Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Robin Hood (2010) Movie Review

It should be no surprise to me that a movie called “Robin Hood” would have no surprises.  Everyone knows the basic plot, and with the exception of a few tweaks, this movie focuses on the genesis of Robin Hood, this movie stuck to formula.  Unfortunately, this movie is a shell of the movie they wanted to be.  They wanted to be Braveheart, but instead got Return of the Jedi meets Robin Hood.  If they decided to be a shell of Robin Hood, perhaps it could have been good.  Shooting for Braveheart is a high mark that they fell horribly short of.  As you follow the arc of the movie, Robin goes from being a common archer to the leader of the unified English army in just a couple of weeks.  A couple of problem’s with this.  You have no idea why Robin is really virtuous or why he is fighting the good fight.   You also have no idea why the men at the end of the main battle credited Robin as their leader.  King John was a weakly developed character.  The Sherriff of Notingham was a useless expenditure of dialogue and film.   The introduction of wild adolescent boys that had no value to the movie at all except to remind us of ewoks was a great blunder by an otherwise good director.   The climax of the movie was the attempt by the nobles to put restrictions on the power of the king, ala Magna Carta.  This element was not well developed and seemed to rushed.  Aside from it being Robin’s father’s idea, we don’t know why he latched on to the idea so much.   When King John backs out of his promise to sign the contract, he declares Robin an outlaw.  Robin goes off to live in the woods with Marion pursuing “Liberty” (they couldn’t use “freedom” since it was already taken)  living in a commune.  The difference between Hood’s liberty and Wallace’s freedom is that Wallace wanted his people to be free to pursue their own lives outside of the crown control, to pursue self-determination.  Hood simply wanted to the liberty to be free from the crown because without the crown, everyone would share and nobody would have more than another.  The problem with Hood’s version is that it always comes down to a person interpretation of what “fair” is.  Freedom removes the element of interpretation.  Is it liberty if one man is not free to become more prosperous than another man.  I give the movie two thumbs down.  My wife did like it, so there you go.

1 comment:

Kansas Bob said...

Generally agreed with many of your points but I liked it more than you did. It certainly paled in comparison to Braveheart or Gladiator but I did like it better than the Costner version of the story.

I did a short review on it on my blog last October but I liked your review better than mine.