Robin Hood: A Fantastically Inept Film
The good news for Russell Crowe and Robin Hood is that it does remind you of one of the great movies about the Middle Ages. The bad news is that that movie is Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
This fantastically inept and bizarrely shapeless blob of a movie becomes laughable almost immediately, when Cate Blanchett’s Lady Marion steps up and fires an arrow hundreds of yards with blistering accuracy despite being approximately the weight of a longbow herself.
Russell Crowe’s Robin Longstride is a hazily defined figure who first finds himself fighting for a king he can’t stand, the crusader Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston, whose Pippi Longstocking/Robert Plant hairdo makes it hard to imagine anyone would be happy to go to war on his behalf), then (in what is played as a heroic moment) robs a dead knight named Robert of Locksley of his equipment and valuables, deciding to pass himself off as the dead man for as long as he can get away with it. Fully an hour of the movie goes by in which the major challenge is whether or not Robin can make good on his promise to the dying Locksley — to deliver his sword to his family up in Nottingham. Yes, this movie is about as exciting as a UPS run.
Meanwhile, Prince John (a whiny Oscar Isaac) takes advantage of Richard’s death to seize the crown — but he is even more of a jerk than his dead brother. He bickers endlessly with his mother and his chancellor (William Hurt) about taxation, finally deciding to send the evil knight Godfrey (the perpetually scowling Mark Strong, who was also the bad guy in Kick-Ass and Sherlock Holmes) to shake down the country’s landowners with orders to pay up or pay with their lives. Godfrey is secretly working for the French king, but why should we care? It’s not as though we’re given any reason to hope things work out for the mincing, duplicitous John, who is so foolish he actually seem surprised that this marauding psychopath is a double agent. “My friend Godfrey is not the friend I thought he was,” he muses. No kidding.
Nothing else in the movie sparks any reaction other than disbelief. Not the dumb dialogue that veers wildly back and forth between prithee-milady type ye olde speeches, awkward japery, and gratingly contemporary chatter. “Leave no stone unscorched!” goes one typical would-be rousing line. Yep, burn some rocks. That’ll teach em. When Robin first meets Marion, she says, “Plain Robin Longstride? No ‘Sir’?” “No ‘Sir,’ no Ma’am,” he responds. Forsooth, ’tis not funny. When John fires his chancellor, he tells the court the man is leaving “to spend more time with his family.”
The only good thing about this movie is that at least it’s about PEOPLE with PEOPLE in it! I’m so sick and tired of animated movies coming out loaded with computer graphics and special effects. The worst of them was Avatar, a movie about a bunch of militant smurfs. Blue computer-generated characters, what’s not to love? Hopefully, we’ll at least see some more movies that are NOT about comic book superheroes and simply about regular people. And God forbid we should see a new movie about a real-life American hero, like (dare I say it) George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt (who never really had a decent biopic made about his life), or one of about a thousand other great American leaders. Don’t think you can make an exciting and entertaining historical feature movie about a great American personality? I think the people who made “Patton” would argue with you over that.
Hear, Hear. As for Washington, I rather enjoyed his portrayal in the John Adams series.
Some of my history colleagues scorn me for liking the film Memphis Belle, but despite some cliche flaws, it is one of *very* few films portraying air combat correctly. I grow tired of CGI cartoon-fests. They don’t look real, they don’t behave real, they don’t feel real; so why do they think we’ll buy it. (Mainly because so many do.)
Hollywierd only seems to get it right when they are not doing the thinking. Patton was written by liberals, but the writers were so dedicated to accurately portraying the man that they mistakenly made a great film. You mentioned comic-book movies: Watch Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. There’s a reason they were such phenomenal successes. They stayed true to the source. I mentioned John Adams, but Glory, Amazing Grace, and Downfall come to mind as well.
Still, for every good movie there are 15 bad ones. We need Mystery Science Theater 3000 to work overtime.
“You build a country like you build a cathedral — from the ground up,” Robin tells the nobles. Er, thanks, Karl Marx, but no one in 1199 England is asking for a peasant-ocracy.
=============================================================
Always great to see our daily dose of Marxism in each movie, not watching AVATAR was the best decision in my life and I had a feeling this would be another lecture about PC marxiam principles
Golly, Dr. Bones, do you suppose this neospecimen is Yahya b. Maks al-Booty ?
If so, do you think it just a coincidence that Podhóretz Minor got its start in its Daddy’s business scribblin’ about picture shows?
Could this be a regular thing like tadpoles and toads?
Happy days.
Maybe I will just stick with Ironman 2. . . .
Yet, if you took, say, Thomas Love Peacock’s romance, Maid Marian, and filmed it virtually scene for scene, songs included, you’d have a thrilling, entertaining movie—which would still have modern, but subtle, political resonances—as long as you didn’t insist of having shaky camera movements all over the place.
And let’s just say it — Russell Crowe is a dreary, depressing, crude, stupid, heavy-footed, one-dimensional actor. His performance in “Master and Commander” turned Jack Aubrey from a bluff, genial, engaging, sometimes foolish man who is nevertheless a lion in his naval duties into a domineering know-it-all. It must have made viewers wonder why so people read Patrick O’Brien’s Aubrey and Maturin novels.
If I wanted to have a medieval film lecture me about politics, I’d have to stick to Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
King Arthur: I am your king.
Peasant Woman: Well, I didn’t vote for you.
King Arthur: You don’t vote for kings.
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
[Angelic music plays... ]
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Dennis the Peasant: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis the Peasant: You can’t expect to wield supreme power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! If I went around saying I was emperor because some moistened bink lobbed a rapier at me, they’d put me away!
It’s only a flesh wound.
Run away! I unclog my nose in your direction. Go away or I shall taunt you once again you sons of a window dresser.
What a shame. The traditional story done well is just too difficult for Hollywood.
yes, all the reviews for Ridley Scott’s ‘Robin Hood’ are disappointing. Telling a story well is something Ed Zwick still does (Blood Diamond, Defiance), but he is doing the Viagra story instead of Robin Hood. Must be Zwick’s punishment for failing to deliver the dollars with Defiance.
Hambones?
A hambone is an inferior or hyperbolic actor; cf. ham and hamfatter (derived, perhaps, from amateur). I’d argue, however, that Cate Blanchett is actually a rather good actress—when she has a good director, and a well-conceived rôle.
thank you, you’ve saved me a noteworthy sum of money, having decided to miss this flic on reading your review, while i enjoy sci-fi/fantasy i also gave “avatar” a pass for much the same reasons. hollywood rewriting history just ends up a colossal bore. i’ll just wait and hope i’ll still be around for peter jackson’s “hobbit” movie.
Earl Flynn is Robin Hood, thou shalt not have any false Robin Hoods before or after him.
And Olivia de Havilland is Maid Marian. Saw the Adventures of Robin Hood last weekend on TCM. It is still an entertaining movie 72 years after it played in the theaters.
Bummer,
And I was hoping for something along the lines of Gladiator which I thoroughly enjoyed. In fact, one of my all-time favorites.
But like everything, there is a bright side – I won’t waste $18.00 for a bad movie, rotten drink, and stale popcorn, and it will be another year before I have to attend a movie theater.
Six months, NetFlix.
I suppose that every generation gets the “Robin Hood” it deserves and we seem to be deserving less and less since 1938. I also suppose that Maid Marion as proto-feminist amazon is intended to keep pace with Keira Knightly’s slip-of-a-girl, testicle-crushing warrior woman Guinevere from “King Arthur” a few years back. The next version of the story will probably dispense with Robin and merry men altogether in favor of Marion leading an army of female ninjas in establishing a heretofore unknown matriarchal society in 12th century England. One thing Ridley Scott will never be accused of is having a light touch.
Alas, Keira Knightly has already starred in a TV movie as Gwyn, the daughter of Robin Hood and Marion, who helped Prince Philip (the [illegitimate] son of Richard I) replace the naughty King John as rightful King of England (!). What, you’ve never even heard of Philip I of England? Ah, a voice-over at the end of the film helpfully explains that, though King Philip was a wise, benevolent and beloved king, historians just wickedly and willfully left him out of books.
Must admit that I have never heard of this production and, after your summation, never want to hear of it again. When Rowan Atkinson and co. set the first “Blackadder” series in the “court of King Richard IV” they did it for laughs. I have a stong feeling that the producers of the series you describe here were in dead earnest.
I happened to catch the movie about Robin’s daughter, Knightly, and as it progressed I realised why I had never heard of it. It was terrible.
It’s called Princess of Thieves; it also featured Malcolm McDowell, doing his usual evil shtick, as the Sheriff of Nottingham.
i have to say i was annoyed when i learned that this time maid marion would be a bad-ass. I mean come on, what is the point of watching a historical movie if you are going to put in an ahistorical feminist element into it.
i liked it better when he was the caption of a ship crewed with even a few kids. you would watch, and go “dang that is f—ed up.” and it was, but they didn’t pull punches.
Unless your vision is “dark” you can’t make it in Hollywood. But a dark vision is a dead-end cul-de-sac vision and that’s where Ridley Scott’s been spinning his wheels for years.
The Maid Marion as Joan of Arc thing was a truly stupid Jump-the-Shark blunder, especially since it highlights the trailer. Almost nobody could have possibly reacted positively to that sight. I’m astonished at the huge sums that the movie industry throws at projects without any thought; who do they think they are, the government?
The last post-WWII version of Robin Hood that was any good was Mel Brook’s Men in Tights. Kevin Costner’s attempt was awful, but then Costner is notorious for ruining movie projects after Dances With Wolves.
Sorry to hear the Robin Hood movie is a dud. The 1938 Michael Curtiz production is one of my favorites, so I’ll just watch that again (for about the thousanth time).
I watched Avatar the other day, though, and I enjoyed it. I thought it was pretty good. Not great, but o.k. Killer special effects.
Wait, what?
“Nearly 100 minutes of the film pass before there is an apparent point to Robin’s drifting life: He finds out his late father was a pioneer for democracy and vows to fight for a charter that will give individuals full rights. This is kind of inconvenient in that it means Robin is now fighting on behalf of the swinish John (against the French), but the movie think it’s being clever by tying Robin Hood to the Magna Carta that was signed in 1215. This is about as wobbly a concept in the political and historical senses as Cate-the-warrior is physically.
The Magna Carta was created by barons for barons, not for the underclass. They would have just laughed if a working-class slob like Robin Hood had suggested that he should be their political and military leader. “You build a country like you build a cathedral — from the ground up,” Robin tells the nobles. Er, thanks, Karl Marx, but no one in 1199 England is asking for a peasant-ocracy.”
I’m on board with the historical inaccuracy angle (though if you know anything about Hollywood, you can’t really expect anything else) and you’re exactly right about the Magna Carta not being for the common man. I just don’t understand how Robin’s historically inaccurate statement is a call for Marxism – it just seems like a generic call for democracy, e.g. “don’t forget the majority of the people out there.” If anything, it sounds like the Tea Party movements reminding “official Washington” that this country belongs to the people.
Then again, I haven’t seen the movie yet. In context, maybe it made more sense – I’m just curious, it doesn’t seem that way to me just based on that quote alone.
I haven’t seen this yet, the landing craft I saw in a trailer made me laugh, but not enough to pay to see them again. It’s not the first time I’ve seen WWII landing craft as anachronisms; they did it in “Asterix Goes to Britain” in the 80s–a cartoon where the Romans mostly have American accents while the Gauls have French and the Britons…British. Funny movie by the bye.
The whole revolutionary aspect of this movie is out of place, but not THAT far out of place. Simon de Montfort is only a few years in the future, and a few years past that the Declaration of Arbroath. And there were plenty of radicals in the church who were down on bishops and noblemen, and also there was the remnants of Anglo-saxon Common Law that Henry II brought back into being so all the elements of the American Revolution were there–except for Adam Smith. The only real capitalists in that time were Jews.
As far as Cate Blanchett wearing armor, there were women who wore armor in those days besides Joan of Arc, rare though it was. It was illegal, which is why we know anything about it; the women in question got caught.
Of course, nobody had visors on their helmets in 1215 AD but hey, they also have LANDING CRAFT in this flick. They certainly aren’t even trying for any accuracy. I don’t mind anachronism if they’re just playing; “A Knight’s Tale” was totally goofy, but then it was supposed to be. This isn’t supposed to be goofy, judging by the trailers. Still, I’ll forgive Crowe almost anything because “Master and Commander” was the least anachronistic movie I’ve ever seen. Pert near perfect. It’s just too bad modern ‘liberals’ can’t seem to be open-minded enough to tell a story that doesn’t align with their prejudices. They hate guns so much they can’t believe that guns are a good portion of the reason for equality of the sexes today, but in the middle ages the differences were extreme, because all the weapons were all muscle-powered, even crossbows. Feminists can’t stand the thought that a little .32 pistol concealed in a big dress is more a deterrent than disapproval.
It’s too bad, this is the first movie my ole dad was wanting to see in a long time. But LANDING CRAFT!!!
Hollywoodlandland just cant help itself its full of left wing PC MC Green Nazis Islamophile moonbats and LBGT’ers . So it HAS to insert Feminist, Racist, Gay loving, anti Capitalist, antsemitic, Islamophile stupidity in every movie even HISTORICAL ones . I mean who ever heard of a BLACK MAN and a MOHAMMEDAN no less as Rabin Hoods bestest most loyal most true friend ever as you had in the Kevin Costner abomination of a movie and Russel Crowe’s Robin Hood just returned from the CRUSADES telling everyone to ‘Love Islam and get rid of the aristocracy and let the peasants rule’ .
Insanity just left wing moonbat BRAINWASHING INSANITY.
Black Guinevere in TV’s Merlin. JTS for English folklore for me. Blacks in Arthurian romance other than as the saracen knight etc. will become acceptable when Jeremy Irons can play Shaka Zulu. Fair’s fair. Or not.
What killed it for me is when the director tried to insert current Socialist politics into a film where none exist; I will not see this version of Robin Hood anytime soon. I’d rather see the Walt Disney Robin Hood than this trash. The bad reviews just reinforce my opinion Ridley Scott needs to retire or make another Alien film. Either way, no one will see his film.
Don’t plan on seeing this Robin Hood as it appears little more accurate than Men In Tights, but am thrilled to have Mr. Boot verify my assumption made to friends at work: somehow, in 1199′s milieu of wooden bows, wood arrows and hand to hand sword fights, there was going to be a massive gasoline-fueled Hollywood effects department explosion.
Glad also to hear of my other pet peeves: anachronistic dialog and battle hardened princesses.
Hey, I could see Lady Diana swinging a broadsword or a mace with the best of them while wearing a suit of armor, can’t you?
Next up, machine guns at the Alamo.
Richard Armitage plays Guy Gisbourn (the Godfrey character probably) in the BBC series Robin Hood. While the Robin Hood series is not great, Armitage is something I have never seen before. Everytime he looks at, touches, kisses Maid Marian I gasp with huge pleasure (nearly instant orgasm). I have been mildly interested in other actors, but Armitage is an obsession. Go to Youtube and type in Richard Armitage, girls, and you are in for the treat of your life.
He is also superb in North and South (smoldering), Spooks 2008 & 2009 series (haunted and tatooed by eight years in Russian prisons), Strike Back (a new series), The Vicar of Denby Christmas Special, interviews, reading bedtime stories, anything. Those lips, those eyes, that nose, the complexion…I just want to bring him home. He is one netflix where I first saw him in North and South which I watched for a solid month every day all four hours.
Wasn’t that the series where Guy violently stabs Marian to death?
Right, it was a crime of passion and Guy is certain Robin Hood made him do it.
…and I still love him, maybe even more, because he loved her sooooooooooo much. Robin Hood is a little boy compared to the haunted, smoldering, spark of Guy’s intense passion. Marian could have had all of him, not just his longing for her. stupid woman
Mr. Armitage, I recommend in the strongest possible terms investing in a loaded revolver for your bedside.
You have to keep in mind that Robin hood was a fictional mythical character and there are dozens of variations of this myth in Europe. The movie makers didn’t necessarily change the original story of Robin hood but put together different pieces of this myth from different sources. As far as commoners in twelfth century England not being able to object to tyranny, you have to keep in mind that the freemasons started out as stone cutters and after the crusades became one of the strongest societies in Europe as the movie suggests. By some accounts freemasons were behind the french revolution several hundred years later so the movie does not necessarily deviate from historical norm but simply delves deeper behind the scene to present a better glimpse of who this mythical character could be. I have to give the producers and “A” for historical research.
Well, in “Gladiator, one character showed another A PRINTED FLYER ADVERTISING GLADIATOR COMBAT! So medieval landing craft aren’t too far off the mark!
Can this movie be as bad as the Robin Hood one with that awful “actor” Kevin Costner? If Allen Rickman is in it, though, maybe it could be worth watching. Years later, I still chuckle at how halarious his Sheriff of Knottingham character was.
I just saw the New Robin Hood, and quite frankly you are very off the mark. it is based upon real English historical events.Richard, John, Eleanor and Phillip are very well respresented by what is true history, even down to their personalities. The charter that is also spoken of, where Robin’s father is murdered truly also existed, but it was put forward by a nobleman Simon de Montvale not a stonemason. It did talk about liberty and freedom for all men and did become the founding document to the Magna Carta. That the Magna Carta was just about the Barons does not dilute the fact that it happened and then became the basis for our own Bill of Rights. As far as the movie itself, Russell Crow is very much what we used to call a man’s man and Cate Blanchett is quite the thespian. It never hurts to try to figure out the truth behind the legend.
Well, lets see here. Are you sure you aren’t referring to “Simon de Montfort” when you speak of “Simon de Montvale?” Simon de Montfort (1208 – 1265) was the Earl of Leicester and the brother-in-law of King Henry III, the son of Prince (later King) John. De Montfort was an Anglo-French nobleman who was at the center of the brutal internecine baronial politics brought about by Henry III’s weak leadership and the inconclusive wars in France. De Montfort was at the head of a group of barons who, in 1265, captured Henry and his son and set up a form of regency over England. De Montfort called a national assembly to advise him which (for the first time) included elected representatives from towns and “boroughs.” However this was an obdient body intended to support de Montfort’s authority and survival. Historians debate whether “Simon de Montfort’s Parliament” is actually a predecessor of the present institution. De Montfort was killed in battle later that year by a force led by Prince Edward who had escaped from captivity.
As to Magna Carta, this famous document was intended to place limits on the King’s power but only for the benefit of the baronial class. It mentions nothing about any of the freedoms we associate with the Bill of Rights. (As soon as he could King John repudiated it.) As a matter of fact England doesn’t have a “constitution” in our sense since there is no concise written document that summarizes the freedoms Englishmen eventually came to enjoy. The English “constitution” is a product of the slow accretion of the common law going back to the 8th Century preserved in various tribal customs, traditions, royal pronouncements, parliamentary statutes and court decisions. To speak of one man as the source of all modern Anglo-American liberties is too much, even for a motion picture. That’s why Warner’s 1938 version of “Robin Hood” will always be the best. They simply set up a great story with wonderful actors and got on with it.
I agree, independent patriot, I thought the film was interesting and was historically accurate in many ways. Mark Steyn brought up an interesting take on the Robinhood myth, saying that the hero, Robinhood, was the original Tea Party patriot: he took what was stolen by the “rich” (King John’s government) and gave it back to its rightful owners, the merchant class. I saw the movie in those terms.
Did John Boot just flame on? Didn’t you like the Merry men Sir?
What? No “Robin Hood: Men In Tights”? Oh yeah,,,,too politically incorrect to make these days.
Well, I think we can all agree that it is a flawed film, but given the gargantuan attempt at the historical context, the basically badly written script just got overwhelmed.
And let’s face it…the was Russell Crowe’s “dream” to play Robin Hood (he was also a Producer here) and teaming with Scott was like trying to capture lightening in a bottle a second time.
I’ll give them an “A” for the effort, “C” for the actual results.
This is not uncommon for movies these days….it’s just not that easy to make great ones, even for those with the most experience at it…
Mr. Boot:
I just saw it at the drive-in last night, (yes, I live where there still are such cherished hallmarks of American culture!).
You’re over-intellectualizing the work. This is, after all, a Ridley Scott picture.
That MEANS that it’s a costume period “swords and arrows” piece,(Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven).
Anyone who goes to a Ridley Scott movie looking for deep and intellectually challenging plots are as pathetic, in their own way, as someone who expects car chases and explosions at a Woody Allen movie.
It’s an open secret that Hollywood has done plumb run out of ideas for movie scripts…they’ve done a remake of “The Karate Kid” forchrissakes…what more evidence do you need?
Relax, have some popcorn and watch the dude get that crossbow-bolt shot through his eye socket.
It went over big with the kiddies. And that’s what counts.
Saw it last nite. It was a bit jumbled, true, but there were good parts. Amusing part to me was the spitting. First time I saw spittle flying from a loudly-speaking actor’s mouth, I thought it was either an accident or they were going for some type of accuracy in crudeness. But then it happened again. And again. And again. It was a virtual downpour of spittle. I thought to myself “someone must be eating dill pickles on the set”.
Building a country from the ground up = Karl Marx?
What the hell are you smoking, Johnny? I’ll concur that it was a ridiculous line when set in twelfth century England, but FYI, a shit ton of us join the Tea Party because we believe a country SHOULD be governed from the bottom up – as opposed to governed by some elitists at the top whose orders go down to the rest of us. Karl Marx my ass.
Wow, a movie review site just for Tea Partiers. This is almost as wacko as Sarah Palin on The Learning Channel. If this bunch hates it, Robin Hood must be a good movie — now I’m definitely going to rent it!