Robin Hood 2010 -- My thoughts
May. 27th, 2010 01:32 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
olde_fashionedSo after what seems like Ye Very Longe Tyme, I've seen a movie in-theaters that didn't altogether suck, yet at the same time had a few serious flaws. Ridley Scott's most recent epic Robin Hood puts a very different spin on a story everyone grows up knowing by heart. I'll just give a brief recap and concentrate on mentioning the things that struck me, and throw in a few pictures for visual appeal (read: COSTUMES) and interest.
TONS of spoilers behind the cut! ;-)
The audience first meets Russell Crowe's character, Robin Longstride (as we are quickly informed), on a French battlefield in a superbly wrought battle sequence that hearkens back to Ridley Scott's 2000 epic Gladiator. While I'm by no means a fan of either Scott or Crowe, the latter may certainly be depended on for excellent acting, and the former for his askew political views and self-professed loathing of Christianity. As is to be expected, this movie fits the pattern and makes anti-Christian statements (and throws in a bit of socialism for good measure), though thankfully they're not as painfully overt as they could have been.
After a few rapid-fire scenes involving the question of his loyalty to King Richard and both potentially misplaced honesty in one instance, and wrongfully insulted honesty in another, Robin and his closest comrades find themselves fleeing for England after the death of the king. Barring any suspicions on the part of the audience of this being a trick (I know I certainly didn't buy it completely at first), Richard the Lionhearted isn't coming back at the end of the story to save the day and set everything to rights.
Stumbling upon an English-led French ambush (headed by the uber-evil traitor Godfrey) intended to murder Richard, who unbeknownst to the French is already dead, Robin and his men decide to wax heroic and defend what little is left of the English contingent secretly charged with the mission of conveying the fallen king's crown to his brother in England.
It is here that Robin Longstride meets the wounded and dying Sir Robert Loxley, who begs that his sword be taken back to his father in Nottingham. He left without his father's blessing and we are promised juicy familial dysfunction should Robin carry out the man's wishes, which we know he will, because you can't have Robin Hood without Nottingham.
Robin does indeed agree, but he goes a step further and decides to impersonate chivalry by donning the garments and armor of the fallen men surrounding him and use the dead Richard's crown as his ticket back to England. (Part of me couldn't get past the idea of a LOW-CLASS YEOMAN dressing up as a KNIGHT. Wasn't that like a huge no-no back in the day?!? I can imagine Robin getting a heck of a lot more than stuck in the stocks for such a crime...)
Once Robin (now dangerously masquerading as Sir Robert Loxley) gets to England, delivers the crown to a suitably evil, adulterous, and in once scene shockingly naked (thank God the camera spared us the view he gave his lady mother) Prince John, he heads up to Nottingham to fulfill his duty and honour his promise. Once he gets there, he's in for a series of surprises, not the least of which is Sir Robert's wife, now the widowed Lady Marion.
We've already met her as the arrow-slinging lady at the very beginning of the film, in a strange and confusing scene involving the capable Cate Blanchett gallivanting about in her nightgown, ordering (even kicking!) sleeping men-at-arms and barking orders at them in the middle of a midnight raid byevil raiders runaway little boys??? What is this, Disney's Peter Pan with the Lost Boys?! I'm sorry, but this entire scene was utterly pointless except to establish Marion's character as Xena Marion, Warrior Princess, and do away with the family grain so we can have Harvest!Time Drama later. Oh, and the fact that any woman can string a bow so easily bothered me. Weren't bows, English longbows especially, extraordinarily difficult to string? Granted she may not have been toting a longbow, but still. Are there any historical instances of women being taught archery?
Speaking of strong women, that indomitable beacon of female strength in history, Eleanor of Aquitaine, is played to perfection by Eileen Atkins. I only wish she had been given more screen time and more meaty material, because she surely would have endangered Katherine Hepburn's legacy as the defining portrayal of Eleanor. (I own a biography on her, and having read a fair amount in it before, seeing this renewed my interest.)
Wimple and veil, whoo hoo! I love how it's edged with gold.
Once Robin reaches Nottingham, he has to endure the gruesome task of equating an aged father with the knowledge that his son is dead. Max Von Sydow plays the blind Sir Walter Loxley, who despite many apparent disagreements and a rather prickly exterior, cared about his son.
I liked this character, and felt so much more could have been done with him. The worst transgression was having Sir Walter not only endorse, but suggest that Robin continue in his charade as his son, Sir Robert, even going so far as to share Marion's quarters to "convince the servants." To her credit she makes him a pallet on the floor and glibly threatens to "sever his manhood" if he dares to so much as touch her, but her understandable reluctance to trust a man who is effectively living a lie is undermined by words, looks, and downright silly modern exchanges which boil down to nothing short of veiled flirting lifted from a bad romance novel. At one point a reference to Robin's eye color is made, inserted into the mouth of a curious Sir Walter in presumably, an effort to lend credibility to a somewhat silly question. Marion waxes coy and replies that she doesn't know yet -- right after smoothly proclaiming Robin "handsome" in response to another question of Sir Walter's. (IMO, if she were truly guarded, the eye color question was a lot less "dangerous" than the good-looks question.)
But here we are again, back to the question of a low-born man impersonating a knight. Not only do I believe that this must have surely been a dangerous undertaking, but the fact that Sir Walter, said knight's noble and respected father, encourages this behaviour is just beyond ridiculous. And then The Sudden Revelation regarding Robin's real father, a stonemason, we're told, his manner of death, and the convenient unlocking of Robin's repressed childhood memories, tying in to the inscription on Sir Robert's sword hilt... *shakes head* I found this to be insulting to the audience's intelligence, and a very cheap plot device that was used instead of one that could have been so much better.
When Sir Walter started talking about Robin's father, my first inclination was that Robin was his illegitimate son, and that Sir Walter was going to confess that he was his father. IMVHO, this would have suited the requirements of the plot much much better -- giving Robin a valid reason to fight for the people and land he had no reason to care about, a claim to the woman who was born above him (this was never even alluded to, class structure, anyone?!), and a true reason to care for an old man he had no reason to view as a father figure. Otherwise it's just another cheap Gladiator redo, with the venerable old man with the raspy voice saying wise things to the rugged Russell Crowe who looks battle/world-weary, the old man's daughter (in-law) love interest, the title that Russell Crowe's character has no desire for, but finds himself fighting to defend. SOUND FAMILIAR???
(Lookie here, we've even got Russell Crowe galloping astride a white horse! Now all we need is a nasty gash on his arm, a little infection here, some passersby possessing of some maggots there...) ;-P
One thing I will say for Russell Crowe; he knows how to ride. It annoys me when actors look like a sack of potatoes about to slide sideways off their mount when it proceeds at a mere walk...
There's no question that this film is visually gorgeous (no I'm not talking about Russell Crowe). The castles and villages are beautifully rendered in what assuredly must be CGI, the costumes (created by the same designer that brought us Lucilla's fabulous but equally inaccurate Roman-esque ensembles in Gladiator) are truly beautiful, and if you're at all able to appreciate medieval armor, get a load of some of these drool-inducing beauties:
Mark Strong (aka Mr. Knightley in the Kate Beckinsale adaptation of Emma), as the evil villain Godfrey, who wears lots of dark colors to indicate his evilness, shaves his head for no apparent reason, and wears chain-mail, glorious chainmail!!!
Mark Strong does very well with the material he's given, which admittedly, isn't a whole lot beyond let's-see-how-evil-this-guy-can-be.
His scar looked suspiciously like Heath Ledger's in The Dark Knight, and Godfrey even licks it at one point -- what was the purpose of this, I'd like to know, besides the gross-out factor? Does Ridley Scott really think that his audience isn't the same movie-going public that made TDK such a phenomenal success? That no one is going to catch such a blatant first-in-the-series-of-many rip-offs? Please. Come up with your own material, thank you.
Godfrey did have a great musical theme, though, and the rest of the film's score was beautiful, maybe even buy-worthy. (Listen to a few of my favourite tracks here, here, and here.)
While certain choices of Ridley Scott's I can completely understand (taking the story back to its gritty and brutal roots, for instance), Robin's band of "merry men" has been reduced to a paltry foursome. I'm not sure why they even bothered including them, except for tradition's sake, but if we're going to take that stance, why ditch the pointy hat with the feather? ;-P Barely referenced, hardly recognizable, and nearly unnamed save for a quick and semi-dirty play on Little John's name, the presumably redheaded Will Scarlet, and Alan A'Dayle who sings songs reminiscent of old sea-shanties. (I still can't figure out which guy is supposed to be which, save for red hair which surely must equal Will Scarlet?)
She rides astride...SIGH.
Remember the Lost Boys? Yup, they come back (*HEADDESK*), this time to redeem themselves in TEH FINAL BATTLE, led by none other than Lady Marion in A SUIT OF ARMOR (GRRRRR...), whose suitably (no pun intended) feministic triumph involves her swinging a sword a couple of times, landing herself knocked off her horse by Godfrey, only to be half-drowned then rescued by A MAN -- namely, Robin, who, in dire fear of her life, promptly kisses her, blood dripping from a fresh gash on his forehead onto the pallid face of his beloved. Yeah. So romantic. Every girl's fantasy.
The oh-so-obvious references to some great charter of the rights of man towards the end of the film made me wanna bounce in my seat and shout "MAGNA CARTA!" Rest assured however that I refrained, as I'm sure most of the audience wouldn't have understood what the heck the crazy lady in the back row was referring to, anyhow... At any rate, King John comes close to signing a draft of the document, only to go back on the promise given on the cusp of battle (typical).
I almost forgot the Sheriff of Nottingham, and judging by the size of Matthew (Mr. Darcy from P&P 2005) Macfadyen's part, so did Ridley Scott. We the audience and Lady Marion as the intended victim are forced to endure a bizarre sequence involving said lady leading a plow horse and plowing a field, and said sheriff putting the moves on his apparent and significantly older love interest.
Cue the BBC Robin Hood TV show's sound effects for the arrow smack/thwack noise...
His costume was great, though his hair left a little something to desire in the cleanliness department... ;-) The end of the movie is a pure set-up for a sequel, and an Adventures of Robin Hood-esque scene played for laughs involving the Sheriff's hand, a proclamation, and an arrow. Classic Robin Hood! ;-D
In closing, I certainly won't be buying this, but admittedly I'm super picky about what I buy. If I won't watch it fifty times over then it's not going to reside beside my Jane Austen DVDs. Having said that, I'm by no means sorry to have gone to see this, and as far as recommendations go, that depends on the person. If a little bit of schlocky historical fiction/romance novel plotting doesn't bother you, or if you enjoy exquisite cinematography, costumes, lovely music, and good acting, then give it a shot. At least there aren't any hoodies or jersey-knit dresses! ;-)
TONS of spoilers behind the cut! ;-)
The audience first meets Russell Crowe's character, Robin Longstride (as we are quickly informed), on a French battlefield in a superbly wrought battle sequence that hearkens back to Ridley Scott's 2000 epic Gladiator. While I'm by no means a fan of either Scott or Crowe, the latter may certainly be depended on for excellent acting, and the former for his askew political views and self-professed loathing of Christianity. As is to be expected, this movie fits the pattern and makes anti-Christian statements (and throws in a bit of socialism for good measure), though thankfully they're not as painfully overt as they could have been.
After a few rapid-fire scenes involving the question of his loyalty to King Richard and both potentially misplaced honesty in one instance, and wrongfully insulted honesty in another, Robin and his closest comrades find themselves fleeing for England after the death of the king. Barring any suspicions on the part of the audience of this being a trick (I know I certainly didn't buy it completely at first), Richard the Lionhearted isn't coming back at the end of the story to save the day and set everything to rights.
Stumbling upon an English-led French ambush (headed by the uber-evil traitor Godfrey) intended to murder Richard, who unbeknownst to the French is already dead, Robin and his men decide to wax heroic and defend what little is left of the English contingent secretly charged with the mission of conveying the fallen king's crown to his brother in England.
It is here that Robin Longstride meets the wounded and dying Sir Robert Loxley, who begs that his sword be taken back to his father in Nottingham. He left without his father's blessing and we are promised juicy familial dysfunction should Robin carry out the man's wishes, which we know he will, because you can't have Robin Hood without Nottingham.
Robin does indeed agree, but he goes a step further and decides to impersonate chivalry by donning the garments and armor of the fallen men surrounding him and use the dead Richard's crown as his ticket back to England. (Part of me couldn't get past the idea of a LOW-CLASS YEOMAN dressing up as a KNIGHT. Wasn't that like a huge no-no back in the day?!? I can imagine Robin getting a heck of a lot more than stuck in the stocks for such a crime...)
Once Robin (now dangerously masquerading as Sir Robert Loxley) gets to England, delivers the crown to a suitably evil, adulterous, and in once scene shockingly naked (thank God the camera spared us the view he gave his lady mother) Prince John, he heads up to Nottingham to fulfill his duty and honour his promise. Once he gets there, he's in for a series of surprises, not the least of which is Sir Robert's wife, now the widowed Lady Marion.
We've already met her as the arrow-slinging lady at the very beginning of the film, in a strange and confusing scene involving the capable Cate Blanchett gallivanting about in her nightgown, ordering (even kicking!) sleeping men-at-arms and barking orders at them in the middle of a midnight raid by
Speaking of strong women, that indomitable beacon of female strength in history, Eleanor of Aquitaine, is played to perfection by Eileen Atkins. I only wish she had been given more screen time and more meaty material, because she surely would have endangered Katherine Hepburn's legacy as the defining portrayal of Eleanor. (I own a biography on her, and having read a fair amount in it before, seeing this renewed my interest.)
Wimple and veil, whoo hoo! I love how it's edged with gold.
Once Robin reaches Nottingham, he has to endure the gruesome task of equating an aged father with the knowledge that his son is dead. Max Von Sydow plays the blind Sir Walter Loxley, who despite many apparent disagreements and a rather prickly exterior, cared about his son.
I liked this character, and felt so much more could have been done with him. The worst transgression was having Sir Walter not only endorse, but suggest that Robin continue in his charade as his son, Sir Robert, even going so far as to share Marion's quarters to "convince the servants." To her credit she makes him a pallet on the floor and glibly threatens to "sever his manhood" if he dares to so much as touch her, but her understandable reluctance to trust a man who is effectively living a lie is undermined by words, looks, and downright silly modern exchanges which boil down to nothing short of veiled flirting lifted from a bad romance novel. At one point a reference to Robin's eye color is made, inserted into the mouth of a curious Sir Walter in presumably, an effort to lend credibility to a somewhat silly question. Marion waxes coy and replies that she doesn't know yet -- right after smoothly proclaiming Robin "handsome" in response to another question of Sir Walter's. (IMO, if she were truly guarded, the eye color question was a lot less "dangerous" than the good-looks question.)
But here we are again, back to the question of a low-born man impersonating a knight. Not only do I believe that this must have surely been a dangerous undertaking, but the fact that Sir Walter, said knight's noble and respected father, encourages this behaviour is just beyond ridiculous. And then The Sudden Revelation regarding Robin's real father, a stonemason, we're told, his manner of death, and the convenient unlocking of Robin's repressed childhood memories, tying in to the inscription on Sir Robert's sword hilt... *shakes head* I found this to be insulting to the audience's intelligence, and a very cheap plot device that was used instead of one that could have been so much better.
When Sir Walter started talking about Robin's father, my first inclination was that Robin was his illegitimate son, and that Sir Walter was going to confess that he was his father. IMVHO, this would have suited the requirements of the plot much much better -- giving Robin a valid reason to fight for the people and land he had no reason to care about, a claim to the woman who was born above him (this was never even alluded to, class structure, anyone?!), and a true reason to care for an old man he had no reason to view as a father figure. Otherwise it's just another cheap Gladiator redo, with the venerable old man with the raspy voice saying wise things to the rugged Russell Crowe who looks battle/world-weary, the old man's daughter (in-law) love interest, the title that Russell Crowe's character has no desire for, but finds himself fighting to defend. SOUND FAMILIAR???
(Lookie here, we've even got Russell Crowe galloping astride a white horse! Now all we need is a nasty gash on his arm, a little infection here, some passersby possessing of some maggots there...) ;-P
One thing I will say for Russell Crowe; he knows how to ride. It annoys me when actors look like a sack of potatoes about to slide sideways off their mount when it proceeds at a mere walk...
There's no question that this film is visually gorgeous (no I'm not talking about Russell Crowe). The castles and villages are beautifully rendered in what assuredly must be CGI, the costumes (created by the same designer that brought us Lucilla's fabulous but equally inaccurate Roman-esque ensembles in Gladiator) are truly beautiful, and if you're at all able to appreciate medieval armor, get a load of some of these drool-inducing beauties:
Mark Strong (aka Mr. Knightley in the Kate Beckinsale adaptation of Emma), as the evil villain Godfrey, who wears lots of dark colors to indicate his evilness, shaves his head for no apparent reason, and wears chain-mail, glorious chainmail!!!
Mark Strong does very well with the material he's given, which admittedly, isn't a whole lot beyond let's-see-how-evil-this-guy-can-be.
His scar looked suspiciously like Heath Ledger's in The Dark Knight, and Godfrey even licks it at one point -- what was the purpose of this, I'd like to know, besides the gross-out factor? Does Ridley Scott really think that his audience isn't the same movie-going public that made TDK such a phenomenal success? That no one is going to catch such a blatant first-in-the-series-of-many rip-offs? Please. Come up with your own material, thank you.
Godfrey did have a great musical theme, though, and the rest of the film's score was beautiful, maybe even buy-worthy. (Listen to a few of my favourite tracks here, here, and here.)
While certain choices of Ridley Scott's I can completely understand (taking the story back to its gritty and brutal roots, for instance), Robin's band of "merry men" has been reduced to a paltry foursome. I'm not sure why they even bothered including them, except for tradition's sake, but if we're going to take that stance, why ditch the pointy hat with the feather? ;-P Barely referenced, hardly recognizable, and nearly unnamed save for a quick and semi-dirty play on Little John's name, the presumably redheaded Will Scarlet, and Alan A'Dayle who sings songs reminiscent of old sea-shanties. (I still can't figure out which guy is supposed to be which, save for red hair which surely must equal Will Scarlet?)
She rides astride...SIGH.
Remember the Lost Boys? Yup, they come back (*HEADDESK*), this time to redeem themselves in TEH FINAL BATTLE, led by none other than Lady Marion in A SUIT OF ARMOR (GRRRRR...), whose suitably (no pun intended) feministic triumph involves her swinging a sword a couple of times, landing herself knocked off her horse by Godfrey, only to be half-drowned then rescued by A MAN -- namely, Robin, who, in dire fear of her life, promptly kisses her, blood dripping from a fresh gash on his forehead onto the pallid face of his beloved. Yeah. So romantic. Every girl's fantasy.
The oh-so-obvious references to some great charter of the rights of man towards the end of the film made me wanna bounce in my seat and shout "MAGNA CARTA!" Rest assured however that I refrained, as I'm sure most of the audience wouldn't have understood what the heck the crazy lady in the back row was referring to, anyhow... At any rate, King John comes close to signing a draft of the document, only to go back on the promise given on the cusp of battle (typical).
I almost forgot the Sheriff of Nottingham, and judging by the size of Matthew (Mr. Darcy from P&P 2005) Macfadyen's part, so did Ridley Scott. We the audience and Lady Marion as the intended victim are forced to endure a bizarre sequence involving said lady leading a plow horse and plowing a field, and said sheriff putting the moves on his apparent and significantly older love interest.
Cue the BBC Robin Hood TV show's sound effects for the arrow smack/thwack noise...
His costume was great, though his hair left a little something to desire in the cleanliness department... ;-) The end of the movie is a pure set-up for a sequel, and an Adventures of Robin Hood-esque scene played for laughs involving the Sheriff's hand, a proclamation, and an arrow. Classic Robin Hood! ;-D
In closing, I certainly won't be buying this, but admittedly I'm super picky about what I buy. If I won't watch it fifty times over then it's not going to reside beside my Jane Austen DVDs. Having said that, I'm by no means sorry to have gone to see this, and as far as recommendations go, that depends on the person. If a little bit of schlocky historical fiction/romance novel plotting doesn't bother you, or if you enjoy exquisite cinematography, costumes, lovely music, and good acting, then give it a shot. At least there aren't any hoodies or jersey-knit dresses! ;-)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-05-27 11:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-07 06:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-07 12:34 pm (UTC)I've had very little luck finding anything, but I would love to know if you stumble upon something!
no subject
Date: 2010-05-27 12:48 pm (UTC)Again, you did a very great review, so thank you!
no subject
Date: 2010-06-07 06:05 am (UTC)Thank you for the comment! :-)
no subject
Date: 2010-05-27 05:49 pm (UTC)My big beef is AREN'T THERE ANY NEW BOOKS OR STORIES OUT THERE THAT THEY COULD MAKE MOVIES FROM, instead of making old ones over and over? We need fresh and exciting. I know I've read LOTS of great books that would make great movies. Don't these people read, for gosh sakes? Besides comic books that is.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-07 06:07 am (UTC)Oh they make movies from books, just not anything good. *grimace* Twilight, anyone? They've adapted Eat, Pray, Love, as well, goodie goodie...NOT.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-27 06:43 pm (UTC)In terms of how historical characters are portrayed-I didn't like the way Richard was. It made him seem a bit too careless and his only interest was in "war." I think John was a bit too childish. Sure he becomes one of the most hated monarchs in English history to the point that the name John wasn't very popular, but I just wanted someone to take him over their knee and just spank him.
I just think that Scott missed the point of the Crusades and wanted to be as politically correct as possible especially when Robin makes the comment about the Crusades being worthless and he practically sides with the Muslims. do I think that real Crusaders, that some of them, might have been disillusioned in the end? Sure I do, but would they have spoken about it the way he did? No!
Now your comment on Robin dressing up as a knight, etc. I find it amusing that it just so happens the armor of Locksley happens to "fit" Robin and company just fine. I wanted to throw something to smack Robin or Scott when the line about what makes a knight different from a man and in the end it is nothing. In a way yes they are both men, but the idea of nobility and chivalry is forming at this time-I mean it is becoming a bit more defined.
I really do think that a lot of the elements mentioned in this Scott production would fit better with a 14th century setting especially with the disillusionment of war, etc.
BTW: As soon as they mentioned "charter" I knew what it was. :)
no subject
Date: 2010-06-07 06:19 am (UTC)I liked that it was a prequel to the typical stories we're all familiar with. That's been done sooo many times.
Do you think the name "Robin Hood" means anything in particular, i.e., like Taylor is derived from a tailor, Cooper from coopers, etc.?
I didn't like Richard either, he felt too much like Marcus Aurelius in Gladiator. Raspy old voice and everything. ;-P
All movies seem to follow the popular politically correct stance on the Crusades...I've given up hoping for a fair statement in that quarter.
LOL on the idea of the armor not fitting Robin! On to plan B? ;-P
Part of the reason I was inclined to tolerate a lot of this was out of a desperate longing for a reasonably accurate medieval movie...
I was dying to shout out "MAGNA CARTA!" LOL!
no subject
Date: 2010-05-28 02:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-07 06:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-28 06:31 pm (UTC)My favorite part of this movie was Eleanor of Aquitaine. :)
no subject
Date: 2010-06-07 06:21 am (UTC)She was wonderful, wasn't she? :-D
no subject
Date: 2010-06-07 06:27 am (UTC)And yes, she was. :)
no subject
Date: 2010-06-05 04:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-07 06:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-20 03:02 pm (UTC)I hope it is as wonderful as you are!
no subject
Date: 2010-06-20 11:00 pm (UTC)