I'm relieved to see that so many other reviewers felt as I did --- although I also feel for those who participated in this movie and gave their all. I write movies myself, and have been on the receiving end of a lousy review, both from viewers and critics, and it "hoits." Nevertheless, honesty is our best friend, and so I'll add my impressions as a viewer.
I'm an Anglophile (American but majored in English lit and have avidly read British authors and legends from earliest to present day.) I read a version of Robin Hood as a child, as did we all. And what I loved most about Robin and the Merry Men even then was the camaraderie, the rough humor and loyalty to larger ideals. I loved the intimacy and "smallness" of the story in its magnificent forest. It invited the reader in to live with Robin and his band. I believe that this is what has charmed through the ages: Robin was a rebel and a leader --- irreverent and good-humored and fearless; quick to fight and to forgive, a foe of hypocrisy and unfairness. A trustworthy comrade. A marksman par excellence. A risk taker for the fun and hell of it.
This movie delivered none of that. It left me unengaged. And yes, sadly, Russell is far too old to be the youthful rebel that Robin was. And Cate... well she might have been the mother of Maid Marian, but she too, sadly, was miscast in this and we lose her great talent in a role that's unsuitable and drawn with too-broad strokes. A middle-aged woman hurling threats of emasculation, that is such a turn-off and risible as well. Oy, made me cringe and flinch (and I'm female too).
Even as a prequel, I didn't buy the setting. Huge battlefields, castles, large farms... we lose the intimacy and the character. Robin was a forest dweller above all --- he knew forests that are long since sacrificed to the hunger for wood and war. That would have been a fascinating fantasy scenario for Ridley Scott to recreate; those ancient, almost unimaginable first-growth forests... but this movie was not about Robin the forest outlaw. I do understand but still take issue with that strategy.
The movie was structurally difficult to understand, if not downright incomprehensible. That smacks of a script that did not know where it was going and as a result got overworked. For me, creating a a script is like kneading bread dough. You have to stop at just the right moment. If you continue kneading, the dough gets tough, loses its flexibility, rises poorly and the loaf is tough and and heavy. So... throwing in huge battle scenes that the audience really has no investment in was a costly error.
I could not help but compare this to Gladiator, which many others have, apparently: why did that formula work and not this? You still have the misunderstood, heroic but unwilling warrior who would rather make love and plant his fields; the crafty and corrupt ruler and his minions, the betrayal, the battles and carnage; Russell Crowe showing prowess and perfect "fight faces" (that must strike terror into hotel employees worldwide); the love interest, smoldering sensuality plus a good heart...
Well, we all grew up with Robin Hood, whereas Gladiator was a completely fresh plot line. But in trying to make Robin Hood fresh, Scott sacrificed the essence of his hero.
Had I presumed to write this movie, I would have placed the band in the forest, their natural habitat, and told the story of how Robin got there only in brief, sharp and poignant flashbacks that gave insight into who he is now. I would have replaced those tiring battles with the intimate skirmishes that Robin was known for; tests of archery and cudgeling that we loved in the book. I would have beefed upthe roles of the Merry Men we all knew and loved, rather than creating new characters out of whole cloth --- like the blind patriarch whose son's identity "Robin" stole ...what was that about? All that face-feeling and havy-handed declaiming over a character nobody, including Robin or Marian even knew --- that original son... I'd rather have seen more of Friar Tuck or Little John...
I'm an Anglophile (American but majored in English lit and have avidly read British authors and legends from earliest to present day.) I read a version of Robin Hood as a child, as did we all. And what I loved most about Robin and the Merry Men even then was the camaraderie, the rough humor and loyalty to larger ideals. I loved the intimacy and "smallness" of the story in its magnificent forest. It invited the reader in to live with Robin and his band. I believe that this is what has charmed through the ages: Robin was a rebel and a leader --- irreverent and good-humored and fearless; quick to fight and to forgive, a foe of hypocrisy and unfairness. A trustworthy comrade. A marksman par excellence. A risk taker for the fun and hell of it.
This movie delivered none of that. It left me unengaged. And yes, sadly, Russell is far too old to be the youthful rebel that Robin was. And Cate... well she might have been the mother of Maid Marian, but she too, sadly, was miscast in this and we lose her great talent in a role that's unsuitable and drawn with too-broad strokes. A middle-aged woman hurling threats of emasculation, that is such a turn-off and risible as well. Oy, made me cringe and flinch (and I'm female too).
Even as a prequel, I didn't buy the setting. Huge battlefields, castles, large farms... we lose the intimacy and the character. Robin was a forest dweller above all --- he knew forests that are long since sacrificed to the hunger for wood and war. That would have been a fascinating fantasy scenario for Ridley Scott to recreate; those ancient, almost unimaginable first-growth forests... but this movie was not about Robin the forest outlaw. I do understand but still take issue with that strategy.
The movie was structurally difficult to understand, if not downright incomprehensible. That smacks of a script that did not know where it was going and as a result got overworked. For me, creating a a script is like kneading bread dough. You have to stop at just the right moment. If you continue kneading, the dough gets tough, loses its flexibility, rises poorly and the loaf is tough and and heavy. So... throwing in huge battle scenes that the audience really has no investment in was a costly error.
I could not help but compare this to Gladiator, which many others have, apparently: why did that formula work and not this? You still have the misunderstood, heroic but unwilling warrior who would rather make love and plant his fields; the crafty and corrupt ruler and his minions, the betrayal, the battles and carnage; Russell Crowe showing prowess and perfect "fight faces" (that must strike terror into hotel employees worldwide); the love interest, smoldering sensuality plus a good heart...
Well, we all grew up with Robin Hood, whereas Gladiator was a completely fresh plot line. But in trying to make Robin Hood fresh, Scott sacrificed the essence of his hero.
Had I presumed to write this movie, I would have placed the band in the forest, their natural habitat, and told the story of how Robin got there only in brief, sharp and poignant flashbacks that gave insight into who he is now. I would have replaced those tiring battles with the intimate skirmishes that Robin was known for; tests of archery and cudgeling that we loved in the book. I would have beefed upthe roles of the Merry Men we all knew and loved, rather than creating new characters out of whole cloth --- like the blind patriarch whose son's identity "Robin" stole ...what was that about? All that face-feeling and havy-handed declaiming over a character nobody, including Robin or Marian even knew --- that original son... I'd rather have seen more of Friar Tuck or Little John...