Starring Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, William Hurt, Mark Strong, Oscar Isaac, Matthew Macfadyen, and Kevin Durand. Directed by Ridley Scott.
A small disclaimer: I went to see this movie within an hour after finding out I was going to have to pay $1200 to have a bladder stone removed from my dog's abdomen. I might have been a little distracted.
I went into this movie without any real expectations. Robin Hood is cool, and Russell Crowe as the suppressed but badass hero in Gladiator was cool, so it had a lot of potential. Plus Cate Blanchett is wonderful, Mark Strong is becoming one of my favorite actors, and Matthew Macfadyen played Mr. Darcy! Of course, I went in simply with the knowledge that Russell Crowe was Robin Hood and Cate Blanchett was some random woman, so I can't really say I went to see it for all those actors. Those were just treats waiting to be discovered. But I also heard right before I went that it had received some bad reviews, so I went in as a completely blank slate: it could be totally kick-ass, or it could totally suck. Or it could be simply mediocre.
On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the most kickass and 1 being the worst movie ever made, I would give this movie a 6 or a 7. I enjoyed my experience overall, but there were certain parts that threw me a little bit and brought my experience of the film down. I'll try to follow my thoughts chronologically, but of course, that's rarely successful. Still, it's worth a try.
I started the film knowing only that this was meant to be a prequel to the tale of Robin Hood. I suppose I should therefore clarify my understanding of the legend of Robin Hood going in. I'll admit that my only real experience with Robin Hood is the 1973 Disney animated movie where they're all portrayed as animals, with a little bit of Robin Hood: Men in Tights thrown in there. Here's what I know about Robin Hood: he steals from the rich to give to the poor because the evil Prince John and the evil sheriff of Nottingham are overtaxing the poor to fill their coffers. He has his "merry men" and his best buddies Little John and Friar Tuck. He falls in love with the beautiful Maid Marian, who in the Disney movie seemed to be somewhat like royalty, at least in my perception as a child. Robin is the best archer in the land and gleefully uses his talents to make fools of the authorities so he can help the poor maintain their lowly but happy lifestyles. In the end, King Richard the Lion-hearted comes back to save the day and Prince John is left sucking his thumb and calling for his mama. End of story.
The following names sound familiar to me even if I can't tell you why: King Richard, King John, Loxley, Robin Hood, Little John, Friar Tuck, Maid Marian, Will, and Eleanor of Aquitaine. Obviously some of these were mentioned above, but the others sound familiar from something other than my Disney Robin Hood experience. Loxley and Eleanor of Aquitaine are particularly troubling because I don't remember how they fit in.
This movie, being a prequel, should presumably follow a line that ends with all of these characters ready to fill their roles in the great legend of Robin Hood. That was not quite the case with all the characters. King Richard died early, as did Sir Robert Loxley. These were both necessary plot points for this movie, but they left me confused. If King Richard dies, how is he supposed to save the day when Prince John ruins his country? I still can't figure out why the name Loxley is familiar (perhaps it's from Men in Tights?), but if he's so familiar to me, how is it possible that he died before the famous tale began? Unless there is some alternative way that the story goes (and believe me, I'm not so naive as to think the Disney version is the definitive version), I don't understand how these characters can have passed on so early. So that left me wondering throughout the movie what I was missing.
Another problem early on: a strange desire to turn off the television. Do you ever get that feeling, when you're just sitting in front of the TV and watching some mindless movie, that you have something better you could be doing? I tend to sit down in front of the TV and become so entranced that hours will pass before I feel strong enough to turn it off. So when I am hit by a sudden urge to turn off the TV and do something more productive, I feel strangely free from its bonds and figure I'd better take advantage of the feeling and turn it off straight away. Well, I had that feeling toward the beginning of Robin Hood. I am highly entertained by noble stories of battles, but sometimes they just don't hold my attention. This movie started with King Richard fighting battles on his way back from the Crusades (already?), and since I wasn't entirely sure what was going on, I found my attention wandering. Of course I didn't leave, but it was very strange for me to have that urge. I suspect it may have had something to do with the fact that I felt so terrible about my little doggie's bladder stone, but I don't remember thinking about it specifically when I had the desire to stop watching. I just figured I could find something more interesting to do.
The movie did get more interesting. I particularly liked their attention to historical detail. They portrayed these characters as they really would have been, dirty and with grimy clothes and slogging through the mud. I liked that. I sometimes feel that we romanticize the middle ages, but this did not have pretty ladies in sparkly dresses scampering around their palace. Instead, there were men (and women) slogging it out in the fields, trying to plant and push their wagons and live life like it must have been in 1199. I was very impressed by that.
I also find that I appreciate stories like this more as I get older because I actually understand something about history. When I saw that it was set it 1199, I immediately put it into the historical context of the Norman invasion of 1066, this being less than 150 years after that (the movie introduces you to the tension between England and France right off the bat, so considering their history is important to understanding what has brought them to this point). I also have studied the Tudor reign, particularly during the time of Henry VIII, quite a bit. Seeing how fitfully arrogant King Henry was has opened my eyes to the way royalty really acted back then. There was no gentle king with his lovely princess who wed her to the handsome prince. Sure, Sleeping Beauty makes for a nice story, but the monarchy was much messier than that. In the court, there was intrigue and the king's hogwash about "god's divine power" and someone always trying to get ahead by playing to the king's favor and stepping on someone else. Below that, there seemed to be very little attention paid to what the actual commonpeople were dealing with. Kings felt free to overtax the people to fund their own exorbitant and expensive lifestyles, as well as the wars they waged to win themselves glory. [see the French monarchy just before the French Revolution in 1789 as a great example]
It is vital to understand this aspect of history to appreciate this version of Robin Hood. Prince John eagerly awaits the day he will become king, and within moments of hearing that his brother has died, leaving him the crown, he already shows his selfishness by refusing any reward to Robin for traveling the perilous road to bring him the news. Instead, he giggles and remarks that as Robin's father owes back taxes, the king will keep his gift as payment. Not a good omen.
I suppose at this point I should take a step back, as Robin was not actually "Robin" at that point. There was a great deal of intrigue leading up to this point--in sum, an Englishman named Godfrey has allied himself with the French to overthrow the English monarchy and rule all of England himself. He plots to kill King Richard, who dies before he can kill him. But he ends up killing a bunch of the king's knights in the process, including one named Sir Robert Loxley. He's the only one left alive with Robin and his men find them, and he asks Robin to take the crown to England and return his sword to his father in Nottingham. Robin agrees and he and his men take on the cloaks of the knights because knights are much more respected than mere archers.
A side note--that was another part of history that I appreciated about this movie. Because we have all grown to love the story of the good-hearted archer Robin Hood and his men, we tend to assume that archers were on par with knights in the eyes of the people. Not so. Several different times, this movie makes mention of the fact that archers (or "yeomen") are almost a joke in their culture. It's important to understand just how lowly Robin started to be able to appreciate how far he climbed simply on his own merit.
So we have Robin sailing back to England with the crown of England under the name of Loxley, and the king reminds "Loxley" that is father owes him money. Thankfully all of Richard's knights have been away in the Crusades for 10 years, so no one knows he's just an impersonator.
Robin sets out for Nottingham to return Loxley's sword, and he discovers a saying cut into its hilt that seems to remind him of his childhood, which until this point has been very vague, even for him. Half of the movie is spent explaining who Robin's father was and how he is (sort of) important to the plot later on. Long story short, he goes to Nottingham (aha, the stage is set for our legend!), meets Maid Marian, is asked to continue portraying Loxley by Marian's father-in-law (oh yes, Marian was married to Loxley before the wars, before she even met Robin--so does that mean she's not really Maid Marian anymore??), and goes about his business pretending to be a knight returned from war, married to Maid Marian, all so that if Loxley Sr. dies, Marian can keep her land and Robin can learn more about his family.
Now at this point, I recognized a feature of some of my favorite romance novels. I love it when the two characters are forced to be married before they love each other, because it makes anything they do afterward totally legit. They were already married, after all! Of course, I don't know that Marian and Robin hardly even kissed in this movie, but I liked knowing that at any time, if they felt like consummating their "marriage," they could do so. Adds a nice element to the movie. :)
Blah blah blah, I'm terrible at summarizing... I guess the point I'm trying to make is that this movie was much more complicated than I expected. Not in a bad way, but certainly more than I realized going into it. Godrey wanted the English crown, so he teamed up with the French to invade England, all the while stirring up dissent in the north over taxation. Again, some understanding of English history is handy here. Robin is not really Robin but Loxley to half the characters, and he gets married to Marian before he even knows her, and the church is involved in stealing the villagers' grain (which is where Friar Tuck comes in, saying "I've never been much of a churchy friar." hehe PS he's a beekeeper?) I didn't realize Robin's sidekick was Little John until about 3/4 of the way through the movie, which I suppose makes his other two helpers known merry men as well. In addition to all this, the newly crowned King John has married a French princess and fired his chief counselor to put Godfrey in his position and disrespects his mother, who is apparently Eleanor of Aquitaine, and acts like a petulant child who is sent by God to destroy the lives of everyone in England. There's A LOT going on in this movie.
There is very little humor in this movie, but I'll share some of my favorite lines:
Loxley Sr. to Robin: "You will dine with us tonight, but first you will bathe. You stink." lol (a great reference to the fact that medieval times were disgusting!)
Robin and Marian talking about her marriage to Loxley Jr.: "Yes, we were married for a week and then he went off to war. I barely even knew him."
Robin: "A good (k)night."
Marian: "Short but sweet, yes."
Robin: "No, I meant that he was a good man, a good knight..."
Marian: *blushes scarlet* "Oh, of course..."
haha You have to hear that one to appreciate it, but it was hilarious.
One thing I didn't like was how Robin went from just wanting to get out of the Crusades to suddenly fighting on behalf of the people of Nottingham and falling in love with Marian. They hardly talk to each other, so it's hard to see how they would fall in love so quickly. Plus why would Robin care if the grain was taken by the church, and why would he bother to plant it in secret? He's only been there like 2 days and there's no guarantee he'll be staying. I just thought it was a bit contrived.
Other than that, the rest of the plot seemed believable. I could never figure out what King John was going to do, if he was going to cut down his rebels or use them to defeat France, but I suppose that was the point. He is utterly selfish and no matter what he says, you must always assume that he will only do what serves him best. He seemed a bit wishy washy, but as it was all in the name of what he wanted at the moment, I suppose it makes sense.
This movie, while enjoyable overall, does not ever reach the scope or emotional pull of Gladiator, that other most famous product of Ridley Scott's direction and production and Russell Crowe's acting. Russell Crowe was also a producer on this one, which probably comes with his enormous fame as well as his previous experience working with Scott. I suspect the reason this movie was not as good was simply the script. It seemed too rooted in the grandiose to be able to capture the individual agony that was so vital to the story in Gladiator. Sure, there were battles and combat in that one, but I felt that Robin Hood was nearly all battles and combat, without sufficiently leaving time for character development. It's like they wanted us to see what kind of movers and shakers these characters were even before they became known for the legends they are today, without giving us the emotional connection that makes them so popular.
I remember quite enjoying the movie when I walked out of the theater. I wasn't whistling or giggling like I sometimes do after a great movie, but I was glad I had gone to see it. I felt like I got a little glimpse into history, like I understood a little bit more about what life was like back then, even if I couldn't quite match up all the dangling storylines with where they fit in the plot of Robin Hood as we know him, defender of the poor and bane of the rich. I even found myself contemplating the way the king behaved the next day without even remembering where I had gotten such an image--it took a good 30 seconds of contemplation before I was able to place the memory as coming from the movie. I know I shouldn't take my history from Hollywood, but it speaks highly for this movie that I felt it so accurately portrayed politics in the middle ages that I had already committed its scenes into my memory.
Some random observations to end this monstrosity of a review: The absolute strangest moment in the movie was when I looked at the sheriff of Nottingham, really looked at him, and realized he was played by Matthew Macfadyen, beloved actor of Mr. Darcy! To go from having his pleading eyes as Mr Darcy take my breath away to being disgusted by the liberties he took with Marian was quite a shock. He's really a dufus in this movie, meant to be mocked in every way. You would never know it was him if you weren't paying attention. What a shock. From dreamy Austen hunk to despised slimeball sheriff of Nottingham. Who woulda thunk.
I really enjoyed the French in this movie. I feel that when two cultures are represented in a way that reflects what actually happened at the time, you feel like you are seeing a more authentic presentation of history. All French people in this movie spoke French, with Godrey even switching into French when it suited him to address his allies (Mark Strong has an excellent French accent, huge kudos to him!). Even Robin spoke French for a moment when demanding that his French opponents surrender, and I felt this lent a huge dose of credibility to the story. If Robin had shouted "Stop!" the French would have had no idea what he was saying. But when he shouted "Arretez!" you immediately understood that he was addressing the French in a way that they would understand and respond to. I really liked that.
Overall, this was a very pretty movie that brought in historical elements to make the story feel more real. Certain parts of the plot seemed to be stretched to their thinnest point to be able to give this movie its own plot but still maintain the integrity of the original Robin Hood story. At times I was distracted by it but at others, I appreciated their creativity. Because I left the theater with a smile on my face, I will give this movie 3 proud stallions.
Rating (out of 5 rainbows and ponies): 3 proud stallions
Conclusion: HAPPY ENDING
-PrincessM
No comments:
Post a Comment