Robin Hood *** (2010, Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Max Von Sydow, Eileen Atkins, Oscar Issac, Mark Strong, Danny Huston, Matthew Macfadyen) – Classic Movie Review 3443

The untold story of why Robin Hood became an outlaw in the first place provides a good enough excuse for this new 2010 version of the old Robin Hood movies. It seems he was Robin Longstride, an archer in King Richard the Lionheart’s army, who poses as the dead son of Nottingham’s Sir Walter Loxely and so has to pretend to be married to the widow, Marion Loxely.

It’s nice that three friendly faces have been hired for the roles – Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett and Max Von Sydow – but these distinguished names are hardly good casting, with all three battling weird accents and not looking quite right in the English Midlands. The film is of course notable as reuniting the star and director of Gladiator (2000) and for many that will be recommendation enough.

Director Ridley Scott turns in the most astounding-looking movie, as always. But he seems solely interested in the battle action that prompts him, probably rightly, to push the 12 certificate way to the limit. It was, by the way, spectacularly costly at $200million, probably causing worries over profit, as it took $105million in the US, with a relatively small take of £15million back home in the UK ($321million worldwide).

Indeed, the box-office figures were seen as a disappointment, though Robin Hood ranks as the second highest-grossing medieval film. Apparently, the wisdom is that films set in medieval times tend to fare poorly at the box office.

There ought to be loads of court intrigue in this version of the story as well as passionate romance, but all we get is a little domestic squabble between the queen mum, Eleanor of Aquitaine, and the corrupt, womanising son she crowns King John. It turns out these are the best-written roles in the movie, giving Eileen Atkins and Oscar Issac plenty of acting chances that they grab eagerly.

The romance is cheesy and brief, giving Crowe and Blanchett no chance to establish any chemistry nor credibility. You just don’t believe it when Crowe rides off saying ‘I love you!’ On the other hand, Mark Strong is indeed strong as the main villain (unfortunately called Godfrey!), with loads of well-deserved screen time, though he’s written as a disappointingly one-dimensional bad guy (based on Guy of Gisbourne).

Meanwhile the merrie men, King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston) and the Sheriff of Nottingham (Matthew Macfadyen) have nowhere near enough screen time to make an impression. Mark Addy plays Friar Tuck, Kevin Durand is Little John, Scott Grimes is Will Scarlet and Alan Doyle is Allan A’Dayle,

Yet this is an absolutely glorious film visually, with marvellous battle action and a great attempt to show what life in Europe must have looked like in the 13th century. And the movie does pace up to a massive climax: the final invasion of England by the French is one of the most spectacular of its kind ever staged.

But, with no laughs and little flesh on the characters in the underwritten screenplay by the usually reliable Brian Helgeland, and a sense that much has been cut out to form this all-action version, it is no actual fun at all. Bring back men in tights! Or even Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993). Now that wasn’t good but it was fun. Oddly, Scott was not a fan of previous films of Robin Hood, saying ‘the best, frankly, was Mel Brooks’s Men in Tights, because Cary Elwes was quite a comic.’

Doesn’t he know about the 1922 Douglas Fairbanks Sr silent classic Robin Hood and the Errol Flynn classic The Adventures of Robin Hood?

There are two versions, the theatrical at 140 minutes and the Unrated Director’s Cut at 156 minutes.

© Derek Winnert 2016 Classic Movie Review 3443

Link to Derek Winnert’s home page for more reviews: http://derekwinnert.com/