"The Untold Legend" (Robin Hood Review)

Robin Hood sounds like it has undergone lots of changes prior to its release this summer.  At one point, it was to be a character piece on the Sheriff of Nottingham, painting him in a more sympathetic light while showing Robin as a bit more of a villain.  At another point, Russell Crowe was reported to play both Robin AND the Sheriff.  At least seven different actresses have been attached to the role of Miriam, and about four different directors as well.

Given all this interesting buzz, the final product could be considered something of a letdown.  Robin Hood is a tale about how the legend came to be in the first place.  It is, essentially, a prequel to all the other Robin Hood films, even though Russell Crowe is now the oldest guy (at 45) to ever play the merry prince of thieves.  It has the good sense of NOT claiming to be historically accurate like King Arthur did.  I had to laugh at all the previews, though, where they claim that this is the "untold story" of Robin Hood.  I'm sure Errol Flynn, Kevin Costner, and Cary Elwes (just to name a few) would disagree, but in a sense, this made me all the more curious to see the movie, so I guess their advertising worked, if only in a "let's see how bad this is" kind of way.

My wife summed Robin Hood up best when she said, "Basically, take everything you've ever known about Robin Hood and forget it, and you actually have a pretty enjoyable movie!"  I am inclined to agree.  Robin is a regular old archer in the service of King Richard during the crusades, but events that fall during their return to England force him and some buddies to take matters into their own hands and become more than simple soldiers.  Without giving away too much, it's almost like they wrote a script about Crusade-era England & France and THEN decided to change the names to make it a story about Robin Hood.

One problem with Robin Hood is that there's not really anything to help it stand out amongst other period pieces.  The plot twists and turns pretty well, and the portrayal of Prince John was especially interesting (though, as IGN's review of Robin Hood pointed out, it felt like he got more screen time than Robin himself), but in the end it's quite the forgettable movie.  It's the politics of Gladiator without the arena.

In fact, some of Professor Goodtime's friends have taken to calling this film Gladiator 2, but I disagree.  I think Kingdom of Heaven 2: Back in the Habit is more appropriate.  Ridley Scott is the director behind this movie.  His past credits include both Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven, and it shows.  In all seriousness, this could have been a sequel to Kingdom of Heaven.  It takes place towards the end of King Richard's crusades, and it uses the same crappy action camera that I positively despise - you know, the kind where action scenes look like they're shot by an extra with Parkinson's.  Everything is so shaky that you can't tell what's going on.  I think that it's supposed to represent the confusion that is a large melee battle, but to me it only represents a director's inability to figure out interesting choreography to display onscreen.  Don't see this film if you're expecting exciting, followable action.  You'll only be disappointed, just as you probably were in Kingdom of Heaven.

It's also worth noting that Robin Hood had a mammoth "What the hell!?" moment in the final battle.  I don't think I can say much more without giving it away, but when you see it, you'll know.  What. The. Hell.

I'd recommend a rental - like I said, it isn't actually a bad movie, just not a great one - but if you're looking for some good old "steal from the rich to give to the needy ("he takes a wee percentage" - "but I'm not greedy!") action, you had best stick with the historically-accurate classics: Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, and Robin Hood: Men in Tights.