Director: Ridley Scott (Alien, Blade Runner, Black Hawk Down, Kingdom of Heaven)
Writer: Brian Helgeland
Producers: Russell Crowe, Brian Grazer, Ridley Scott
Starring: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Max von Sydow, William Hurt, Mark Strong, Oscar Isaac, Danny Huston, Eileen Atkins, Mark Addy, Matthew Macfadyen, Kevin Durand, Scott Grimes, Alan Doyle
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Running time: 140 min.

NOTE: Due to a little bit of a scheduling snafu, more than one contributor here simultaneously wrote up thoughts on the film. Rather than delete either of these exquisitely written pieces, and in an effort to keep all discussion confined to one cozy location, we’ve decided to publish both posts into one for potentially conflicting and more interesting opinion as well as additional fodder to wallow in; all in the name of better discussion.

MARINA:
(3.5/5)

Remember the days when a Ridley Scott film was an event? For some, myself included, that’s still the case but it appears that over the years, Sir Scott has been losing steam as an exceptional filmmaker. It’s partly his own fault, never being quite satisfied with his finished product to the point where I refuse to buy a DVD of his films until he releases a “Director’s Cut.” It’s a bit of a joke but one that sadly, is very real but what it really says to fans is “Don’t bother seeing this now because I’m going to change it in a year’s time.” Talk about George Lucas syndrome.

When it was announced that Scott would re-team with Russell Crowe for Robin Hood, I couldn’t help but get excited at the prospect of seeing one of my favourite characters brought to life yet again. News that Scott would be taking the story to unexpected places (like reversing the good and bad guys), only made me more excited and when those plans fell through, I was slightly anxious but still very much on board. And then the trailer hit and I started to think that perhaps this wasn’t going to be the film I anticipated. And it’s not.

Robin Hood isn’t really Robin Hood. It’s the effect of a production team taking a recognizable name and group of characters, a vague idea and writing a story around it. The ruse here is that Scott and his team is telling an origin story. Lucky for Scott he makes a really nice looking film with a script that manages to balance the melodramatic with the funny. Writer Brian Helgeland infuses a fair bit of comedy into the script, either in homage to previous incarnations of the Robin Hood tale or a result of his pervious work (there’s another Costner tie in on this production but I’ll leave you to figure that one out).

Russell Crowe’s Robin isn’t exactly stretching it for the actor. He’s the wronged hero willing to put his life on the line for the people he loves; like we’ve never seen Crowe in that role before. To help him out, Crowe employs the help of some buddies from a surprising (yet welcome) place: Mystery, Alaska. I doubt the fact that Scott Grimes and the fabulous Kevin Durand ended up on this project by chance but I’ll happily take it as they’re both quite good. Also a surprising, stroke of genius casting is the inclusion of Great Big Sea front man Alan Doyle. If you’re going to have a character singing for a large chunk of your film, may as well find one that 1) looks the part and 2) can sing. The fact he doesn’t get to do a whole of acting isn’t too surprising but he’s very good in the role he’s given. Other obviously excellent performances, mostly because they’re always fantastic, are Cate Blanchett who sadly, isn’t given a whole lot of work (she could always spend more time on camera) and Mark Strong as the traitorous Godfrey (Strong is a deliciously evil bad guy). The list of supporting characters is pretty staggering and all play their small roles well but I wanted to touch particularly on Danny Huston and Matthew Macfadyen who, under long hair and beards, are nearly unrecognizable; Macfadyen in particular is notable as the shady Sheriff of Nottingham.

There’s melodrama, made regretfully cheesier by a Marc Streitenfeld’s obvious score, sweeping a-la Lord of the Rings location shots and action sequences that culminate into the French landing on the beaches of England which is reminiscent of Saving Private Ryan but with bows and arrows. Frankly, Robin Hood is stitched together from bits and pieces borrowed from other films and the only thing saving it from atrocity is a better than average cast and gorgeous set design. It’s not a masterpiece, heck, some will rightly argue that it’s an unoriginal mish-mash and Scott at his worst and though I can see and in part agree with the criticisms, I can’t help but admit that I enjoyed, even loved, every single moment of the bombastic wreck. So much so in fact, that I’ll happily shell out my hard earned money for a 4 hour extended edition.

As for a sequel… let’s just say that at this point, I wouldn’t put anything past Ridley Scott.

ANDREW:
(4/5)

As this movie has been rattling around in my brain over the past few days, I continue this up and down roller coaster ride of general thoughts on the film. For the sake of discussion and general curiosity, I genuinely want to know what thoughts the masses have to say about this film. The critics seem to be rather split on the ordeal and I haven’t really yet made up even my own mind. Hence, this isn’t so much of a review as it is a mess of scribbled thoughts and examinations (though I did leave a gut reaction star rating above). So I/we leave it up to the loyal readers sitting in the Third Row. What proceeds are my quick thoughts on the matter in an attempt at getting the proverbial ball rolling.

The legend of Robin Hood has existed in the minds of popular culture for centuries. It’s been told for generations and since the advent of the moving picture has been produced many, many times over in various formats and with a kaleidoscope of intent; from fun and breezy adventure to goofy caricatures to a beloved animated version to dark and brooding to out and out farce. It seems to be remade for the silver screen about once every decade – or more. This element of culture that has been ingrained in our collective conscience is really what makes this version of the tale so intriguing.

Nearly everything you know about the story of Robin Hood needs to be unlearned for this incarnation. It’s important to go into this movie with a fresh slate; erase all knowledge of everything that you know about the stories spun to you over and over again throughout your lifetime. Or maybe better yet, going in to this movie pretending that it’s not even a Robin Hood movie might be more fitting. A synopsis here would be lengthy and by default, fairly spoilerific, so let’s just say that this movie has very little to do with robbing from the rich and giving to the poor and more about a man doing what is right with only his own moral compass as a guide. Through a series of fortuitous (or not so fortuitous) circumstances, this brave, but relatively unknown, soldier must at least attempt to become the savior for first a few close comrades, subsequently a family, then a small community of struggling but kind hearted souls and then ultimately an entire nation. This man will eventually become known as Robin of the Hood.

Ridley Scott has been rather hit or miss for me over the past few years, so off I went to this picture (and knowing the critics seemed to be torn) with skepticism, but optimism. The story and character of Robin Hood is fairly close to my heart (a childhood hero to be certain) and if Sir Ridley managed to screw that up, I was going to be upset – as upset as a film has the power to make me anyway. Based on the one or two trailers I had the misfortune of seeing, I was sure this would basically be a CGI-laden actioner with all manner of boring sword play that we’ve seen a million times and the typical (admittedly great) story altered only with some dark overtones and a huffier, brawny version of Robin. Interestingly enough, neither of these things ended up being true at all – at least not for 90% of the movie.

True we get some action sequences throughout the picture. And for as many times as we’ve seen medieval warfare, Ridley Scott still manages to bring some new elements to the table and depicts them in quite a handsome manner. More importantly though, these scenes are not there just for the sake of explosions and arrow dodging. Each scene has the distinct purpose of furthering the plot. A plot which I quite enjoyed. So whilst some action makes its way into the film, about 3/4 of the film is actually character intros, intrigue and development.

And again, remember that this isn’t the typical story of Robin Hood, so meeting and understanding these characters is an entirely new quiver of arrows. Right from the start, due to a main character’s actions we know this can’t possibly end up like most other Robin Hood tales. All of the “rules” are immediately thrown right out the proverbial window. As we see more of their actions, ironically enough we actually learn less about them. Until almost the final scene, it’s rather unclear who we’re supposed to be rooting for and who we should be against (aside from a couple of obvious ones). Is Robin really acting for the greater good? Is the Prince John we grew up with as tyrannical as we might assume? To whom do the allegiances of the Sheriff of Nottingham lie? I loved trying to figure out these otherwise familiar characters and discover their motivations.

But perhaps this story is only interesting to those who do have a specific knowledge and interest in the traditional world of Robin Hood? Maybe viewing this movie simply on its own merits would prove rather boring and typical period piece horse shit? There does seem to be quite a little bit of the more typical melodrama and wankerific attempts at humor that often times plague these types of period sets when produced by lesser film makers. So it is possible that the only reason it’s easy to overlook these pieces of unpleasantness is the rest of the story works so well – but again, maybe only in comparison to other versions of the story. What if those other versions never existed in the first place or a viewer was legitimately ignorant to all of them? Would they see this picture as a convoluted mess of a plot that is dreary, lengthy, fairly typical and ultimately boring? I don’t know, but it’s a question worth pondering.

As mentioned, the characters are at the heart of the film and though the story is interesting to watch unfold, it wouldn’t work without all of the solid performances by almost everyone involved. We all know that Cate Blanchet already has a special seat saved for her in heaven for her acting prowess so no surprise there that though not immaculately beautiful, plays a convincing and fascinating version of Lady Marion. Max Von Sydow delightfully, but limitedly shows up on screen for a while and proves old age can take nothing away from a stellar performance. Oscar Isaac as Prince John worked incredibly well for me as well. Though he’s got some films under his belt, he was completely unfamiliar to me and I view him as a relative new comer. He carries John much as Joaquin Phoenix carried Commodus (in Gladiator) as an whiny, inexperienced, power hungry brat. But as the character is developed, this persona changes a bit and the character becomes someone completely different and totally unexpected. Again, the unexpected is usually a welcome factor in a film; maybe especially so for a Robin Hood feature. Very often, the villain is the best character in a film and with Scott’s Robin Hood, that general rule of thumb is not excepted. Mark Strong (who has been a relatively new fan favorite as of late with his villainy in both Sherlock Holmes and Kick-Ass) may very well have stolen the show with his fairly straight (only ever so subtly and sparsely going into goof territory) portrayal as the obviously evil Sir Godfrey. Not as whacky as say, Alan Rickman in 1991′s Prince of Thieves, but still going for broke with both the costume, make-up and general vibe of a blood-thirsty (though cowardly) psychopath.

But the title role falls squarely upon the much recently lauded upon, Russell Crowe. Being wrapped up so much in the story, I was neither for or against this casting choice. He simply was there and though didn’t look the part of the traditional Robin Hood, he was a solid choice for this re-envisioning Upon further examination however, it’s clear that Crowe sort of dropped the ball here. Simply being there and just playing it flat isn’t enough. A little more charisma and charm is probably needed to play the role and Crowe is just too damn uptight. To make matters worse, the accent is completely all over the place. Listening to clips from the film again it’s difficult to place exactly what location this Hooded Robin originally resided. Crowe is natively from Australia, so hints from there can be found in his struggling English accent. But are those hints of Scottish I detect in there? As stated, during the film it didn’t seem to bother me but with some reflection it’s actually become rather bothersome; bordering on annoying.

Despite the miscast of Crowe and despite the film diving into typical Braveheart, action brawler for the (anti)climactic scene, the story, the cast, the set design, the earlier action set pieces and the freshness of almost every aspect of an otherwise typical narrative/setting really brings out the joy in me. Be sure to hang out in your seat at the end and witness one of the most artfully done, knock it out of the park closing credit sequences (maybe ever?). At first glance, Scott has fairly masterfully melded action with melodrama and kept both at an acceptable minimum to create an interesting take on a well-known and beloved legend without cocking it up. I usually enjoy period pieces very much and this is no exception. This is the first summer “blockbuster” of 2010 that I’ve both bothered to see and seemed to have rather enjoyed as I exited the theater.