Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Robin Hood

My anticipation of this movie has been a see-saw battle. When I first saw the previews I wasn't too excited for another Robin Hood movie, but then I saw it was directed by Ridley Scott so I was looking forward to a Gladiator type of movie. I then heard brutal reviewers bash the movie saying it was too slow and long and that there wasn't enough action. Needless to say, I didn't go in with high expectations and maybe that is why I liked it as much as I did.

I enjoyed the story since it is kind of a prequel and lays the ground work to to how the Robin Hood came to be. Russell Crowe is one of my favorite actors, but I had a hard time accepting him as Robin Hood. He seemed kind of quiet and kicked back for being the hero of the movie and this was not his best role. He had a great supporting cast of Cate Blanchett, William Hurt, Max von Sydow, Mark Strong, and Oscar Isaac. The film is visually entertaining and has a nice score. It has a more authentic or realistic feel to it then the green tights and swinging from vines versions we've seen over the years. It's definitely better than the Kevin Kostner's Robin Hood.

The movie is not without it's shortcomings. I almost laughed when I saw the French landing on the English shore in wooden amphibian landing boats. It looked like they were trying to copy the scene from Saving Private Ryan. Seeing Marion and the "Lost Boys" from Peter Pan come to battle was also a let down. There were several unanswered questions and other little details that detracted from the movie too. My kids have been watching the Robin Hood series from the BBC recently which is total bubble gum, so maybe that is why this movie's seemed so good in comparison. Despite the harsh reviews, I still give it 7.7 stars and I'm not just saying that so Ridley Scott will let me be in his next movie.

1 comment:

Chaka said...

I just saw it a second time and liked it even more. I think the critics were too harsh.

Large Association of Movie Blogs