Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Robin Hood

Ugghh.

When this movie came out and got panned by the critics, I didn't understand. I mean, it looked awesome, had a fantastic cast, and was directed by Ridley Scott. The critics are fools, I said, because they usually are. Most movies that I end up love usually got panned by the critics. I never got around to seeing it, however, and because it was kind of a flop, it didn't stick around for long. Well, I finally got around to renting it, and owe something of an apology to those critics. This movie kind of sucked.

On paper, this sounded like a sure thing. Russell Crowe as Robin Hood and reunited with the director of Gladiator. How could it go wrong? Well, for one thing, it's just boring. There is absolutely nothing interesting, engaging, or entertaining to be found. Some of the acting performances are fine, but the battles are boring and the story is bloated and overly convoluted. Who cares about the history of Robin Hood? If you're going to give his origins, at least make it somewhat interesting. It was an hour before Robin Hood even made it to Nottingham. And I'm not exaggerating. I checked the timer on my DVD player.

And then we have some nonsense about Robin pretending to be the returned husband of Cate Blanchett's Maid Marion, which never made any sense to me, and made their romance feel not just forced and contrived, but kind of gross and inappropriate. It really only took a day or two before she hooked up with the man who came to her town just to tell her that her husband had died in battle?

Sure, there was a lot of action, and most of the battle sequences were epic, but there was nothing here that we all haven't seen dozens of times by now. Giant battles -- no matter how well done -- simply aren't all that exciting anymore, unless something new and different is being offered. This movie just looked like a two hour version of that opening battle form Gladiator, only no where near as good. This movie just didn't feel like Robin Hood. I understand that they were attempting a more realistic approach, but it just felt like Gladiator part 2. Honestly, I would rather have seen Gladiator part 2. The only real update they made to the Robin Hood myth is that they made him into a bit of an asshole.

Russell Crowe is a brilliant actor and Ridley Scott is a wonderfully talented director, but this movie wasn't even as good as Prince of Thieves. Honestly, I didn't event think it was as entertaining as Men in Tights. Sucked.

7 comments:

television lady said...

dammit, i was totally going to ask
BUT WAS IT BETTER THAN ROBIN HOOD, MEN IN TIGHTS?
you beat me to it.

tep said...

I disagree. I liked it.

Donald said...

I'll admit I was a little hard on it. There were things I did like, especially the performances by Crowe and Blanchet, and I did like the guy who played Prince John. He was a good asshole. And, historically speaking, they did a really good job of putting Nottingham in a bigger context with the politics of the time.

But... I dunno. It was just too boring for my tastes. And it just didn't feel like Robin Hood.

television lady said...

what's it rated? can kids watch it?

Donald said...

PG-13. Can kids watch it? I dunno. Would you let your kids watch Gladiator? It's about the same level, though *maybe* a little less bloody, but not by much.

I don't think kids would want to watch it, however, since it's talky and full of political intrigue and historical minutia. Just show them the Disney animated Robin Hood instead. I loved that one.

Justin Garrett Blum said...

A read a bunch of the bad reviews of this film at the time and they were just a little too convincing.

television lady said...

watching it now, with the older 2. we'll just see how it goes over. . .