Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood isn’t a good movie, but it is better than I expected. Scott’s film is many things, but a Robin Hood picture in the classic sense of the term, it ain’t. The attempt is to give you the origins of Robin Hood — in other words, this is Mr. Hood’s backstory. This immediately raises the question of whether or not this is particularly desirable. The truth is that Scott and company are largely just cashing in on a recognizable brand name. What they’ve given us feels more like a somewhat bloated, generic ancient times battle picture. If you take the film on its own merits, it’s solidly OK — nothing much more. But it is solid. There’s been no skimping on the cast, which is pretty much made of A-listers of some note. Robin Hood has been rethought, remonkeyed, and generally re-everythinged. There’s nary a trace of green hat or green tights or indeed any vestige of green drag of any kind. This is a new Robin for our frankly more drab age. This is a Robin Hood with childhood trauma and daddy issues; he’s kind of the Batman of the 12th century. Did we really need this? It’s adequate, it has good actors, and it’s not painful to sit through, but that’s about the best I can say. I’m not sorry I saw it, but I can’t help wondering why it takes this movie more than two hours to draw a character early versions managed in their opening scenes.
Director: Ridley Scott
Writer: Brian Helgeland
Producer: Brian Grazer, Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe
Cast: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, William Hurt, Mark Strong, Mark Addy, Oscar Isaac, Danny Huston, Eileen Atkins and Max von Sydow