The film takes on the origin story of Robin Hood. We start out in France as some English dudes attack some French dudes as Robin and his band of bros decide to ditch Croissant land to go back to Fish and Chips land. On the way back Robin comes across this dying English guy who's last wish is for him to return his sword to his father in Nottingham England. This sets off the "story" of what all happens next.
There is a great mystery to this film. It is loaded with talent on both sides of the camera yet the final product is anything but mediocre. Acting wise we have Oscar winners Russel Crow, Cate Blanchett, and William Hurt. And of course behind the camera we have the illustrious Ridley Scott known for some of the best films made within the past 30 years such as Alien, Blade Runner and Black Hawk Down. Plus you have the iconic Robin Hood story to go from with a 200 million dollar budget. But somewhere along the lines they forgot to get that important little thing called a good script.
The most crucial misstep in the whole picture is the weak story. It's a epic battle film that is simply not compelling and lacks any tension. It is really boggling how this film was actually made. All of the conflicts are easily evaded throughout the film. Not in a cool, "oh i just beat up 30 dudes with swords and i barely broke a sweat, man was that easy", more in a "oh all we had to do was fire some arrows at them from behind a tree, that only took 4 seconds of screen time, that was pretty easy" kinda way. Tension is what makes battles work, are they going to succeed? aren't they? No joke Twilight Eclipse had more tension than this. There seems to be a thread of "rising action" through act II but it barely gets anywhere and it just feels like you are strolling through the park as you watch this film. This fact was most prevalent during the "climactic" battle scene on the sea shore as French ship came to invade. As soon as we saw there was a huge cliff next to the shore where the English archers took their positions anyone who took Warfare 101 knew the battle was won easy as cake. Even without that knowledge the battle was poorly staged and lacked any drama on if Robin and his Englishmen were going to win or not. Bullocks!
The other main problem with the film is the pussy cop out PG-13 battles. This is not Chronicles of Narnia. When someone gets a sword in the face or shot with an arrow they don't just fall down. There is some damn blood. I'm not saying that it should be super gory Japanese Machine Girl style but there should be a level of reality presented in the damage done by these medieval weapons. The key part in showing this is to increase the tension and stakes during the battle as the audience see's "oh wow, this is some serious shit, i hope our hero Robin Hood doesn't get a sword in the face". Thus we connect more with our protagonist and are involved in the heat of the moment that is the battle scene.
Another major problem I thought was the casting of Russel Crowe. At 45 years old it's a bit of a stretch to be at the "beginning" of the Robin Hood mythology. I think the film would have had a great breath of fresh air and energy if they casted someone half his age. Instead we get a barely comprehensible Crowe who grumbles a one note performance through a non existent story arc for the "hero".
I'm even a little pissed I paid 3 dollars to go see this. Not even worth a DVD rental unless you are in love with Russel Crowe or have a hankering for bloodless battle scenes. Just watch Ridley Scott's Gladiator again or his far underrated 2005 film Kingdom of Heaven and make sure it's the extended edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment