MOVIE REVIEW: Robin Hood 2010 – The beginning we all should’ve known
First things first: I watched this film right after I completed ALL the pre-employment requirements requested by my employer. I figured I deserve to watch a film to reward myself for all the efforts I exerted within the past 7 days.
I chose this film simply because it was a Russell Crowe movie. Not to mention him teaming up with Ridley Scott. If you don’t know how good their combination is, just look up the epic film “Gladiator” and you should be enlightened as to why I had a damn need to watch this.
The movie was about the story we all should’ve known: How Robinhood became the man he was before becoming the legend.
Summary: The movie’s story telling was great but needed more action. It can bore those who really looked forward to archers doing their archery and swordsmen doing their swordsmanship in battle based on the trailers shown. I actually was very satisfied with the film but I felt that had there been an extra 10-20 minutes more of action or at least 15 minutes less of story telling, this film would’ve been very big. Still, I was very happy to have watched such a strong film among others known for only their popularity.
Visuals: The film was done in a very stunning place full of nature. The setting was very convincing of a world untouched by modern technology. The CGI was exceptionally realistic as well and that goes without saying. It’s a freaking highly budgeted Hollywood film. What else can you expect but only the best?
Sound: There were only a few songs in the movie (about 6 if I recall). The sound was very classic and matched the movie’s timeline very well. It was very nice to listen to. The OST, as a whole, was like an Irish album with a very catchy tune. Not to mention the lyrics of the songs. Also, the BGM during those moments of tranquility and peace were very relaxing and the BGM for the battles were very gripping, as they should be.
Story: This is where it all boils down. Let’s skip the historical accuracy since I know you can just do a wiki search for it. Let’s just summarize that it was about 80% accurate. I mean, Robin Hood’s stories didn’t even exist “at the turn of the 12th century” but rather much, much later. Then again, his existence could’ve been the sole reason as to why Ridley Scott thought it would alter a bit of history which makes comparing this film to history useless and a waste of time.
The film itself had a great story to tell and to tell it did. I appreciate watching NGC’s documentary programs but to be watching one at a movie theater? I’m exaggerating but I felt that a little bit more and we could’ve watched this film on NGC with a picture of Crowe with bow in hand and it wouldn’t have been a problem. This is the movie’s main problem: A terrible balance between story telling and action.
The trailers promised lots of action but I only got to see Crowe kill bad guys for like 1/7 of the movie time or something. And mind you, the action scenes were few and far between. I mean, it would be a huge action scene then a very long dialogue-filled scene then a little bit of action which is then followed by another long, action-less, bloodshedless scene. It’s not that I’m looking for gore all the time but I really would’ve appreciated a few random moments of heroism from Robin and/or the Merry Men. It should’ve been dialogue scene, lots of action, long dialogue scene and long action scene. The pacing was just enough to keep the audience from sleeping in on the storyline which, if I say so myself, was greatly done. It just really needed that action-packed promise we were all led to believe to be in there. Thank God the Merry Men were a funny lot.
Speaking of the Merry Men, I liked the fact that they were the film’s humorous characters. Kudos to Ridley Scott for that idea. Also, the whole Feral boys had me confused at first since it has been a long time since I read or watched something about Robin Hood. I thought those boys were just some random poachers/pilferers and were just there to help Robin. One out of two isn’t so bad though.
I loved Cate Blanchett’s character. As symbol of strong-willed women with a heart of a tender and loving wife. I guess she was chosen to be Marion since Crowe didn’t exactly fit in to be a Tom Cruise. Otherwise, we could’ve seen a younger Marion with a younger, hunkier, Robin. But I’m not saying Cate Blanchett was a bad idea. Ridley Scott chose well for his cast of characters. Cate was one of them.
As for Crowe’s role, it reminded me of Maximus. In fact, the film resembled the “Gladiator”. Expert soldier follows a king, king dies and has his brother (in “Gladiator”, it was the son who followed) who was obviously unfit to be a king for the people but only a king to himself. Crowe’s character was a bit more Maximus than it was Robin Hood. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me since I’m a fan of the “Gladiator” so much. I really loved it when he held a hammer though. Who would’ve thought that Robin Hood would wield a hammer to smash the brains out of his enemies? Genius. Just Genius.
RISE AND RISE AGAIN
UNTIL LAMBS BECOME LIONS
GREAT MOVIE. Just needs more action/less story telling.