Robin Hood Reviews
I'm all for a new take on an old story. But Scott and his screenwriter, Brian Helgeland, work so mightily to turn Robin into a stolidly noble, pre-notorious version of himself that they forget to make him at all magical. Rousing. A hero of the gle
The Robin Hood of myth and moviedom is for the most part AWOL. Why should we have to wait until the last five minutes to see Crowe crack a smile, let alone split an arrow?
It doesn't breathe new life into a genre as did Gladiator, Scott's first pairing with Russell Crowe, but it's a brawny reimagining of a beloved old myth, a period popcorn movie turned out with professionalism and gusto.
The problem with Russell Crowe's new take on the legend is that it has one muddy boot in history and the other in fantasy. The middling result is far from a bull's-eye.
It's an ersatz epic about men in fights -- grim fights, grinding battles, clanking combats that are repetitive and, in a movie that runs 140 minutes, all but endless.
Robin Hood is a high-tech and well made violent action picture using the name of Robin Hood for no better reason than that it's an established brand not protected by copyright.
As in so many summer behemoths, the real stars are the projectiles-in this case, arrows with their own point-of-view shots, zipping through the air and finding their targets with pinpoint accuracy.
Robin Hood boasts graphic battle scenes and ingenious intrigue, a sense of history that may not be accurate but feels authentic, and a love story that smartly plays with gender and Hollywood stereotypes.
It's a little too obvious and ham-handed in places to be a really good movie, but any film that lasts two hours and 20 minutes without seeming like a long, hard slog can't be all bad.
This physically imposing picture brings abundant political-historical dimensions to its epic canvas, yet often seems devoted to stifling whatever pleasure audiences may have derived from the popular legend.