← Back to Reviews
in
Review #25: Ridley Scott's Robin Hood.
For something that is based on a series of 1000 year old, incomplete ballads, Robin Hood is something that is never seems to leave the mind of the populous.
The movie is set before Robin Hood’s legend of ‘robbing from the rich and giving to the poor’.
It’s more of a lead up to the legend. How Robin came to be the outlaw we all know and love.
Sadly, it’s a very confused story, it takes elements of the legend, elements that are seen during the robbing and giving, mixed with some new stuff and crosses them over.
Some elements are completely ignored from the original ballads, for instance how Robin and Little John become friends.
The problem is also the seriousness of the movie. Robin Hood is a campy legend. Always has been. I’m not just on about the movies of the past, I’m on about the original ballads too.
Any self-respecting Englishman will know that Scott’s take on Robin is a pile.
As far as the story goes, sadly, what Ridley Scott and his team of ‘writers’ decided to do, is steal all of the most inaccurate ideas from all of the other Robin Hood films of the past 100 years.
Then they decided to confusingly modge them all into a giant cake full of disappointment.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the original legend.
I understand that Scott wanted to update the legend but I’m afraid it just didn’t work.
The movie as it is though, is actually quite entertaining, the action is pretty well choreographed and exciting, but that’s about it.
The acting is about standard for the type of movie, it’s not bad, but nothing that should win awards.
Think Gladiator but without the charisma.
The only thing that’s really going for the film is that it’s fairly close to being historically accurate with it’s look and feel.
Now, I’m not an expert, but I am a student of history and I know that Scott’s movie is relatively close with setting, props, character attitudes, costume and even the accents.
Russell Crowe was hammered by film buffs for his accent when the film came out. I will defend him though, he’s not far off the truth.
I guess these critics know little of English history.
The sequence of events is a load of tosh though, which lets down the only thing the film has going for it: Accuracy.
All in all an entertaining movie if you know nothing of Robin Hood, for me, it’s worse than Costner’s accent.
My rating 17%, mainly for the historical feel
For something that is based on a series of 1000 year old, incomplete ballads, Robin Hood is something that is never seems to leave the mind of the populous.
The movie is set before Robin Hood’s legend of ‘robbing from the rich and giving to the poor’.
It’s more of a lead up to the legend. How Robin came to be the outlaw we all know and love.
Sadly, it’s a very confused story, it takes elements of the legend, elements that are seen during the robbing and giving, mixed with some new stuff and crosses them over.
Some elements are completely ignored from the original ballads, for instance how Robin and Little John become friends.
The problem is also the seriousness of the movie. Robin Hood is a campy legend. Always has been. I’m not just on about the movies of the past, I’m on about the original ballads too.
Any self-respecting Englishman will know that Scott’s take on Robin is a pile.
As far as the story goes, sadly, what Ridley Scott and his team of ‘writers’ decided to do, is steal all of the most inaccurate ideas from all of the other Robin Hood films of the past 100 years.
Then they decided to confusingly modge them all into a giant cake full of disappointment.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the original legend.
I understand that Scott wanted to update the legend but I’m afraid it just didn’t work.
The movie as it is though, is actually quite entertaining, the action is pretty well choreographed and exciting, but that’s about it.
The acting is about standard for the type of movie, it’s not bad, but nothing that should win awards.
Think Gladiator but without the charisma.
The only thing that’s really going for the film is that it’s fairly close to being historically accurate with it’s look and feel.
Now, I’m not an expert, but I am a student of history and I know that Scott’s movie is relatively close with setting, props, character attitudes, costume and even the accents.
Russell Crowe was hammered by film buffs for his accent when the film came out. I will defend him though, he’s not far off the truth.
I guess these critics know little of English history.
The sequence of events is a load of tosh though, which lets down the only thing the film has going for it: Accuracy.
All in all an entertaining movie if you know nothing of Robin Hood, for me, it’s worse than Costner’s accent.
My rating 17%, mainly for the historical feel
