bill bodkin reviews the latest russell crowe epic
Russell Crowe. Ridley Scott. Epic. Yes.
Walking into the theater on Memorial Day Weekend, this was the mantra that ran through my mind.
Like many, the thought of re-teaming Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe in the epic adventure format is the equivalent of cinematic birthday cake. Forget their previous underwhelming films, Body of Lies and American Gangster, (both of which saw Crowe play the second banana), this was the second coming of Gladiator, in all its CGI-action-filled and Oscar nominating soliloquy awesomeness.
And were this film condensed into the first 45 minutes of a Robin Hood movie, it would’ve lead to the epic we all were hoping for.
This was the first misstep in an age where directors and screenwriters want to pull a “Batman Begins”– to re-boot or re-interpret a storied film franchise. It worked wonders for Batman and Bond, but for Robin Hood, thoughts of Errol Flynn, Cary Elwes and dare we says…Kevin Costner, still run through the Sherwood forest of our minds.
The new Robin Hood is a prequel without a compelling plot. Sure, it’s a unique spin on the character — Robin (Crowe) is a mere commoner, an archer in King Richard’s army, who after an inadvertent blood pact with a dying noble, Robert Loxley, ends up through a series of mistaken identity and keeping up solid fronts, becomes the new Sir Robert Loxley. Things are complicated with a possible French invasion lead by a British traitor (the awesome Mark Strong) and British political maneuvering and philosophies.
It’s a different take; one that’s refreshing and new — but can you really make this an entire film? The answer is maybe, but the execution of this film causes the answer to become a resounding no. The lack of dialogue given to talented actors like Crowe and Cate Blanchett (Marion Loxley) is a crime. Scenes between these two are solid; they work with the little they have, but imagine if there was more?
In the same vein, The epic finale, which borders on ripping off the landing at Normandy scene for Saving Private Ryan, would’ve been 10 times better if there was more in it. Instead of hyperactively muddled violence, we should’ve had more grandeur, more heart-swelling heroics, more reasons to care.
Now this may sound like a negative review; consider this more of a frustrated one. The film, overall is a solid and enjoyable one, it’s just that they could’ve done so much more with. The amount of talent both on and off-screen, associated with this film is staggering and if they were ever to make the actual Robin Hood tale (box office receipts will be the determining factor), I think it would be amazing, but sadly it was not told here.
Instead we were given a tease, a sample, an undercooked appetizer of what a Robin Hood film re-teaming Russell and Ridley truly could’ve been.
I haven’t seen this movie yet. When I saw the previews in theaters my conscience whispered “wait til’ DVD” in the depths of my thoughts. You have confirmed this warning, and I have you and my conscience to thank.
Based on what you have written, I have derived that this movie is as disappointing as Tim Burton’s version of Alice in Wonderland…don’t get me wrong, I did enjoy parts of that movie…but I also felt deep in my heart that it could have been so so SO much better…
It’s disappointing when creative minds turn to unoriginal ideas, try to make them in their own original way, and fail to fully deliver. It’s like playing “just the tip” with the audience.
Very well done.
I could not agree more with your comments. This movie was a huge frustration for me. I hae no clue how long it was but surely felt like it was going on and on forever. There was no climax in the story, it just seemed like scenes were playing on the screen. Uhhhh I was so bored that I fell asleep for 10 minutes in the middle of the movie and the only reason I woke up is possibly because the seat wasn’t that comfortable 🙁 Expected a LOT more..