When it comes to fairytales, myths, and
legends each one has a one line phrase or
summary of what the lesson should be. Beauty
and the Beast says that beauty can be only
skin deep. Lord of the Rings shows that
even the smallest person can do the most
courageous thing. Robin Hood has instilled
the idea that everyone should be treated
as equals and with fairness. But what if
you took away the “moral of the story”
message from each of these, what would you
be left with? Beauty and the Beast would
just be about a pretty chick that has to
live with a jerk. Lord of the Rings would
turn into a tale of endless wandering around
middle earth. Strip away the big point of
Robin Hood, and you have Ridley Scott’s
Robin Hood.
Despite what the trailers lead you to believe,
this Robin Hood movie is about his origin;
how he became the outlaw we all know and
love. Set at the turn of the 12th century,
the English crusade is at an end, and Robin
Longstride (Russell Crowe) is one of the
archers for King Richard’s army. Through
a series of unfortunate and unusual circumstances,
Longstride becomes the protector of the
small provincial town of Nottingham and
must earn the trust of the extremely independent
Marion Loxley (Cate Blanchett). With the
French looking for a chance to invade, and
Prince John losing popularity, it is up
to Longstride rise up and protect the country
he loves.
First and foremost, I want to say that there
are some good things about this film. The
action scenes are very intense, captivating,
and intriguing. Each battle is a glimpse
into the war strategies of the British and
of the French during that time period, and
it is very well thought out. The only downside
is the fact that the fight scenes are few
and far between. Since this movie is following
Robin when he was a law-abiding citizen,
there was not a plethora of opportunities
for him to fight outside of a warzone. The
acting on Crowe and Blanchett’s part
was great of course, but in no way did either
of their roles stretch them to be a character
that they have not played before. I have
already seen Crowe portray a man who has
to stand up for what he believes in, even
if it is a big bad government. Blanchett
has done the role of a tough-shell outside,
warm-hearted inside female in films past.
The one actor that stood out the most from
the pack for his acting job was Oscar Isaac
as Prince John. He portrays the rude royal
in such a way that even his mere presence
in a scene makes you seethe with anger.
If Crowe and Blanchett could have tried
harder to make me believe who they were
and stretch their talents, the acting certainly
would have gone to the next level. The plot
of Robin Hood is simple enough to follow,
and not anything too complicated, but the
fact that there is no “robbing from
the rich to give to the poor” happening
in this film, it is not the Robin Hood story
we all know and love.
Robin Hood is rated PG-13 for violence including
intense sequences of warfare, and some sexual
content. Since it is a war movie set in
medieval times, there is violence that is
expected in battle, but not gratuitous.
The sexual content is mild and brief between
Prince John and a French femme. It is fleeting
and nothing is ever shown, just giggles
are heard beneath the covers… before
his mother, the Queen of England, walks
in to break up the party. This film is fine
for the over-thirteen crowd, but they might
have trouble dealing with the length of
it and the slow pacing it has at points.
I would recommend this film to the older
crowd who enjoys origin stories, despite
the fact that his film falls short of being
an epic movie.
I give Robin Hood two out of five arrows.
Take the yeast out of bread and you have
flat, one dimensional wafers, while it might
satiate your hunger, you wouldn’t
choose to eat it. Take the Hood out of Robin,
and you have this film.
In
theaters 5:14:10
