Robin Hood: Movie Review
By Mali Elfman
I begin this review with a sigh… Ridley Scott’s latest action-adventure ride Robin Hood starring Russel Crowe and Cate Blanchett has a number of amazing aspects to it, but as a whole it’s just not enjoyable. These are the reviews I hate because I can see the craftsmanship that went into the film and I want to love it, but I don’t. Technically all the pieces are there, it was well made, well put together, but with a run-time of 140 minutes and too many details, it felt like sitting through a partially real history lesson with some amazing action sequences.
Lets take a deeper look inside…
The Players:
- Director: Ridley Scott
- Writers: Screenplay by Brian Helgeland and story by Brian Helgeland, Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris
- Producer: Ridley Scott, Russell Crowe and Brian Grazer
- Actors: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Max von Sydow, William Hurt, Mark Strong, Oscar Isaac, Danny Huston, Kevin Durand, Matthew Macfadyen, Mark Addy and Scott Grimes
- Music by: Marc Streitenfeld
- Cinematography by: John Mathieson
The Good:
- The Shots: The wide shots of the cavalry riding their horses along the edges of the mountains and going into battle are stunning. Overall the film had a beautiful Renaissance tone to it and the texture of the visuals were so rich that you felt immersed in the world and heavily in need of a shower when it was over.
- The Details: If you’re a fan of history, you’re in luck! You’ll get a free (slight inaccurate) history lesson! If there’s one thing this film isn’t missing it’s lots of historical references and good ol’ fashioned lore for you to follow! Sadly all the details do lead to some problems (See “Too Many Facts”).
- The Action: As much as I HATE watching horses flip over, there were some impressive fight sequences and the grand finale was quite enjoyable.
- Set-Up: I don’t know if this is a good thing, but they did set it up for a solid sequel despite the fact that all the set up itself was rather dull.
The Bad:
- Run-time: The film was 2 hours and 20 minutes and I felt every single one of them… especially at the midway point. There’s just no need for a film to be this long. Yes there were a lot of details, but find a more clever way of adding them all or leave them out!
- Too Many Facts… That were not always 100% accurate. Example A: King Richard only ever spoke French because he was too lazy and conceited to learn English. In fact he even publicly called it a “lesser language.” In the film, many people speak French but not the King. Overall there were a LOT of facts (some of which were accurate) and references that you knew were important but couldn’t keep completely straight unless you attend the Renaissance Fair yearly and are obsessed with this time.
- The Relationship: I hate saying this because I think Crowe is an amazing actor and I’d gladly bow down to Blanchett, but I didn’t buy the build between Marion and Robin. It felt like one minute things were one way and the next thing we know they’re in love! For all the details added, it seemed like we missed out on something between the two of them.
- Bland: This movie is just that and sadly for an “action-adventure” film, this is one of the worst things for it to be.
Overall:
The hard part about critiquing this movie is that it is by no means a bad movie, it has all the right elements, but it’s just boring. It’s basically just one long set up for a sequel I would like to see, but an experience I could have done without.
Rating: 6.5/10
Robin Hood will be in theaters May 14th!
Photos:
Trailer:
Friday, May 14, 2010 2:13AM
You are damn right!
I wanted to love this movie, but I couldn't as well!
Lets hope there will be director's cut, like for all the good Scott-movies", with an hour or so more footage!
And even more, lets hope this only the beginning and there will be a sequel!
With these two conditions fulfilled it might be a good movie in the end!
Friday, May 14, 2010 8:01AM
[...] StoriesTrailersReviewsInterviewsRobin Hood: Movie ReviewMovie Releases: Robin Hood, Letters to Juliet, Just WrightFriday, May 14, 2010 8:01AM – By Anet [...]
Saturday, May 15, 2010 10:26AM
I wanted to love this movie as well, but I couldn't.
By the way, I want to point something: I'm not only a history fan, but a history student, and I must say that I've never seen any film so careless about history. Almost every fact is made up. Almost every reference is false. Many things are plain wrong. And they simplified the politics so much that it's shameful.
You don't need to attend a Renaissence fair yearly (by the way, I hope you know that the Renaissance happened in 1400-1600, while this film is set in 1199-1200, so there's no room for Renaissance here) to know that half of France was part of the Crown of England at that time. So, why would the king of France bother invading England when he has more important things to do, like conquering the part of France owned by king John…? Actually, Philippe II is known to be one of the best kings of France because he took over most of the English lands in France.
What happens, people today are too stupid to understand it?
Also, what fact did you miss? The plot was very simple (too simple and too made-up): Richard ruined the country, John has to pay for it and he raises taxes. Godfrey allied with France to raise taxes brutally and thus make the barons rebel against England. Quite simple, I think. And in the end, it had no emotion and you didn't care about it.
Bad film, terrible history lesson and horrible plot.
Monday, May 17, 2010 2:51AM
Before writing anything else, I must confess I am French.
Then I am going to paraphrase all of you : "I wanted to love this movie, but I couldn't as well! ".
Combat scenes are truely epic. Alas, the pictures and even the music reminded me the Lord of the Ring (episodes concerning the Rohan Horsemen). Nothing new under the Sun.
When I left the cinema, I really wondered if English people were currently fearing a French (or Euro currency ? Or Brussels decret ?) landing on their coasts. Propagandly (sorry for this neologism), Eisenstein was not really stronger against the Teutonics, in 1938. But at that time, nazis were threatening the USSR.
Then I agree with William Oakham : "I've never seen any film so careless about history". Personnaly, I am just an history fan, not a history student. I could describe many (often despising) mistakes made about the huggly, bloody, merciless froggies, but it would be pretentious.
I also agree it is a film, a film about a semi-legend, but… But didn't Scott take the French Landing from "the Longest Day" ? Wow ! All those Landing crafts ! Only bunkers are missing. Did Englishmen really burnt their dead ? I thought no christian people did so until recently ? Maybe an old pagan reminiscence.
After Christofor Colombo and Blade Runner, a deception…
Wednesday, May 19, 2010 4:37PM
Not so much replying to William Oakham than looking to pick his history student brains…
I was surprised to see landing craft – if they actually existed during the period the film was set, would they have been so technically advanced? They seemed modern in comparison to the ships. Also, I was a bit surprised to see a cremation. I too thought this mode of body disposal was "un-Christian".
One more thing, was I the only one to be surprised to hear Lady Loxley asked what her Christian name was?
Wednesday, May 26, 2010 7:49AM
I appreciate the cinematic effects of the movie and the untold story of Robin Hood, I Like the way Robin of the Hood pretend to be Sir Robert Loxley and Luckily made Home to Nottingham and Discovered his Past. I never forget the words “Rise And Rise Again Until Lambs Become Lions” which means “never give up”.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:45AM
I'm fairly sure the John DID sign the Magna Carta so the scene backing off his word was strange.
Since French was the language of the English court and crown from the time of William in 1066 I'm not surprised that Richard only spoke a few words and enough sub titles are enough.
I wasn't aware the Phillip tried to land a fleet in England and am also unaware of any vessels of that period that resemble the ones used to offload the mounted knights, they looked like WWII LSTs.
I love a good costume drama that incidentally introduces me to history. There was a lot of discussion of the historic accuracy within the theater. I particularly liked the comment about the weird plowing.
Saturday, May 29, 2010 11:01PM
we loved the movie, whilst it was a little long overall we thought the scenary, the horses, costumes ect… were great.. afterall it is just a movie a story put in pictures. Did laugh though near final scenes with the mounting mass's on hoseback heading to the beach and the car tracks noticed on the rolling english green countryside!!
Saturday, June 5, 2010 11:32AM
King Philippe DID NOT invade England. As mentioned in an earlier post, the politics are simplified to the point of being irrelevant to real life. When King Richard the Lion Heart died he left no Heir, those suitable to claim the crown were his younger brother and his nephew. Richard's younger brother made deals with King Philippe (giving back english land in the anjou province of france) to become King. The other contender for the crown ( I think his name was Thomas of anjou) was not happy but he dissappeared with out a trace. It was suspected King John murdered him. King john's french Barons were not happy (thats right, he was king in both england and france).
Saturday, June 5, 2010 11:33AM
Somehow, maybe his own ineptitude, King John lost the land that he owned in France (Normandy). This loss meant also a massive loss of income. King john thus increased his income by raising the rates of existing taxes whilst also introducing new taxes. he also rented out england and ireland to pope Innocent in what's known as a fiefdom. The Barons had enough of King john's taxes and gathered together to usurp his powers. An interesting point is that they rallied behind the FRENCH PRINCE louis. Its important to make note of this because it shows that at that time the Barons weren't nationalist, unlike what was shown in the movie. Some of what I said might be wrong but its closer to the truth than the Robin Hood movie. I feel its important to make the distinctions between fact and fictiion, especially when they are mixed together as much as they are in this movie. I don't know about you, but when I watched the movie I thought I was seeing mostly fact with some fiction when it was actually the other way around
Saturday, June 5, 2010 1:30PM
I thought this movie was bloody brilliant. The music; cinematography,period costumes,horse flesh,visual landscape beauty,Ms. Blanchett. I was held enthralled – best $4.20 I've ever spent. Was it perfect – absolutely not – however, it was perfect enough for me. A production of immense proportions.
Going to the local theatre to view a second time.
Sunday, June 6, 2010 5:14PM
The movie was OK, but not as good as I expected. The true dissapointment came with the historical inaccuracies. I mean, the producers of Robin Hood, Men in Tights never made any claims to being historically accurate, while the producers of this movie did. I saw a TV interview where they talked about the extensive research they did. My only question is, why didn't they use that research when writing the script. Higgins landing crafts, a French invasion force, masses of archers on horseback, John not signing the Magna Carta, English natonalism, and on and on. Somehow in the past 1000 years Richard even learned English.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010 5:04AM
And I think its important to realise this and highlight the fact its innaccurate. As Ken said. claims are being made by people like russel Crowe that this movie is historically accurate. I think this is a big problem because most of us are lazy when it comes to checking these things. the result is that when people see this movie they think they learned a bit of history, but they havn’t!!
Saturday, June 19, 2010 7:25PM
One thing which should be noted is that " you cannot learn history through a movie" I would not even discuss on it. There is too much falsification of history. At the end it falls in the name of entertainment.
Even educational channels, transmit entertainment on historical matters, believe it or not. you want to know history go to library and read.
Saturday, August 28, 2010 10:41AM
I always thought Ridley Scott is one of the best directors. I´m truly disappointed … moreover… while watching this movie I got totally angry. In fact the people in the world who have watched this believe in the historical correctness of this movie.
Christians never burnt their dead! Marion is able to fight with a sword made of iron with one hand! In fact she wouldn´t be able to control the sword with 2 hands!! The landing crafts look like the crafts of the world war! Marion must not help Hood to take off his chain mail! Kids who are able to beat knights! Marion – able to cleave a shield….
I have never read the book Robin Hoob but I feal sure that the book does not include that much shit!… Ridley Scott you failed and people believe what they see….
Please apologize my english…
Saturday, March 5, 2011 3:07PM
I've nevr watched this looks rubbish! o_o
Sunday, April 3, 2011 2:31AM
I thought things were going to be difficult in the historical accuracy stakes right from the start when in the opening written intro’s it was stated that this all took place at the beginning of the 12th century. When I went to school (in the second half of the 20th century) the years 1199 and 1200 qualified as the last two years of the 12th century!
I saw the Higgins boats and figured that the producers just didn’t want to tackle the actual way they disembarked horses 800 years ago.