that the MPAA is bonkers. The characters are one-note, boring ciphers without motivation. The film sprinkles in drivel about freedom and liberty (apparently Robin's father wrote the Magna Carta!) in a misguided attempt to add depth to what should be a fun adventure film. Such humor as exists is juvenile and imbecilic. So bereft of joy and fun, indeed so tenuously connected to the legend is it, that there's no reason why the movie should call itself Robin Hood in the first place.

It doesn't help, either, that Scott blatantly steals from many other movies: from Godfrey's Joker-inspired facial scar and Robin's Henry V/Braveheart "FREEDOM!!!" speech, to The Patriot-inspired barn burning and the Saving Private Ryan-esque landing craft and beach battle, there's scarcely an original thought present. Perhaps not surprisingly, Scott "borrows" a good deal from his own Gladiator, particularly the portrayal of John as an ineffectual ninny. All this not-so-earth-friendly recycling belies claims of being a "fresh" take on anything.

The movie cost a pretty penny ($220+ million) and rest assured, every dollar of that is on screen. Period costumes, sets and locations are painstakingly created by Scott and crew, and John Mathieson's photography is often breath-taking. The battle scenes are big and competently staged, though ultimately repetitive; as Lord of the Rings proved, one can only watch so many scenes of computer-generated dudes hacking each other to bits before it gets boring. Brian Helgeland's script is by-the-numbers in both story and dialogue, and Marc Streitenfeld's score is equally dull.

Russell Crowe provides the most boring Robin Hood ever. His conversion from opportunistic soldier to freedom fighter is ridiculously abrupt, and he's a flimsy and unconvincing protagonist. Cate Blanchett is always welcome, but portraying Maid Marian as a tough, castrating feminist is hard to swallow. Oscar Isaac (Body of Lies) chews lots of scenery as King John, playing him as the bastard child of Joaquin Phoenix's Commodus and Peter O'Toole's Henry II. Hollywood villain du jour Mark Strong (Sherlock Holmes, The Young Victoria) is a boring, unmotivated and uninteresting bad guy. Lots of fine actors - Max Von Sydow (Shutter Island), William Hurt (Syriana), Danny Huston (John Adams), Eileen Atkins (Gosford Park) - toil in worthless supporting roles.

Did we need a "revisionist" take on the Robin Hood legend in the first place? I say no, and certainly not a boring, derivative mess like this. Go see Iron Man 2 instead; at least you'll have fun at that one. Robin Hood can only make you bored, sad or angry.