So...
I saw a couple of movies recently. The first was Robin Hood, which I very much enjoyed. Going in, it was a movie I was not at all excited about seeing and, in fact, probably uttered a groan or two about whenever a preview came up on the TV. First of all, I'm a proud fan of the Kevin Costner Robin Hood incarnation, which is as near perfect a Robin Hood movie as Hollywood has ever made. And this new version from director Ridley Scott didn't look anything like Robin Hood, which, for my money, is all about high adventure, not bloody warfare, as the previews for this new take indicate it containing. There's also the "why factor" as in "why make another Robin Hood, Hollywood?" I have seen first hand how cowardly the executives here are as they pass up original script after original script in favor of something with a brand name.
I guess I shouldn't have underestimated the brilliance of Ridley Scott, though. If anyone can take a "been there, done that" property and fashion something creative out of it, it is he. With Robin Hood, he has crafted a story that is unique to the mythos of Robin Hood (in a surprisingly good way) and which actually works better if you take everything you know about Robin Hood and toss it out in favor of being open to a new portrayl that retains only some of the ingredients of the Robin Hood legend we all know and love. In fact, this new take is actually somewhat hampered by the title "Robin Hood" itself. While it may bring attention and name recognition, audiences might be disappointed to learn that instead of the merry men and the Sheriff of Nottingham, for example, they are given a band of decidedly un-merry ex-soldiers and a traitorous new villain, portrayed with much gravitas by Marc Strong. Also, in place of the usual Robin Hood ho-hum story we get what amounts to a "loose" prequel, which retells the backstory of Robin Hood, with a few new twists and turns thrown in for good measure. For instance, Robin is now a solider who sneaks away from the Crusades by assuming the identity of a dead Knight. Maid Marion is the dead man's headstrong wife, who eventually links up with her husband's impersonator in order to save her village from a corrupt new King.
The movie has a good deal of well-choreographed action (think Gladiator with crossbows) and strong performances to back that action up. Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett as Robin and Marion, specifically, are a hoot to watch get together. The film's run time is long, but thanks to an excellent score and brisk editing it doesn't feel it. The ending, sadly, is a bit anti-climactic, but still left me wanting to see what's next for this new "Robin Hood."
Best viewed: a Saturday matinee at the theater.
It's interesting how much you liked this movie, I felt as though the dialog was so plain and stilted, and that any thoughts of the characters were too expository, and the pace of cutting worked against my engagement with an of the action, or the development of ideas from moment to moment -as if any idea was not followed through to completion. I often felt Scott placed too much faith in action cliches, rather than attempted to deconstruct their origins (which seems to be implied by the "orgin" story nature of the film's narrative).
ReplyDeleteAlthough I felt the film was very difficult to get through, I did feel there was a fascinating allegory constructed about the Tea Party, and possibly a cautionary tale about such explosive and reactionary politics. Although, smartly, the narrative suggests there is a difference between those against tyranny today and those within the film, we have a declaration of independence, and a bill of rights. A very strong political message, who's situation describes a reason to stop complaints and appreciate the benefits of the new world of America. Quite fascinating.
-Sunrise (candlerblog.com)
Hey Sunrise! There was def. a lot brewing under the surface, and your points about the dialogue and characters have merit, but I saw the film as more of a straight up attempt by Scott to make an action film in the vein of Gladiator, and in that sense it worked for me. I'll have to watch it again, though, and watch for some of those allegories you mentioned.
ReplyDelete