About

The Squeee banner with lots of pictures of things I enjoy

Categories

Currently Reading

From the Past

Films on the to-do list

  • Black Widow
  • Chimes at Midnight
  • Den blomstertid nu kommer (backed!)
  • Jojo Rabbit
  • The Killing of a Sacred Deer
  • Last Christmas
  • MIB: International
  • Remember Sunday
  • Shazam! 2
  • Spy Guys
  • Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
  • Wonder Woman: 1984

Robin Hood (2010)

Film review: Robin Hood (2010), directed by Ridley Scott

robinhood2010What do you get when Ridley Scott decides to tell the legend of Robin Hood? A very long film that could just as easily have had characters called Peter and Evelyn or something instead of Robin and Marian. I mean, if they’ve buggered up the myth this far, why not just rename the characters and thus make for a much better film?

Because yes, that bothered both me and the Squeeze. I pretty much loathe BBC’s Merlin for how they’ve adapted the King Arthur myth. Had they only renamed the characters to something more inconspicuous, it would have been just an okay fantasy show instead of one that after the first episode had be proclaim it was an insult to the myth, and the only true Merlin was the one played by Sam Neill in 1998. See, I don’t have quite the same attachment to the Robin Hood legend, funnily enough, so I’m not too bothered about how much the BBC messed it up with their latest adaptation. However, I do get a bit aggressive when it comes to historical accuracy.

Which this film sadly lacks.

We start in France, where King Richard is plundering his way back from the Holy Land. Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) and his merry men are there too, of course, along with a certain Robert Loxley. The king gets killed in battle, trying to take a castle. No mention of his being held for ransom in Austria, and he’s very good at speaking English too, for a man who could only speak French.

Locksley is going to England to deliver the crown and the message that the king is dead. He gets ambushed by Godfrey (Mark Strong) – the Gisborne character, sort of – and his men, and dies, but not before being found by Robin and asking him to take his sword back to his father for reasons of [enter father/son sob story here]. Robin agrees, and assumes the name of Robert Loxley, delivers the crown and witnesses Prince John be crowned King John. And then heads off to Nottingham.

In Nottingham, he meets Marion Loxley (Cate Blanchett), who was the wife of the late Robert. Robert’s father is the blind Sir Walter (Max von Sydow, biggin’ it up for the Swedes, y’all!) who suggests that actually, why not have Robin pretend to be Robert? So he does.

So not Guy of Gisborne.

Meanwhile, the dastardly Godfrey, who had such a nice head of hair back when he was Mr. Knightley to Kate Beckinsale’s Emma but now seems to be very fond of the skinhead badass look, is trying to take over the place by using French soldiers, and prepare for the French king to invade. Because that obviously happened in real life … and then Prince King John’s moral compass is confusing.

The Sheriff of Nottingham (Matthew Macfadyen) is not the Big Baddie at all. He hardly has any screen time, and when he does, is he doing any big badass stuff? A clue: no. Disappointing, it really is. He just has a beard and looks a bit cross. At least Godfrey gets enough time to establish himself as an unredeemable swine. He’s not a Lost Soul or anything, he’s just downright nasty.

While it’s not a bad film, it’s pretty good – lots of battles and swords and arrows and trying to burn people alive and that sort of thing, if you’re into those kind of films – but it’s over two hours long (156 minutes for the director’s cut, 140 if not) and … well, it’s just a bit long. No matter how nice the costumes are or however you feel about Marion donning chainmail and fighting the French on a beach and Friar Tuck keeping bees in order to make mead … it’s just a bit long. Cut for pace, you know?

Well acted, nice scenery and set design and battles that were a lot better choreographed than the clunky stuff they did in the BBC series. Not bad. Not brilliant, though. Good enough to feel you’ve not wasted a good part of the evening in front of the telly. It ends with what seems to be “and here’s where the legend begins”, as if to say it was some sort of prequel. Say what? That doesn’t make much sense. But oh well, there is one thing to be happy about: at least this Robin Hood has an English accent. Not exactly sure where the hell his accent is supposed to be from in England, but at least it’s not from somewhere in America.

Traxy Thornfield

A Swedish introvert residing in Robin Hood Country (Nottingham, UK) with a husband and two cats. She's an eager participant in tabletop and play-by-post roleplaying, woodworking, photography and European travel. Will get a novel out one of these days, if she doesn't get too distracted along the way.

4 thoughts on “Robin Hood (2010)

  1. You make great points, but I have just gotta say I loved this movie – I went into it expecting to hate it for “messing” with the legend, and though it does the final product won me over. I’ve also gotta admit to being a BBC/Merlin fan. 😉

  2. I don’t like historical inaccuracies either. I’m willing to put up with some if they are important for plot purposes, but mostly they just make me angry at the misinformation and that always sours me on the rest of the movie. I had that issue with Braveheart. Also too many battle scenes put me to sleep. I fell asleep in Braveheart and I fell asleep in this movie too!
    I’ll admit I tried to watch the romance scenes later, which looked promising, but I had to return the rented movie so I didn’t see the good stuff either. I haven’t bothered rerenting it. I can wait until it’s finally on TV sometime in the future.
    I was glad to see Max Von Sydow! I love him (especially with Liv Ullman in The Immigrants)!
    I didn’t even recognize Matthew McFayden. He certainly was very shaggy. But his part seemed somewhat Gisbornesque in that he was pressuring Marian to marry him. I almost felt sorry for him (except that he looked so revolting!)

  3. @Ruth: That’s the thing – it’s not a bad movie. It’s just a bit … long.

    @phylly3: Haven’t seen Braveheart in years, but I know that last time, I wasn’t too bothered, because all that I know about William Wallace is from Braveheart and don’t think I was very clued up on history then either. There weren’t even any real romance scenes in this version Robin Hood, to be honest. :/

  4. I agree, it was strange take on the legend, but I did enjoy this film. (Though I also miss Mark Strong’s hair.)
    To me, it seemed like they were trying to play on the idea of “Robin Hood” figures appearing in historical records over time, but not seeming to be one single man- a figure of rebellion, hence the involvement in the Magna Carta.
    The archery scenes made me happy. The bloody kiss at the end less so.

Leave a reply - comment is free (sort of)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: