Robin Hood

One might say that Robin Hood has some entertainment value as well as nice locations and a great cast (especially the super villain played by Mark Strong). But it is hard to accept it as the fruit of another collaboration between Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe, from which we are accustomed to mature films with a strong directorial touch that are ambitious in terms of quality. Because Robin Hood is (at least in this cinematic version) just a straightforward, ideologically naïve summer flick without a pinch of originality, stealing from all sorts of other sources. Once again, Crowe touches the burned ground lethargically or strolls through a cornfield, but this time the viewer cannot feel anything. I don’t like slacking off and an impersonal, routine approach to filmmaking, especially from filmmakers for whom movies are usually everything and who know that the world expects something more from them... (11/05/2010)

I was too content to be disappointed, but... I expect rather more from Ridley than a slipshod, while entertaining historical snack. I don’t doubt that in a year and a day we’ll see the release of a dozens of minutes longer and countless percent better director’s cut. Because mainly the editor had to do inhumane overtime on the second half and so in many places it doesn’t make too much sense. But it isn’t ridiculous, not at all (apart from the lady charging on the pony, huh?). The reason why Robin Hood is worth seeing isn’t sumptuous production design (there is none, anyhow) or monumental battles (there are none, anyhow), but the electrifying courting chemistry of the central two. Despite all of potential for mediocrity, I would certainly like to see a part two. Or, better still, I want Scott to give us a whole new movie about Richard played by Huston! P.S.: And although this has almost nothing to do with the legend, still it is a hair’s breadth closer to it than what they did in the version starring Costner. (13/05/2010)

Loads of money wasted on a pointless, sterile and lifeless film. Scott is still a master of the craft, but that doesn’t mean anything if has to work with a screenwriting monstrosity that doesn’t even allow the beautiful Cate Blanchet or the charismatic Strong to express themselves properly. In short, two and a half hours of delayed sleep and bitter memories of the never made Nottingham. Ridley, please, go back to the Aliens and make me happy this time. (03/09/2010)

He promised us the story of the Duke of Nottingham, then a dual role for Russell, and finally reminded us of Gladiator through the trailers. And there Ridley Scott luckily remained. Robin Hood is indeed about a rebellion, but it is not a pathetic epic about noble heroes' victory. It is a cautiously romantic memory, but not a fairytale about Robin and Lady Marion. But most importantly, it is the story of a few righteous men and the rough birth of a legend. (14/05/2010)

What a nice surprise. I really didn’t feel like watching the new Robin Hood, but all the more Scott managed to persuade me that there is sense in this fairly fundamentally innovated version. Helgeland’s screenplay is one of the greatest boon of the picture, making something more out of this dusty old legend. The main problem is that the closer it gets to the end, the more scenes are simply missing. As if someone was hurrying somewhere and to make the movie shorter, they just trimmed down the ending eliminating any climax and so it just “happens". But they could have gotten so much more of the battle by the sea. The ingredients are there, but just not used. Russell gives his standard and what surprised me most was the excellent chemistry between him and Cate Blanchett. The role of Maid Marion suited her wonderfully. Strong’s bad guy is exquisite, despite playing them all the time. You would have thought it would wear a little thin, but it doesn’t. And a final thanks to Marc Streitenfeld for the wonderful soundtrack. (14/01/2011)