Robin Hood

Tell me that Ridley Scott is teaming up with Russell Crowe for a historical epic and I'm excited. Throw in the fact that it's their take on a classic legend like Robin Hood and I'm surfin' the internet for early tickets especially considering that the last time someone donned the hood in the wood it was Kevin Costner who defiled the legend almost beyond recognition. Crowe and a bow has to be better. Well, it is better but only marginally. This Robin Hood is a prequel, Robin before he took up residence in Sherwood Forest. We first meet him and a few of his merry band on the way back from the Crusades with Richard the Lionheart. The King promptly storms a French castle and is killed. Already we know that this Robin Hood isn't traditional. King Richard won't be showing up at the last minute to save Robin from an evil sheriff. We don't know exactly where this story is going. Unfortunately, this could also be said for the filmmakers. This Robin Hood meanders, both literally and narratively around the English countryside. It makes the film a murky tale, not even fully explaining Robin's past to any satisfaction, which a prequel really should be able to achieve. The journey is interesting at times but aimless. So what do you do when a wayward story needs an ending? If your Ridley Scott that's easy. Battle scene. Scott knows his way around battle scenes and this one on the beach in Northern England is no exception. Real bloody fun.
Crowe's approach to Robin Hood is decidedly low key. That's me being nice to Russell. Some other blogger might call the performance flat, or unimaginative, or even dull. Certainly this take on the character doesn't take advantage of Crowe's considerable ability to get under a character's skin. His Robin is all glowering warrior, no playfulness with his woman or his merry men. It's hard to see why anyone would follow this guy. He strong but fairly unlikeable as a man, more of a mercenary than a leader. It's like the film powers-that-be chose the middle road for everyone involved, even the extraordinary Cate Blanchett, who is solid but unremarkable. Look at who they cast as Friar Tuck. They put on their collective casting thinking caps and came up with Mark Addy (the chubby guy from "The Full Monty") Man, that's inside-the-box thinking. It all hamstrings this film's creativity.
But it's still a historical epic, and I LUV historical epics. True, Robin Hood is not a historical character but you still get to place him in historical surroundings. There's slimy King John, the Magna Carta, medieval battle techniques and political turmoil-13th century edition. All of these elements are present and all of them are underused. This is a historical epic that isn't all that concerned with history. There's even some details that I might take issue with. When the French come ashore at an English beachhead, they use landing craft that look remarkably like wooden versions of the D-Day landing craft from "Saving Private Ryan", you know, the ones that drop the front grid for a quick beach exit. Really? In the early 12 hundreds? Maybe they had them. Maybe the design of a landing craft never changed in 740 years. I'd research it, but this film doesn't really inspire me to do that. And that's a good way to sum up. "Robin Hood" isn't a bad ride, but it doesn't inspire me.