Saturday, September 4, 2010

Robin Hood (2010)

This was an interesting spin on the Robin Hood tale, and, as I'm told, is supposed to be a more historically accurate version as well. I don't know much about the true history of the legendary Robin Hood, but do not go in expecting a prequel to Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. While this film is a prequel to the more popular story of Robin Hood, it does take a very different turn than did other Robin Hood films. That's what made this film so interesting to watch; to see all the characters you know so well placed in a completely different role than seen before. That was a very enjoyable part of the movie. Aside from that, the film was a bit lacking. I admit that this was not up to the usual par of Ridley Scott, and I was expecting better from him.
The actors, especially Russel Crowe and Cate Blanchett, perform very well in this film and definitely carry the movie through some of it's blandness and clich├ęs. While the two main characters and Blanchett's father go through a great deal of character development, the other characters just wander around the movie doing as they are told. You really hope to see character development with Little John, Will Scarlet, Allan A'Dayle and Friar Tuck, but are dissappointed by the lack thereof.
The enemies of the film are threatening enough and convincing in their evil roles, but I admit that I certainly enjoy the embittered Alan Rickman and comical Peter Ustinov versions of Little John better than the winy, spoiled Prince John that we are presented with in this film (It's probably obvious, but I really, really like Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and it's hard for other Robin Hood attempts to top it).

**Spoiler Alert**
I also have to admit that the final arrow shot that killed Godfrey in the end was way too ridiculous to be believable. The fact that Robin was able to shoot Godfrey through the neck from a very far distance while the villain was riding away on a horse amongst great coastal winds and with a soaked bow and arrow is just too much. I would have even been okay with it if he just got him through the heart via the back; but that triumphant shot was just far too over-the-top for me to accept. There were just too many factors that would make that an impossible shot.
**End Spoiler Alert**

Overall, the film is worth seeing at least once, but not purchase-worthy in my book.

As far as questionable content:
There is a quick flash of a soldier and servant girl having sex amidst the battlegrounds towards the beginning. There is also a very awkward sex scene with Prince John and his French fling towards the beginning in which you see a flash of female nipple as well as an eyeful of Prince John's buttocks. Aside from that, some scenes of violence.

P.S. - The image used in the post is copyrighted by Universal Pictures.

3 comments:

  1. Wow dude, you got a sharp eye! I didn't see any of those sex scenes haha. Maybe I'm just....lacking hahah. Good review :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I enjoyed it but I too am a die hard Prince of Thieves gal myself. As for the lack of character development of the other characters...meh. Roaming around being told what to do...having sex and getting drunk when not being told what to do...seemed logical and realistic enough for that time. I thought this movie was WAY better with historical accuracy in atmosphere and customs. As for the end kill shot...it was soooo absurdly awesome! The kind of scene that is so unrealistic it makes you laugh but still being awesome because that is what movies do, portray what we wish happened in real life...like shooting an arrow from a mile away and still hitting your arch enemy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Best. Movie. Ever. .....Period.

    haha jk

    ReplyDelete