Let's start by getting a few things out of the way: I actually enjoyed "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves", the much maligned Kevin Costner/Kevin Reynolds 1991 version of the timeless tale. Yes, Costner's accent was atrocious though more High School and community theater actors who trash it should consider how sure their British accent is good, because, guess what guys: most of you who have commented to me on it over the years really aren't any better at it than Kevin is , but I felt he made a better "Indiana Jones" style action hero than he was given credit for, <more> and, for all the films many flaws for me, the biggest was the all over the map portrayal of the bumbling Satanist Sheriff which was far from Alan Rickman's finest hour it was fun in the same way the early "Batman" films were. So, you won't hear me make any references to how "unlike other Robin Hoods", Russell Crowe can speak with an English accent. I didn't find that all that clever when Cary Elwes first said it, and considering some of the dreadful accents Elwes has attempted in films like "Twister", you couldn't find a more outrageous example of the pot calling the kettle black.Second I can't believe I'm saying that after such a long paragraph , the common expectation that this is a "Gladiator" rehash is, while understandable from some trailers, off the mark almost entirely. Other than Crowe's appearance and an element of dramatic political machination, the two films bare no real resemblance. Sure, this owes something to "Gladiator" and "Braveheart" because they're the current standard for this sort of epic. But unless you think "Iron Man" is just "Spider-Man" covered in metal, "Robin Hood" and "Gladiator" are not the same film, for better or worse. "Robin Hood" isn't as good a film as "Gladiator" was. But, for me, it was easily more enthralling than the more recent efforts at sword fight epic genre i.e. "300" or "Clash of the Titans" .What this is is "Batman Begins" to "Prince of Thieves" Tim Burton "Batman": a more real-world take on the material, and really very much a prequel. This doesn't become the Robin Hood tale as we know it until the very end. Your like or dislike of the film may well depend on how well you respond to that fact.Crowe plays Robin Longstride, an archer in Richard the Lionheart's army who has deserted the brutality of the crusades, joined by his friends Little John, Will Scarlet, and Alan A Dale. On returning to England, a complex but easy to follow series of events leads him to assume the idenity of Sir Robert Loxley, a nobleman whose widow, Marian played by the incomparable Cate Blanchett , is unable to inherit her lands due to English law.Meanwhile, Richard's failure to return places his brother John on the throne. John, of course, is a bad King who overtaxes and brutalizes the people. John is also unaware that his trusted aid and friend Godfrey Mark Strong, Hollywood's latest villain of choice is conspiring with the King of France to invade England.Crowe, Blanchett and company all give strong performances, and Max Von Sydow and Eileen Atkins steal the film in supporting roles. Brian Helgeland's screenplay is a smart and literate sort of alternate history Robin Hood: the relationship between King John and his Chancellor William hurt echoes Henry VIII and Sir Thomas More. A proposed "Charter of English Rights" is essentially the Magna Carte. Helgeland has blended very different elements of British history into the most British of folk tales. It's a bold choice, and one that could easily become laughable. For some, it probably still will be. For me, it worked.It comes down most of all to Ridley Scott's ability to tell and pace a story, and to create stunning visuals. He may not be at the very top of his game here, but he's close. This is the most briskly entertaining film he's since "Matchstick Men".By no means is this the definitive cinematic "Robin Hood". If there is or can be such a thing, it's the Errol Flynn/Michael Curtiz classic, but even that version is hampered by the fact that Flynn was a better stuntman than actor. And certainly there are generations that argue the Disney animated film the first "Robin Hood" I knew or the Sean Conney/Audrey Hepburn vehicle "Robin and Marian" is the only true Robin Hood. For that matter, there are those who feel that way about "Prince of Thieves", "Men in Tights", or any of the various TV incarnations.For me, Robin Hood is the quintessential adventure story. I'm up for revisiting it any time someone has has a truly interesting or new take on the material, or just can tell it well. I believe that Ridley Scott and company have created a unique and interesting film that won't make anyone forget their previous favorite versions, but adds something to the history of Robin Hood on screen. And, most importantly, they've made a summer adventure blockbuster that's more satisfying than a lot of what has been out there lately. <less> |