I could easily insert all my thoughts about this movie in my “death of escapism” post, but starting a new one is easier than trying to re-edit another. I don’t know what’s happened to Ridley Scott, the man who brought us Alien, Blade Runner, Legend, and even Gladiator? Here, he seems to have forgotten that films should have a thing called “Entertainment Value” and that Robin Hood wasn’t even a real person, but was only created to entertain. The more I think about it, the more confused I get… everyone knows that origin stories are boring and cumbersome, so why did he feel the need to make up a completely unneccessary story telling us where the “Prince of Thieves” came from and how he got the last name Locksley? I just don’t get it… I was trying not to dose off through the whole thing, in fact, the high point of the whole experience was getting locked out of the theater when I went out to smoke which was the most unpredictable part of the evening. The acting was fine from everyone, although I felt that Max Von Sydow was woefully underused as the senile Sir Walter Locksley, Maid (no, Widow) Marion’s father-in-law. Russell Crowe was in full Scottish Gladiator mode and Cate Blanchette did the best she could with a Maid Marion who seems to have no interest in Robin Hood. The plot is hard to follow, perhaps because it’s so deviously simple: Robin Hood walks around Crusade-era Europe pissed off because of taxes and silly rules like, “all deer belong to the King, so you can’t kill them.” Believe it or not, that was a plot point. King John is depicted as basically a guy that nobody listens to, the sheriff a non-entity, and Robin Hood’s merry men complete morons who would fit perfectly in any sword and sorcery tale. The movie ends with a title card proclaiming: The legend Begins! But why would anyone want to show us the bits not interesting enough to be a part of the legend? The film has no attributes to speak of, except for maybe some of the acting, but with Cate Blanchette, Von Sydow, Crowe, and that guy from the beginning of Inglorious Basterds – who plays a frenchman doing something out in the woods, much like in Tarantino’s film – good acting becomes just part of the background and the mediocrity that is the bulk of the film is the only thing that reflects off the screen.
Cinema Reservoir
Robin Hood
I could easily insert all my thoughts about this movie in my “death of escapism” post, but starting a new one is easier than trying to re-edit another. I don’t know what’s happened to Ridley Scott, the man who brought us Alien, Blade Runner, Legend, and even Gladiator? Here, he seems to have forgotten that films should have a thing called “Entertainment Value” and that Robin Hood wasn’t even a real person, but was only created to entertain. The more I think about it, the more confused I get… everyone knows that origin stories are boring and cumbersome, so why did he feel the need to make up a completely unneccessary story telling us where the “Prince of Thieves” came from and how he got the last name Locksley? I just don’t get it… I was trying not to dose off through the whole thing, in fact, the high point of the whole experience was getting locked out of the theater when I went out to smoke which was the most unpredictable part of the evening. The acting was fine from everyone, although I felt that Max Von Sydow was woefully underused as the senile Sir Walter Locksley, Maid (no, Widow) Marion’s father-in-law. Russell Crowe was in full Scottish Gladiator mode and Cate Blanchette did the best she could with a Maid Marion who seems to have no interest in Robin Hood. The plot is hard to follow, perhaps because it’s so deviously simple: Robin Hood walks around Crusade-era Europe pissed off because of taxes and silly rules like, “all deer belong to the King, so you can’t kill them.” Believe it or not, that was a plot point. King John is depicted as basically a guy that nobody listens to, the sheriff a non-entity, and Robin Hood’s merry men complete morons who would fit perfectly in any sword and sorcery tale. The movie ends with a title card proclaiming: The legend Begins! But why would anyone want to show us the bits not interesting enough to be a part of the legend? The film has no attributes to speak of, except for maybe some of the acting, but with Cate Blanchette, Von Sydow, Crowe, and that guy from the beginning of Inglorious Basterds – who plays a frenchman doing something out in the woods, much like in Tarantino’s film – good acting becomes just part of the background and the mediocrity that is the bulk of the film is the only thing that reflects off the screen.
Share this:
Related