Review: Robin Hood

It is inevitable that any review of the most recent installment of Robin Hood would include at least a perfunctory mention of the relationship between directory Ridley Scott and actor Russell Crowe. The pair have worked together in a number of successful films over the past decade (Gladiator, Body of Lies, A Good Year). Scott is known for his ability to construct films with action and drama (see American Gangster, Black Hawk Down). Similarly, Crowe has become one of Hollywood's most celebrated stars because of his ability to combine intellectual intensity (A Beautiful Mind, The Insider) with brute strength (Cinderella Man). All of this is to suggest that the continuity of their professional relationship is less than surprising; Crowe fits perfectly into most of the films Scott chooses to make. However, those hoping for an epic follow-up to Gladiator will be sorely disappointed. In this case, familiarity breeds only contempt, this time from the audience.

The most glaring problem with the film is apparent in the script itself. For a story that portends to show how "the legend begins," there is very little character development. Robin mostly keeps to himself, only occasionally bothered by faint flashbacks of the traumatic memory of his father. Instead of showing us how this experience has influenced his overall world view, Scott allows Robin to summarize his main thesis in a speech before battle. How a relatively unknown soldier is able to motivate a group of soldiers to fight for limited monarchy through the use of a hackneyed speech is beyond my realm of comprehension. Films that show us the "making of a legend" are only successful when they display the internal struggles and inner demons of the hero in a relatable or humanizing way. Robin Hood seemed content to stick with tired action movie norms instead of exploring the troubled past of the title character.

The other characters have limited depth as well. We see the abandoned Maid Marion (Cate Blanchett) tending to the fields of her blind father, Sir Robert Loxley. I am an adamant supporter of almost everything Blanchett does, but her performance in this film was particularly flat. Most of her lines are uttered without intonation or affect as she stares blankly off screen. In fact, I had a legitimate pang of concern halfway through the film that blindness ran in the Loxley family and that I had simply missed that cue at the beginning. Additionally, Robin's band of "Merry Men" are used primarily for juvenile comedic relief, an aspect of the film that feels completely out of place in almost every instance. Imagine if Crowe's character in Gladiator had a sex-obsessed, wise-cracking sidekick. Not good, right? The Merry Men are merely stock characters from a dozen other action films, and strongly detract from the central storyline.

The story of Robin Hood has been told in many different ways through film. It has been a whimsical Disney story, a Mel Brooks comedy, a sappy romantic drama, and a thrilling action film. Ridley Scott's version is a poorly constructed amalgamation of all these genres. It is never a good thing when a film trying to explain the origins of a legend suffers from an identity crisis of its own.

Robin Hood: 2/5