New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

This is not to say that there isn’t something going on beyond the raw aggression and historically inaccurate interpersonal drama. Early on, Robin’s playing a shell game - the idea of having Robin Hood moving around the shells in a common con has its potential, but the scene quickly dissolves into fisticuffs - foreshadowing of the overall mood of the rest of the film. This isn’t intelligent. This is aggressive and brutal.

The forest itself is even a bit of a disappointment here, particularly with Ridley Scott behind the camera. Previous Ridley Scott films like Alien and Blade Runner and even the otherwise ham-fisted 1492: Conquest of Paradise had lush, beautiful visuals that slowly migrated across the screen, allowing an audience to simply sink into the reality of the film’s atmosphere. Here everything is very practical and narrative. There’s little environmental depth. The real disappointment here is the fact that some of the film was actually shot on location in the actual Sherwood Forrest. Sadly, like Crowe’s extensive archery training for the role, the authenticity of the forest blurs into the dark wallpaper that is the rest of the film. Realistic or not (historical inaccuracies aside) there should be some sense of magic about Robin Hood. There should be something beyond the sweat and blood of 12th Century combat that engages the viewer emotionally. Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood fails to do this.

The Verdict

With a production budget of $200 million and an opening weekend that may land somewhere around $100 million worldwide, Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood is likely to break even for everyone involved in worldwide ticket sales, but without a very warm critical reception and the likelihood that it won’t have made as much money as the 1991 Kevin Costner Film (Which grossed nearly $400 million worldwide.) Between this and less than stellar reviews, Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood is unlikely to be anywhere near as influential as Pyle’s late 19th century Robin Hood novel.

Whereas Pyle’s Robin has a kind of complexity that still feels remarkably fresh over 100 years later, Russell Crowe’s Robin Hood lacks the crafty sophistication of the character in Pyle’s book. Crowe’s an aging common archer in the crusades who found his way to prominence. It may be more gritty - darker than previous Robin Hood tales, but it’s not a terribly compelling grittiness. By contrast, Pyle’s Robin Hood made difficult decisions - solved problems in interesting ways that have yet to make it into a feature film adaptation. A pity - it would make for such a good drama in the hands of a really talented director - someone like Ridley Scott, for instance…

Continued:       1       2       3       4