When a film comes out that is called Robin Hood, there are certain images and themes that come to mind: bow & arrows, Maid Marion, robbing the rich and giving to the poor, Sherwood Forest, Sheriff of Nottingham, “Little” John, and multiple actors portraying the titular star. What happens when a Robin Hood film comes along that throws all of that aside and tells and origin story, void of any substance that we’ve come to know and love?

I consider myself one who is “in the biz” when it comes to movies because I spend almost every hour of my day reading about, researching, and discovering all that I can about upcoming films. Armed with the foreknowledge that Ridley Scott’s version of Robin Hood wasn’t going to be like any other Robin Hood before it, I think my expectations were correctly postured. I knew what I was walking into, I knew that this was going to be a Robin Hood film unlike any other; it was going to be an origin story, a prequel, sort of, setting up the world we have already come to know and love, a world involving Kevin Costner, Disney films, and a hilarious spoof with Cary Elwes. Knowing that, I have to say that I really enjoyed this installment of Robin Hood.

Starting right off the bat, I am a huge fan of origin stories and prequels. I love to see already established stories told from the beginning, providing that much needed back story that you always wonder about later. There’s something refreshing about re-discovering an “old character” from our past and learning how they developed over the years…especially in film. In this film, Robin Hood isn’t even Robin Hood, he’s Robin Longstride, a lonely archer in the King’s Army just trying to earn his keep and fight the Crusade. His “merry men” are lowly archers who desperately need a shower but who are loyal to Robin’s bravery and leadership when all hell breaks loose and the King is killed in battle.

Here’s where the story gets interesting and provides some of the “ah-ha” moments of what we know about Robin Hood. Robin (Crowe) meets Robert Loxley, the King’s right-hand-man, who before dying asks him to take his father’s sword back to him, his father, of course, lives back in Nottingham with Loxley’s wife, Maid Marion. I know what you’re thinking: oh yeah right, nice job Scott, turning the film around and making Robin into some lowly peasant who because of cheesy cinematic bravery happens upon his legacy that I’m sure will pan out in films to come.

Wait a minute, that’s not what you’re thinking, that’s what I am thinking. I can’t believe that in 3 paragraphs, I have convinced myself that I really didn’t like this film at all. I thought I initially liked the idea of a prequel and an origin story, but after thinking about it, it’s cheesy. Ridley Scott knew what he was doing the whole time.

Of course he didn’t make a Robin Hood film that we’d all expect him to. We’ve seen it, it’s been done, and I think Kevin Costner did it the best. Why would Scott in 2010 create a film that we’d all expect him to, what kind of director would he be?! Instead, he took the age-old story of Sir Robin Hood robbing the rich and giving it to the poor and trying to be with his love Maid Marion, and turned it upside down, on purpose, to come across as “clever.” What if Robin Hood isn’t actually Robin Hood? What if he is just some archer, just another soulless soldier in the King’s Army, who happens on a lucky circumstance which ultimately leads to him becoming the character everyone wants him to become….

The battle scenes are epic, that’s to be expected, the action is quick and confusing, the camera movement is shaky and “Bourne-esque,” and the entire film is grainy and dirty and makes you want to see a rainbow just to know that the world has color. It’s a Ridley Scott film. And I think that’s what I got out of it, now after thinking about it and writing about it…this is a Ridley Scott cinematic magic show. When the film started, he said, “…and Abracadabra…POOF” and instead of a rabbit disappearing into a hat, we were left with an upside down Robin Hood story that’s too slow for a summer movie and too backwards to be considered unique.

Cate Blanchett played an OK Marion but her chemistry with Robin (it doesn’t matter which one) was forced and never felt real. Hood’s merry men were an occasional comedic relief from the story and as far as the villains, give me a break. King John was laughable and more of a spoiled little brat, Mark Strong as a “Jonah Hex-scarred bad guy” with a horrible accent didn’t exude fear, and even the Sheriff of Nottingham was subjected to a minor character that you didn’t care about.

This is a first for me, I’ve never started out a review thinking one way and then changed my opinion mid-way. I thought about editing this review and just making it a negative one, but I think it’s nice to see the progression of my thoughts. It’s more natural, more organic, a more authentic view of a writer.

Related posts:

1. First Trailer For Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood
2. First Look: Robin Hood Poster
3. “Robin Hood” Does Not Feature “Losers” On Its Poster
4. DVD Review: Seven Pounds
5. Steven’s View: Prince of Persia Review