Robin Hood (2010) Reviewed

First, let it be stated that Robin Hood, the film directed by Ridley Scott, is less a swashbuckling adventure in the traditional sense than an attempt to reimagine the legendary hero's origin in an historical context that discards much of the romantic mythology surrounding the reign of Richard Coeur-de-Lion. Inasmuch as the earliest legends of Robin Hood place his activities during the reign of an unspecified King Edward, the retelling of the story with an accurate portrayal of King Richard's reign is hardly less faithful than a purely fanciful portrayal of the same. Naturally, much of the conflict arises from King John's depredations, but unlike the popular reinterpretations of the Robin Hood myth that began in the 16th century, the return of Good King Richard, crusading in the Holy Land, is not awaited like the Second Coming of Christ to deliver England from evil. Unlike the myth as it has evolved in later centuries, Robin Hood is not a dispossessed nobleman, but a yeoman, a commoner, just as he was in the earliest tales. Unlike the character as it has been portrayed in film since the beginning (with the exception of Robin and Marian), Robin Hood in this film is a man, albeit a remarkable one, whom one could plausibly believe really lived.

Russell Crowe, as Robin Hood, is eminently qualified to imbue the character with a degree of realism almost without precedent. His is a Robin Hood with a lifetime's worth of experiences even before he has embarked on the path that will bring him immortality in folklore. Cate Blanchett, as Marian, has perhaps the more daunting challenge of giving life to a character who is not only entirely fictional, but was not even originally part of the Robin Hood legend. The script gives Marian a better grounding than she has ever enjoyed in any other telling, and Blanchett adds believability and strength to the character's noted beauty. Together, Crowe and Blanchett create a Robin and Marian who are individuals with their own complexity, whose relationship evolves humanly rather than arbitrarily. This is no small achievement for anyone tackling a story with such a long history and an audience with such deeply-ingrained expectations.

Although the trappings of this film suggest the pursuit of historical accuracy, there is also an allegiance to the spirit of the tales of Robin Hood, from the inclusion of such fictional characters as Marian and Alan-a-Dale, to the sentiments of true justice, compassion, and opposition to hypocrisy and tyranny. By choosing to set the film during the latter part of King John's regency and the early part of his reign, it was possible to link Robin Hood directly to historic events that epitomize a rejection of the absolute rule of monarchs and the rise of a unique English identity beyond Saxon and Norman divisions.

All in all, Scott's Robin Hood is the greatest film adaptation of the legend since Robin and Marian, and certainly the greatest film depicting Robin Hood at either the beginning or height of his career as the bandit who "steals from the rich to give to the poor."

Writing: Great
Directing: Great
Acting: Superb
Cinematography: Great
Stunts: Good
Swordplay: Good
Panache: Great

Overall Rating: Great
Swashbuckling Rank: Good


[Originally posted in Cuparius.com on 11 June 2010.]


Addendum

Written by: Brian Helgeland, Ethan Reiff, and Cyrus Voris
Directed by: Ridley Scott
Performed by: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Max von Sydow, William Hurt, Mark Strong, Oscar Isaac, et al.

Robin and Marian (1976) Reviewed

Robin and Marian (1976) is a different kind of Robin Hood tale. It is the story of an older Robin Hood, one who left his Marian twenty years ago to follow his king, Richard Lionheart, in the Crusade to free the Holy Land. The film begins with the last siege of Robin's military career, against a ruined castle with no soldiers to defend it, to appease King Richard's mad hunger for gold. The setting here is clear. Although Robin Hood is folkloric, the film presents an historical context for his later years, one in which King Richard was a bloody tyrant whose sole concern for England was to bleed her of her wealth to pay for his expeditions (and his ransoms when he was captured) and bleed her of her able-bodied men, most of whom would die in the Crusades far from their native land.

Robin returns to England intent to put the horror and disillusionment of the last two decades behind him and retire, as it were, from the battlefield, but events lead him to return also to his former life as a hero of the oppressed when he learns of the plight of his true love, Marian, who is now the abbess of a convent. Robin is still valiant and idealistic, but alas he is also twenty years older. Fortunately, so is his archenemy, the Sheriff of Nottingham. There is action and adventure aplenty, but the challenges are greater (and perhaps a bit more humorous) when met by men of their age.

Sean Connery gives one of his best performances as a Robin Hood at the end of his career, and Audrey Hepburn gives an equally excellent performance as Marian in a role that had previously never been endowed with so much humanity. Nicol Williamson (who would later play Merlin in Excalibur) gives a sober, subtle performance as Robin's loyal comrade, Little John. Robert Shaw's Sheriff of Nottingham is both formidable and approachable as a character with believable motives and discernable virtues even in his opposition to Robin. Richard Harris deserves especial mention for his portrayal of the last king of England to rule before the adoption of the Magna Carta. Harris simmers with the omnipotence and instability of absolute monarchs harkening back to the Roman emperors, and it is his interaction with Robin that best enables the audience to envision the hardship and insanity that consumed twenty years of Robin's life abroad.

Director Richard Lester once again proves his mettle as one of the greatest directors of period action movies of the 20th century. If this film has a weakness, it is John Barry's score, which is both unambitious and overwrought.

Although there are moments of levity bordering on swashbuckling parody, Robin and Marian is a serious film that confronts issues of war, religion, class, and, perhaps most of all, love's endurance.

Writing: Great
Directing: Great
Acting: Great
Cinematography: Great
Stunts: Good
Swordplay: Good
Panache: Good

Overall Rating: Great
Swashbuckling Rank: Good


[Originally posted in Cuparius.com on 7 October 2011.]


Addendum

Written by: James Goldman
Directed by: Richard Lester
Performed by: Sean Connery, Audrey Hepburn, Robert Shaw, Nicol Williamson, Denholm Elliott, Ronnie Barker, Kenneth Haigh, Ian Holm, Richard Harris, et al.

Robin Hood (1922) Reviewed

Robin Hood was one of the great swashbuckling epics of its time when it was made in 1922. Its production values are lavish, its scale is huge, and it's long. In fact, it's a bit too long. Fifty percent of the film is devoted to the story of Richard the Lion-Hearted (Wallace Beery), the nefarious Prince John (Sam De Grasse), and how the loyal Earl of Huntingdon (Douglas Fairbanks) just wants to do what is right, but is misunderstood. The story, to put it with merciful brevity, meanders, stalls, and meanders again throughout the first half of the film. The audience is, however, treated with views of truly magnificent sets and impressive pageantry with a cast of hundreds if not thousands. After a seemingly interminable prologue dominated by pomp, evil posturing, and kingly presidings, the Earl of Huntingdon finally becomes Robin Hood, fighting for justice in England until King Richard can return from the Crusade and liberate his land from the usurper.

Let us ignore the historical facts concerning King Richard I, his brother John, the Crusades, and England under both rulers for the purpose of this review, for the legends of Robin Hood are themselves steeped in a mythical interpretation of the period.

The film certainly picks up pace during its second half when Robin Hood is "born." Immediately, there is a spring to its step. I mean that literally. Robin Hood and his Merry Men spring into the scene and spring all throughout the rest of the film, until one thinks one is watching a stage production of Peter Pan. It's a little too springy for my taste. The stunts are amazing as always whenever Fairbanks is around, and he carries himself as the usual happy-go-lucky god of derring-do, but he and his Merry Men just seem a little too merry. I am not exaggerating this! It sounds like an exaggeration, but there is entirely too much frolicking hither and thither to be taken seriously as a grand adventure. They are simply over-the-top full of merriment. If it were a musical, it would be more appropriate, but it's a silent film. Don't misunderstand me; it's very entertaining, and it's funny, and I think the humor of it is intentional, but I'm not quite sure.

The DVD includes a short subject by Will Rogers in which he good-naturedly pokes fun at the smash hit film, and his portrayal of the Merry Men rather confirms my description. It is truly hilarious.

Without intending any disrespect to Fairbanks' work, it is one of his more amusing efforts...

Writing: Fair
Directing: Good
Acting: Fair
Cinematography: Great
Stunts: Great
Swordplay: Mediocre
Panache: Good

Overall Rating: Good
Swashbuckling Rank: Good


[Originally posted in Cuparius.com on 21 August 2006.]


Addendum

Written by: Douglas Fairbanks (as Elton Thomas), et al.
Directed by: Allan Dwan
Performed by: Douglas Fairbanks, Wallace Beery, Sam De Grasse, Enid Bennett, Paul Dickey, William Lowery, et al.

The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) Reviewed

Original Review

The Adventures of Robin Hood from 1938 is a film that owes its reputation, I believe, to faulty memories. This is a film I would like to like. But I can't. It ought to be a great film. But it isn't. Errol Flynn as Robin Hood and Basil Rathbone as Sir Guy of Gisbourne are both excellent in their roles, and the legend of Robin Hood is rich with possibilities for tales of adventure, romance, treachery, and heroism. Alas, this version is a drudgery to behold, nay, a torture. Claude Rains' talent as a general anaesthetic permeates the film until the last scene. Flynn may be charming as the hero, but the combat scenes defy believability even for swashbuckling fare. I'm sure the garish Technicolor was dazzling in its day, but the film never gives one a sense of place other than that of a Hollywood set. The writing is unforgivably bland, the directing is uninspired, and the all-around inferior quality of the acting is a sad consequence of both. Somehow, though, Flynn's panache shines through the dismal shambles in which he finds himself, and perhaps it is this alone that has contributed to this film's undeserved status as a classic. At all other levels, one can't help thinking it could have been done better—much better.

Writing: Terrible
Directing: Poor
Acting: Mediocre
Cinematography: Fair
Stunts: Fair
Swordplay: Fair
Panache: Great

Overall Rating: Mediocre
Swashbuckling Rank: Fair Good


[Originally posted in Cuparius.com on 21 August 2006.]

Extended Review

It has been 17 years since I wrote my first review of The Adventures of Robin Hood, and in the interest of fairness and an awareness of how my perception may have changed after having seen many more swashbuckling movies in the intervening years, I thought it would be wise to give it another viewing. My opinion of it has indeed changed. I chuckle now at the offense I took at its shortcomings—as if it ever aspired to be anything more than what it proclaimed itself to be (and succeeded at being): a romantic adventure movie clothed in legendry. It really is better than I remembered, and I'm not sure whether it's because I've seen so many more movies that fall short of it or because I have greater understanding of the importance of it in the context of the era in which it was made: a world in the grip of the Great Depression and on the brink of another World War. It truly was an inspirational movie as well as an escapist one. And it was genuinely well made. In many regards, it was good enough, but in others it was excellent. It is a marvel of set design and, in some scenes, fight choreography. The final duel between Robin Hood and Sir Guy is spectacular. It's an exciting and heartfelt movie that may not be the best swashbuckling movie or the best Robin Hood movie or the best Errol Flynn movie, but it's a good movie in all of those categories. I can appreciate it now.

Writing: Fair
Directing: Fair
Acting: Fair
Cinematography: Good
Stunts: Good
Swordplay: Good
Panache: Great

Overall Rating: Good
Swashbuckling Rank: Good/Great

Written by: Norman Reilly Raine and Seton I. Miller
Directed by: Michael Curtiz and William Keighley
Performed by: Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, Basil Rathbone, Claude Rains, et al.

The Story of Robin Hood and His Merrie Men (1952) Reviewed

In 1952, Walt Disney Productions released its second live-action film, The Story of Robin Hood and His Merrie Men. It is a colorful and well-produced spectacle to be sure, with good pacing and excellent music (thanks largely to Elton Hayes as the minstrel Allan-a-Dale), but the story is stale and much of the acting workmanlike. "Good King Richard," whose absence from England as he participates in the Crusades sets the stage for Prince John's ambitious plans to seize power, is predictably placed on a pedestal as the popular champion of the people. Yes, it's propaganda. Yes, it's lazy. Yes, it diminishes Robin Hood's story. Richard Todd is unremarkable as Robin Hood, which is unfortunate, but it's hard to imagine any actor being able to do much with the script provided. The film may be a feast for the eyes and ears, but it lacks flavor and offers little food for thought. As an escapist adventure, it is moderately entertaining.

Writing: Fair
Directing: Good
Acting: Fair
Cinematography: Good
Stunts: Good
Fight Choreography: Good
Panache: Fair

Overall Rating: Fair/Good
Swashbuckling Rank: Good

Written by: Lawrence Edward Watkin
Directed by: Ken Annakin
Performed by: Richard Todd, Joan Rice, Peter Finch, Martita Hunt, et al.