My Blog! My Blog!

Tonight, esrblog and I went with shakati and pmat to see Ridley Scott's take on Robin Hood, starring Cate Blanchett and Russell Crowe.

My feelings about the movie are very ambivalent. That's because for every thing I really liked about the movie, there was at least one thing that I found to be offputting, out-of-place, or just plain stupid. Because so many of the things that I liked--as well as the things that drove me crazy--require giving spoilers, I have to put most of this review under an LJ cut.

Maybe it's easiest to do this review as a list of bullet points.

Things about "Robin Hood" that were good:
* The musical score. Slightly cheesy and Hollywood-traditional, it was the perfect accompaniment to a historical action epic.
* Most of the acting. In particular, Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett turn in great performances--considering the script they had to work with (more on that below). A number of the actors in minor roles turn in charming, if light-weight, cameos.

Things about "Robin Hood" that were bad:
* The plot. Desperately lacking in plausible explanations for why most of the characters ended up doing what they did.
* The script. Totally lacking in any memorable phrases.
* The pacing. Robin Hood is about two hours long, but it seems a lot longer--in part because there are *way* too many moody shots of Marian, or Robin, or Queen Eleanor, or King John, or one of the other major characters instead of activity that might advance the plot. Most of the battle scenes, on the other hand, are shot in a frenetic blur, probably to try to depict the sense of urgency that is driving the characters. Certainly the characters *should* be feeling urgency, as most of them are trying to halt the invasion of England by the French (more on that below too).
* Queen Eleanor. Eileen Atkins wasn't bad, but she didn't have the kind of physical presence one would expect from the ballsiest woman ever to wear a crown, sorry. (On the other hand, Katharine Hepburn, who played Eleanor in "The Lion in Winter," did.) Granted, Eleanor plays only a minor role in this story, but it's grossly historically inappropriate that she did not come across as an imposing person.
* The white horse. The invading French beached at Dover, near the cliff with the famous white horse carved into it. In reality, that horse looks like this. The movie showed something more like this. Ouch.

Things about "Robin Hood" that were predictable (but annoying):
* The gore. There had to be some, given the "gritty realism" style of story Scott chose to use. It could have been much worse, but if you don't like blood in your movies, this isn't the film for you.
* The costuming. The movie was set in 1199 (right after Richard gets himself killed in the course of trying to conquer France). The costumes, weapons and armor are roughly correct, in that most of the male characters wear tunics and trews of the right general type, most of the women wear simple gowns of approximately the right cut for the period, and most of the noble fighters wear chain mail and plausible sorts of helmet. However, the costumes are only roughly correct. There are plenty of items that clearly came from the 14th century or later, and too many of the fabrics look modern. (Yes, most of my readers won't care, but historic costume is one of my hobbies; sorry!)
* The movie's approach to historical realism. Like most moviemakers, Scott clearly believes that during the medieval period most people 1) were visibly dirty most of the time, 2) routinely dressed in drab colors, and/or 3) went about their daily business with disheveled clothing or untidy headwear and/or hair. Sigh.
* The approach to historical grandeur. Like most moviemakers, Scott apparently believes that most medieval castles were the size of small 21st century towns and most battles involved tens of thousands of men. Again, not so (some of the British castles of the period were particularly small, e.g., Dover Castle). On the other hand, I give him points for getting the style of castle architecture of the period approximately right.
* King John. As always, he was played as a selfish wuss by a slender, dark-haired actor with a neatly-trimmed mustache and short beard. Some things never change.

Things about "Robin Hood" that were novel:
* The Sheriff of Nottingham was almost unnoticeable, instead of being the main villain of the piece.
* Friar Tuck as a beekeeper? (The association between Tuck and liquor is preserved, though; he made mead with the honey.)
* Robin Hood as a grim-faced, serious ex-soldier. This may go with the gritty realism remake of the story, but it sure isn't the way most people think of Robin. (On the other hand, Crowe does a good job with it.)
* Robin Hood as pretender. Crowe's Robin is really a yeoman archer, who is asked by Locksley's dying son, Robert, to take his sword back to his father. Locksley the elder presses him to continue the imposture to help improve his position over some back taxes and to improve the position of his daughter, Marian. I rather liked this move--it made Robin's woodcraft more plausible to me.
* Robin Hood as savior of England. Most of the story relates to how Robin Hood helps save England from invasion by the French. This is where most of the implausibilities in the plot come in; in fact, most of the story is about the invasion and its foiling.
* The French as pyromaniacs. Their favorite way to deal with the enemy seems to be to corral them in buildings and set the buildings on fire.
* The carved Irish cross in the courtyard of the Locksley estate. Huh? Why?

Elements of the plot that were absurd, insane, trite, or worse:
* Robin Hood's childhood. Robin starts the movie thinking he was abandoned by his father. Not so. Dad was a stone mason who was killed for engaging in meaningful social protest. The guy apparently wrote up an early version of Magna Carta. Who knew?
* Robin Hood persuading squabbling nobles to stop fighting and face the invading French. With one speech, too. Where was this guy during the Wars of the Roses?
* Robin Hood co-leading the English army against the invading French. WTF?
* The church, levying unfair grain taxes on Nottingham. Apparently this was included solely to allow Robin to foil the shipment of grain away from Nottingham so he can get in Marian's good graces.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Usually, when I find myself spending more time during a movie thinking about the music, or about any other detail instead of being swept up in the story, I conclude that the moviemakers have done something badly wrong. That kind of deconstruction, unfortunately, describes what I found myself doing during "Robin Hood".

That may not mean that you shouldn't see this film. On the contrary, many people (especially people who haven't studied European medieval history) may well enjoy it. But overall the movie seemed to me to be too much like an attempt to make an Errol Flynn type of movie in 2010--without attempting to use anything we've learned about history, or about the making of movies set in the historical past, since Errol Flynn played Robin in 1938. That seems wrong to me.