After watching Ridley Scott’s new film “Robin Hood” one word stuck in my head, ‘timeless’. The problem is however that the ‘timeless’ I have been thinking about is much different than the ‘timeless’ of other critics, that is how they use the term. The ‘timeless’ in my mind is not of praise but rather of criticism. By saying that Ridley Scott has made a ‘timeless’ film I mean the movie is such that it could have been made at any time in the past. If I was told that the movie was made 20 years ago I would have nothing to prove whoever told me that wrong. It isn’t to say that “Robin Hood” was directed poorly necessarily, but rather that Ridley Scott really didn’t do anything new with his film.
Sometimes ‘nothing special’ directing in a film can be saved by innovation and outstanding work in other areas; unfortunately this isn’t the case in “Robin Hood”. Like the directing, there really isn’t anything horrible about plot but once again there really isn’t anything good about the plot either. The majority of the film is just people riding around on horses, not really doing anything; mix this with failed cinematography and the film falls short on two more levels. As I remember, Robin Hood, or Robin of the Hood, was a young common man who lived in the woods and stole from the evil rich to give to the deserving poor. Russell Crowe’s Robin is Robin Longstride, army archer turned drifter, turned knight, turned farmer, turned knight again and then turned war hero. Although Robin’s hatred of ‘the man’ is prominent in the movie there is very little of the ‘green suit guy’ who ‘robs king’s men’ and helps the poor. The movie strays from the classic story of Robin Hood to more of deflated and annoying version of Mel Gibson’s “Braveheart” (with more of a PG feel). The cinematography isn’t bad but the visuals come off as if they are in the 21st century rather than in the 12th century.
The actors in “Robin Hood” are given very little to work with, yet somehow Russell Crowe manages to mess his parts up. All this week Crowe has been criticized for his poor English accent (I think the critique I heard was that it sounded like an Australian who frequently visits Ireland). The rest of the actors are suffice but about 30 minutes into the film a regular movie goer is caught asking themselves, “Why is Cate Blanchett in this movie?” The very talented actress really takes a limiting role in this movie. I don’t recommend watching this movie... in the theatre. Rent “Braveheart” and “Robin Hood: Men in Tights” and the pair should replace this movie for a fraction of the cost. For those of you that don’t believe me, if you do decide to go see the movie below are a list of things to watch for.
- The children with the masks at the start of the movie are never explained, you just sort of forget about them (something that Ridley Scott has done as well)
- It might seem like a confusing plot at first, usually a sign that there is a complicated twist, there isn’t! Just keep watching and you’ll see that was just really poorly set up.
- This movie has the plot of TV series jammed into about 2.5 hours.
- Yes, Robin Hood was involved in the Crusades and even admits in the movie to butchering innocent people; he truly is the hero of the movie.
- Why do flashbacks always get better with time? Memory doesn’t really work like that.
- It is clear that the writers of the French parts in the movie were a grade 1 French class. You will notice that all the French people in the film speak in one word sentences.
- Why is Robin like 50 years old? Back at the turn of the century (not this turn the last) people lived until they were like 25 years old. Also I have always pictured Robin Hood as a young man.
- It does not really become clear why others are so in love with Robin. Director Scott just wants you to assume there is a lot more that he hasn’t shown I guess.
- Don’t hold your breath for an explanation of the ‘Hood’ title in Robin Hood, it never comes.
0 comments:
Post a Comment