Review: Robin Hood
There’s a scene in the new Robin Hood where Sir Walter Locksley (played by Max von Sydow, a Swede) tells Robin (played by Russell Crowe, an Australian) that he stinks.
Oh, how apt.
First, the good about Robin Hood: Cate Blanchett (an Australian) is excellent as Marian, transforming her beyond Token Woman status. She lights up every scene, as they say. Also, Blanchett nails the East Midlands accent. More on that in a sec.
The fight scenes are decent and King John (played by Oscar Issac, a Guatemalan) is suitably decadent.
Other than yet, it…well, it stinks. Or stinketh if you prefer your English ye olde style, although one need not worry about historical credibility when watching this film. After all, we are to believe that Robin Hood had a hand in Magna Carta.
There are two problems with Robin Hood, one of which an American audience might be able to forgive but which for British audiences is a hammer to the head: the accents, oh the accents!
Crowe’s is simply awful, ranging from Irish to Australian to vaguely northern English. What’s worse is that it seems to switch half way through the film. To an ear that can hear these accents, it’s simply too distracting. Rather than enjoy Robin’s rousing speech to the barons, all I could hear was Crowe’s weird accent. It’s embarrassing, something I think Crowe knows hence his rude behaviour in a recent BBC interview.
Given that this film was made in the UK by a British director and crew, one wonders why someone didn’t tell Crowe how awful he was. Or were they afraid he’d throw a telephone at them? Probably. But then again, if Locksley can be Swedish and Little John Scottish, I suppose no-one noticed. Kudos to Blanchett for being the only one who bothered to get the voice right.
All of that may fall on deaf ears outside of the UK, so let’s consider how else the film fails. Ridley Scott’s Gladiator worked so well because beyond the swords and togas there was a compelling personal tragedy which made us root for Maximus. This is simply not the case for Robin Hood: we don’t care about Robin, we don’t care if the French conquer King John’s England, we don’t believe that Robin’s father was a 12th century MLK, we’re not interested in the feral children of Sherwood Forest, and sorry, but RUSSELL CROWE’S ACCENT IS AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL.
Robin Hood is set up for a sequel. The legend is interesting enough to offer hope, but not unless Crowe gets a new voice coach and Scott finds some way for us to care about Robin. Having the Sheriff of Nottingham crucify Marian and sell him into slavery might work.
Posted on May 25, 2010, in Movies, Reviews. Bookmark the permalink. 62 Comments.
Well Blanchett previously played Queen Elizabeth! She ought to definitely have a spot on English accent.
So who was better as Robin? Kevin Costner or Russell Crowe?
Personally I liked the BBC’s Robin Hood series. That’s more of the kind of Robin Hood I envision, not this muscled gladiator version.
I love the line from Mel Brooks’ Men in Tights when Carey Elwes claims that he is a different Robin Hood because unlike all of the other, he can speak with an English accent. Brilliant.
I have found it interesting over the last couple of weeks to see the history of this movie, how it morphed from “Nottingham,” telling the story from the Sherrif’s point of view (the pdf of the script is available online), to “Robin Hood,” the “Gladiator” version.
I would pay real money to see “Nottingham.” I won’t to see this version of “Robin Hood.” I’d rather re-watch “Men in Tights” or the Disney cartoon version.
Yeah, no interest in this movie at all. I did see a show about it, think it was on the History channel, that was pretty interesting though. Talking about details like what kinds of horses they would have ridden and the weapons they’d have used and stuff. It also detailed how the Robin Hood myth has evolved over the years and pointed out things the movie altered for whatever reasons.
I often find the reviews by “purists” more difficult to swallow than the movies they crucify. Being from southern Arizona, British accents don’t matter to me – they’re unimportant in so many ways.
I enjoyed the moive. I thought it was entertaining, the story was interesting (even if not true), most of the characters were interesting. It may not have been the best, or most accurate, version of the Robin Hood story, but DOES IT REALLY MATTER?!?!?!?
Mel,
I admitted that Americans probably wouldn’t have an issue with the accent, so take a chill pill. That said, imagine having a movie of, say, Billy the Kid where Billy sounds like he’s from France. It would annoy you.
As for historicity, I’m happy to accept that the Robin Hood myth can invent itself any way it wishes. That’s not the trouble with the film. Put simply, it’s boring and inspires no interest in the characters apart from Marian. That’s not a purist speaking, that’s my numb, bored bum.
Or a New England accent. Yeah, that makes sense.
Normally I would want to see a Robin Hood movie. I just like the traditional character and the tales associated with him.
But Robin Hood, portrayed as a burly macho meathead, directly contradicts the image I have of this character.
Reminds me of all the people who slaughter a Canadian accent – not to mention Newfoundland accents!
If generations of Americans could grow up on totally preposterous and phony “westerns”, I fail to see why I should get worked up over a totally preposterous and phony movie about an Englishman. That said, I sort of enjoyed the old TV series starring British actor Richard Greene.
Clark, come on, who would pretend to be Canadian, or even less likely, Newfoundlandian (is that even a word)?
Wait, I think I remember, I did see a TV show about a Canadian once! It was called Dudley Doright, and you’re right, the accent was way off. Drove me crazy.
One of the best sitcoms ever: Corner Gas. Canadian.
This movie is awful but for the reasons you put in comment 6, not the review I’m afraid (2/3 of it is about the accents. Yes, they’re awful but what movie full of non native speakers is good?) Also I cannot disagree more about Cate Blanchett though I admit I don’t like her much at all in ANYthing save LOTR.
But yeah. The characters and plot are uninspiring at best. Just when you think someone or some plot is going to get interesting, it switches to something else. and we don’t hear about the former again. Ridley Scott is quickly becoming the new Mel Gibson in slaughtering history for so called historical epics.
Rant off:)
I was so excited about this movie when I heard it was being made. Then I heard that Crowe was going to be Robin, I wasn’t so sure about the casting. Now, I am only hearing bad reviews… As much as I hate the Costner version, I may just watch that one again… or just watch Men in Tights, and maybe by a copy of the Errol Flynn version. Yeah, that’s what I’ll do.
Umm. What? You’re seriously criticizing a film about Robin Hood due to it not being historically accurate? Can you point to the Robin Hood that is historically accurate? I mean I can think of a ton of criticisms one can make in movies, but criticizing a highly mythologized character as not being historical enough strikes me as odd. It’s kind of like criticizing the Hercules TV series for not representing accurately Hercules’ life in 1000 BC.
Brit – you said what I’ve been trying to say for a week. Bravo. I just didn’t care – the script is the real stinker.
Better than the Costner version – not as the Disney version.
Clark,
I understand your confusion. Let me explain.
A movie about a character like Robin Hood can have all the mythological, fantasy and whatever else in it. If aliens were in it that would be fine with me (in fact that might be kinda cool!) The Costner movie, Men in Tights and such movies work in part because they’re only barely attached the historical events around them. We know not to take that part of it seriously.
However, this particular movie toys with a LOT of real life characters and events. The death of Richard I at the siege of Chalus-Chabrol, the crowning and initial reign of John, Eleanor of Aquitaine’s role, William Marshal, the wars and tensions between France and England in the 12/14th century, and Magna Carta to name a few. Many filmmakers attempt to tell their tale within the confines of an effort to keep these things as true to life as possible. Others, such as Ridley and the aforementioned Mel Gibson seem to use parts of history they like at their whims to tell a story that suits their purposes, whether political, religious or whatever. It’s a fair bet to say most people nowadays get a great deal of their historical knowledge from the cinema, so this is troubling to me, especially with characters that are so audaciously anachronistic.
Does that make more sense?
In fact, this isn’t Robin Hood at all, anyway. It’s a contrived, politicized (or something-cized) look at the 12th/13th century events of England and France with Robin Hood names and places:)
What Clark said.
It’s the First Baron’s War, not Robin Hood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barons'_War
hmm, dunno what happened on that link
The First Baron’s War
I found it to be enjoyable fluff, and I absolutely agree that Blanchett was far-and-away the best part of the movie. I was distracted in the scene in which Max von Sydow helps Robin remember a “repressed memory” from his childhood — I kept hoping he would say “The power of Christ compels you! The power of Christ compels you!”
Thank you, Dan:)
You must have hated Raiders of the Lost Ark with a passion.
I don’t think a lot of people are going to think Raiders is somehow supposed to be historically accurate. But if a movie involves the Magna Carta in its plot some people might assume it’s going to be somewhat accurate.
??? Why?
I agree with Susan. This new Robin Hood movie is a recreation of the events surrounding the death of Richard I and many of those who haven’t studied the period or don’t care to will take this rendition as mostly accurate. Raiders from the get-go makes it very clear to anyone but very small children that this is a made up story set just prior to WWII.
Well, the title is “Robin Hood,” yes? A recognized character of legend. Do we similarly worry that children exposed to an earlier version of the film will scour books of English history in vain attempts to learn more about King John’s courtier, Sir Hiss? The film has enough other failings to make concern for its historical inaccuracies seem a bit silly.
I hope you are right. I hope that by slapping the name “Robin Hood” on to a movie that has nothing to do with the stories or legends of Robin Hood will keep people from thinking it has any historical accuracy. However, all things considered, I’d be surprised.
I’m skeptical. I think people would expect Raiders to be more historical than Robin Hood. That, and the fact that the typical person has seen dozens of versions of Robin Hood. Why pick just one to be historically accurate?
Like Latter-day Guy pointed out, I hope people will not take it as historical because the name Robin Hood is attached. However as previously stated, this isn’t a Robin Hood movie. It’s the events following the death of Richard I and the First Baron’s War with some Robin Hood names and places slapped in.
As for Raiders, why so?
Also, we haven’t mentioned this before but keep in mind that many DO consider Robin Hood to be a historical character to some degree or another (he very well could be), which only complicates the situation further.
Robin Hood is at least a quasi-historical character. Indiana Jones? Not so much.
The reason it seems to me that Robin Hood would invoke so much skepticism is precisely because it’s seen as fantasy and because there are simply so many versions ranging from the current popular BBC series, to the Costner version, to the classic Errol Flynn version not to mention dozens of others (including the Disney version). Each plays with the legend in a different way. But history? I’m not sure how anyone could see that as historic.
Contrast this with Raiders of the Lost Ark where other than the religious aspects it takes place in a place most assume is historic: Nazi Germany. Are there people who expect something out of the ordinary here? Maybe some unexpected errors, but basic historicity probably is expected. Unlike Robin Hood which seems more tied to fantasy ala King Arthur.
Clark, that’s great except that exactly zero of the movie is set in Germany. There’s nazis, sure, but no Germany. A lot of movies are set during WWII with the nazis as the baddies. They make good villains. Doesn’t make me think it’s a documentary.
I have read the book “Robin Hood,” one of the older versions of the story. The attempt to make it appear that Robin was an actual historic character is quite striking. Many of the movies have this same tone. I think a lot of people kind of think of Robin as at least possibly a real person, as he may have been. Certainly some of the characters and events from his story are (King Richard, for example). I can’t imagine anyone who thinks a single character from Raiders that people think is an actual historic figure.
MCQ,
But Nazis were involved in the Middle East searching for religious relics. And of course in the third Indy movie, Indiana Jones does go into Germany itself.
Dan, in Casablanca, did you think that Rick was a historical character that actually owned a bar in Africa in WWII?
And we’re talking about Raiders, here, not the sequals.
MCQ,
Fictional characters are fake. The historical accuracy is not about the fictional characters, but the environment they reside in. They must follow the rules of the world. No one expects there to be an actual guy owning a bar in Casablanca, but we do expect the French and the Germans not to get along in that period. Similarly, we don’t expect Indiana Jones to be a real person, or even based on a real person, but we do expect the Nazis to have dug for hidden treasures in the desert.
See, in the case of this current Robin Hood, there’s just no historical accuracy to placing Robin Hood in the Baron’s War and tied to the Magna Carta, as if Robin Hood had a part to play in the creation of one of the most important documents in the history of the world. In the case of Indiana Jones, he may have met Adolf Hitler, but Indiana Jones had no effect upon the course of actual history, thus not frustrating the historical accuracy of the Indiana Jones world.
An example like the current Robin Hood film is Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds, which significantly plays with actual history. Because it does it so blatantly, we know it’s just a fantasy, and he therefore can get away with historical inaccuracies. But see, Ridley Scott painted himself in a corner because he tries to portray the current film as based on the “real” Robin Hood, or the Robin Hood before Sherwood Forest. That limits his ability to play with historical inaccuracy.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Robin Hood is not necessarily a fictional character. The true origin of the character is unknown, but he may have been a real person. He has always been (at least in most iterations) supposed to have affected actual historical events, BTW.
In that sense, by your own admission, Robin Hood is obviously more “historical seeming”, as a story and as a character, than is Raiders or Indiana Jones.
I’ve never known that Nazis actually dug for hidden treasures in the desert. I thought that was all made up. Raiders is so over the top in every way, I never thought any of it was supposed to be based on reality at all.
But a film that uses the Magna Carta as a plot device would have me wondering if it was based on real history.
“we do expect the French and the Germans not to get along in that period.”
Your expectations might have taken a beating during the actual WWII, as well as in many movies about that era.
Ever hear of Vichy? Both Raiders and Casablanca had Frenchmen who were cooperating with the nazis, ala Vichy. Raiders had a French archeologist Rene Belloq, and Casablanca had Captain Louis Renault. Those characters must have really messed with your historical expectations.
Out of curiosity which Robin Hood movies do you think are more accurate than this one? (Which I have no desire to see) This is rather my point. None of the Robin Hood films have been remotely historically accurate beyond taking place sometime around King John. It would be really, really hard for Scott to be much worse.
Susan, Hitler and a few other folks really did have a thing for occult or religious artifacts. And they really were in the mideast – albeit primarily for other reasons. Remember that the original war with the Americans was in the British – tank warfare with Rommel and then the move with Patton up through Italy as well as movement up through France after D-day.
Woops. Not “in the British” but “in the Arabian desert.”
Prince John, actually. Robin is portrayed in most modern tales as rescuing the throne from the usurper Prince John who tries to take the throne while Richard, the true king, is away fighting in the crusades. This is a fairly modern adaptation of the legend, but it certainly fixes Robin in a historical and geographical context.
Clark,
This is exactly my point. No other Robin Hood movie has come close to even trying to ground their story in an actual historical setting except as you say, around the time of John and Richard and the Crusades. Ridley, on the other hand, is virtually doing the same thing he did in Kingdom of Heaven and build some seemingly religious or political or something point through a recreated history, one which many who don’t care to do their homework, will generally believe those events and people were really like when that is not the case in the least
I’ve never seen any Robin Hood movies. The only one I could name is Robin Hood: Men in Tights, but I’ve never seen it.
Susan,
#41,
The Nazis did go to the Middle East in search of Aryan relics.
MCQ,
#42,
oh please, individuals who seek gains from cooperation with their national enemies does not shake my foundation on the general point about the enmity between France and Germany during World War II.
I believe you. I’m just saying in a movie like Raiders, I would not expect any historical accuracy at all. But I can totally see why viewers would expect some from this new version of Robin Hood.
I don’t get how you and Clark can’t see that. Or maybe we’re all just arguing past each other.
Dan, that’s what I’m telling you about Vichy. It wasn’t just individuals. There was a whole French government that was in league with the nazis.
MCQ,
Geez, you mean the government that was run by the French under German occupation after being utterly defeated by the Germans? Com’on dude. You think they did it because they liked it?
Dan, you appear to know nothing about this part of history.
The members of the government in Vichy were in fact nazi collaborators. They were French people who governed according to the nazi philosophy without protest. They rounded up Jews and others for extermination. They arrested resistance fighters and spied for the nazis. After the war, when the allies won, the members of the Vichy government were arrested and tried as war criminals and most were executed. Yes, they did it willingly and because they wanted to side with the nazis for gain or power or because they just agreed with them.
That’s why your expectation that the French and the Germans won’t get along in movies about WWII is absurd, as shown by even a couple of individuals in the two movies I mentioned. There were a lot of French collaborators. Sorry to burst your bubble.
You’re not bursting my bubble. The Germans defeated the French and then essentially put up pliable French to rule the country. That French freedom fighters as depicted in Casablanca would somehow be complicit with the Vichy government would burst my bubble, because if I understand that history correctly, that would not be the case. I remain open to be surprised.
But I’m done on this topic.
There are no French freedom fighters depicted in Casablanca. There are almost no French people in the movie at all. The only two I can recall are both nazi sympathizers: Louis Renault and a French prostitute. Both end up repenting of their ways eventually, but they are not freedom fighters during the movie.
The Vichy government members were not “pliable.” They would not have been executed for merely being pliable. They supported the nazi regime.
MCQ,
Sorry, let me add just one last comment about Casablanca. Casablanca wasn’t a historical movie. Casablanca was made in 1942 and was about current events. I’m sure they had their set and environment historically accurate.
Agreed, Dan. Did you think I was suggesting that the movie wasn’t accurate? I wasn’t. I was actually just suggesting that your comments weren’t accurate.
Can I just mention that Star Wars opens with the lie, “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…” which gives it a place and time in relation to our own and thus makes it historical.
arJ, I believe Star Wars is the most historically accurate movie ever created. I dare anyone to prove me wrong.
MCQ,
I agree. Although Lord of the Rings comes closer than you think. That and Highlander
i’m only interested in the Mel Brooks spoof.
that’s all i need
Regarding the accent, it’s rather silly to criticize Crowe and praise Blanchett for somehow getting it right. First of all, the fictional Robin in the movie was taken from home at age 6 and raised somewhere else, and spent the past 10 years crusading outside England so he’s bound to have an odd accent.
Besides – people!! There was no English languange and no midlands accent at the time. They spoke Saxon and French!
The best accents were in Valkerie where some Germans spoke Californian, some British, some quasi-German, and so forth.