Not the Robin Hood you were thinking of
Roger Ebert’s review of Robin Hood is not the one I wanted to read. I wanted a thumbs up, four stars, 99% fresh – and instead I learn that this is in fact a prequel to the actual Robin Hood story – much like Alice in Wonderland turned out to be a really boring sequel to that much better tale.
And not a very interesting prequel, either.
“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. I cannot discover any sincere interest on the part of Scott, Crowe or the writer Brian Helgeland in any previous version of Robin Hood. Their Robin is another weary retread of the muscular macho slaughterers who with interchangeable names stand at the center of one overwrought bloodbath after another.
Have we grown weary of the delightful aspects of the Robin Hood legend? Is witty dialogue no longer permitted? Are Robin and Marion no longer allowed to engage in a spirited flirtation? Must their relationship seem like high-level sexual negotiations? How many people need to be covered in boiling oil for Robin Hood’s story to be told these days? How many parents will be misled by the film’s PG-13 rating? Must children go directly from animated dragons to skewering and decapitation, with no interval of cheerful storytelling?
I enjoy Ebert’s curmudgeonly side. His film-buff conservatism comes out in reviews like this one and I find myself nodding in agreement – though, to be fair, I haven’t seen the film myself so I can only speculate. Still – not the real Robin Hood story? Massive battle scenes? Have we lost the art of telling a good story – even when that story is all there written out for us beforehand?
I love the Robin Hood legend for its banditry and its lack of grandiosity. The rebels ambushing caravans in the woods; the archery and daring escapes. I’ve enjoyed every single Robin Hood film I’ve ever seen, and I’d really hate to be disappointed by this one. I fear I will be – since this doesn’t sound anything like Robin Hood at all.
How to Train Your Dragon, however, has a 98% at Rotten Tomatoes. Maybe I’ll go see that instead.
How to Train Your Dragon is an excellent film (especially if you have kids, but lots of humor for the adults too). See it in 3D for an extra treat (they did a superb job with the 3D effects).Report
@Madrocketscientist, I second this on both point – multi-layered humore, and very well thought out and executed 3D views.Report
@Barry, and some actual ‘humor’ to supplement the CGI ‘humore’ 🙂Report
@Madrocketscientist,
Thirded suggestion for How to Train Your Dragon. I was expecting something barely above mediocrity, and was greeted with a lot of heart, flying scenes that put Miyazaki to shame, and good humor. Best cinema experience of the year for me by far.Report
E.D. I need to strongly second Mad’s recommendation for How to Train your Dragon. It is, for me, the best 3d film I’ve ever seen. The titular dragon broke personal records for charm (the creator also created Disney’s Stitch). The plot was not particularly complicated but was sufficiently non-simplistic that I wasn’t bored. The voice acting was good. The soundtrack was -superb- and the ending, without spoiling anything, was less sacharine than you’d expect with a narrative symmetry that left me genuinely delighted. Seriously. See the movie. There is a reason it’s been doing so consistently well week after week. The word of mouth is strong and I’m doing my part.
As for Ebert; so long as he’s not talking about video games the man is a genius. When he talks about video games he turns into a visionless cranky old goat.Report
I’ll second (third? fourth?) the votes for “How To Train Your Dragon.” An excellent movie, for adults and for kids. One of my favourites from recent years, though admittedly that isn’t worth much since I watch so few movies.Report
How to Train Your Dragon is the first Dreamworks animated film that really matches Pixar’s benchmarks for overall quality. Well, except for Chicken Run, which I consider to not really be a SKG film anyway.
Really was truly excellent. Both the three.five and five.five year old thoroughly enjoyed. The younger daughter wasn’t even freaked out by the scarier dragons 🙂Report
Can I just mention that Ridley Scott has been making bad historical epics since Gladiator? I mean, Kingdom of Heaven was just awful. Russell Crowe has the gravitas to pull off these roles, but it’s painful to watch when he’s saddled with bad scripts (“Master and Commander” is one recent exception).
Also, if Errol Flynn or Disney’s animation department isn’t involved, I’m just not interested in Robin Hood.Report
@Will, I’m not going to lie: I actually enjoy Kevin Costner’s turn at my (second-?)favorite semi-legendary character. However, that one has nothing on Disney.Report
I love the Robin Hood legend for its banditry and its lack of grandiosity.
And its humor. The Merry Men were called that for a reason: hanging out in the woods with your buddies, outsmarting dolts like the Sheriff of Nottingham, is a lot of fun.
Actually, it’s pretty much the same reason that I enjoy The Hobbit more than The Lord of the Rings.Report
I mean, Kingdom of Heaven was just awful.
Oh man, was it ever. I’ll say I thought it provided, I think despite itself, something of an interesting reflection on the continuity of place as waves of history roll over it. But everything else, including its odd detachment from any question of what the Crusades were about or whether they were good or bad, was truly horrible. Also, the seemingly non-existent status Orlando Bloom’s career at present is entirely justified when seen in light of Kingdom of Heaven.Report
Personally, I think it would be nice if they got an actual Englishman to play Robin Hood.Report
@Rincewind,
Mr. Elwes, welcome, I didn’t know you read this blog.Report
@Kolohe, Well played, Kolohe!
*signed* Will Scarlett O’HaraReport
@Rincewind,Report
@Rincewind,
See “Robin and Marian”, starring Sean Connery in the title role (not the Marian bit). A really charming, low-key version of what the life of an outdoor outlaw might be in his waning years. Dares to take Robin Hood seriously – he gets old and has to come to terms with what he’s given up, as does Marian.Report
Ebert is generally a fan of the big dumb movie, but he’s been more critical of violence over the last decade (although he did give the ridiculously violent Lethal Weapon 4 stars back in the day). But seeing a movie described as a “bloodbath” and sporting a PG-13 rating is … sad? Not really. It’s not even surprising. But it’s disappointing that if the word “fuck” is said or a woman’s breast appears it’s strictly for adults while nearly any amount of carnage is OK for unaccompanied tweens.Report
I’m all for taking certain artistic liberties for the sake of a story, but I caught this line in Ebert’s review and just about lost it.
“[Robin Hood is] a warrior just back from fighting in the Third Crusade. Now Richard is dead, and Robin is essentially an unemployed mercenary. This story is a prequel. It takes place entirely before Robin got to be a folk hero. The idea of taking from the rich and giving to the poor was still in storyboard form. Grieving Richard the Lionhearted and now facing the tyrant King John, Robin leads an uprising.”
The Third Crusade ended in 1192; stories in which Robin of Locksley returns from fighting in the Crusade tend to have him returning about two years later — such was the case in Kevin Costner’s rendition. King Richard didn’t die until 1199, seven years after the Crusade’s end. It just seems to me to be insanely implausible that Richard managed to find himself imprisoned a time or two, to return briefly to England, and to regain Normandy before Robin returned to England.
I was really excited to see this movie; maybe I’ll wait for d.v.d now.Report
Anyone else annoyed by the line taken by WaPo and the NYT that this version is inferior because Robin Hood is returning tax money rather than taking from the generalized “rich”? Almost makes me want to see it.Report