Movie Review: Robin Hood

In 2000, director Ridley Scott and actor Russell Crowe teamed up to create the epic blockbuster “Gladiator.” Ten years (and more than ten pounds) later, Crowe stars in another attempted epic about a man fighting to right wrongs and protect his own. “Robin Hood” hits theaters this Friday.

The movie doesn’t follow the legendary Robin Hood figure we know so well. It imagines Robin Hood as a real person in a real historical time and creates a narrative of how he became the legendary do-gooder outlaw. Some of the legendary magic is lost as Scott aims for a historical fiction prequel rather than an Errol Flynn type lark.

Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe), an archer, journeys home from a crusade to the Holy Land with King Richard the Lionheart, pillaging the countryside of France as they go. Just as success seems around the corner, wouldn’t you know it, the king is killed, throwing the army into panic. Robin Longstride’s chance encounter with a dying nobleman leads him to assume his identity and travel to his castle. There Robin meets the dead man’s wife, Marion (Cate Blanchett) and his aged father. The three cook up a scheme to preserve Marion’s right to the land by Robin’s continued impersonation of the true heir. Luckily, none of the villagers seem to notice their master morphed into Russell Crowe.

With Robin’s old war buddies (Little John, Will Scarlett, and Allan A’Dayle) and with a jolly priest (Friar Tuck) in town, it looks to be a peaceful imposter-ship, but there’s trouble afoot. A traitor has convinced the selfish and foppish new King John to brutally tax the northern kingdom. When the nobles finally rise against the king, France will take advantage of the distraction and invade. Simple, see?

By the time all this backstory has been accomplished, we’re already forty minutes into a 140 minute movie. And it’s just getting started.  We’ve still got a battle to fight, arrows to unleash, kisses to kiss, and sundry bad guys to get their comeuppance, not to mention setting up characters for the anticipated sequel.

On and on it plods. Here the French sack a village, setting fire to men, women, and children. There, the French invade a beach. Now feral children, presumably future Merry Men, whoop their way through a forest with longbows and loincloths. All this is punctuated by the obligatory scenes of Saxon drinking and singing around the bonfire.

It’s too much and yet not enough. The wonderful characters of the legends feel as flat as stickers on a page. We expect the delight of getting to know them in a new way, but it feels like a party where you glimpse an old friend but never speak. We don’t even get the fun capers of robbing from the rich to give to the poor. It happens once, briefly, and without humor.

Robin and Marion do the requisite angry-sparring-partners to lovers dance, but their hearts aren’t in it. They lack chemistry. Blanchett’s Marion is very 2010, a woman who runs the manor and its farms, fends off unwanted advances with a clever sneer, and manages to grab a sword and dispatch trained, armored knights who outweigh her by several stone. No one would dare call her “Maid Marion.” They’d get a withering glare.

It’s a shame. The cinematography is lush and epic, full of green hillsides, rolling seas, and galloping horses. We’ve seen it before, most notably in Gladiator, from the same director Ridley Scott. When a movie works, it adds depth to the film. Sadly, it’s wasted here. Also wasted are some great lines about liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. It’s been a while since I’ve heard an inspiring speech in which the oppressed salt of the earth only want the freedom to “live by the sweat of their brows.” That’s a sentiment I could get behind.

When strong acting, a good script, powerful themes, and beautiful filming come together, you get an epic tale. When there’s too much of everything and they don’t connect, you get “Robin Hood.”

And on the way out of the theater, everyone will be saying, “Well, it’s no Gladiator.”