Photo by:
After Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe’s impressive success with the film “Gladiator,” the expectations were high for “Robin Hood” to be as good or better than its celluloid predecessors.
“Robin Hood” becomes little more than a confused portrayal of fate, deceit and glory in medieval England.
The writer, Brian Helgeland, in a desire to steer away from any kind of cliché tries to create an original picture of the glorious outlaw. Except that after two and a half hours the viewer will find Robin Longstride (Robin Hood) neither glorious nor particularly outlawish. The uproarious speeches and acts all have a distinct way of being a little too contrived.
Russell Crowe’s performance also may have contributed to this.
In what can only be described as the weakest performance of his career, Crowe plays Robin Hood. And it was about as bad as when Brosnan played Bond. His performance comes across as forced and unnatural and although it’s not the most horrendous acting (it’s still Russell Crowe after all), it is nonetheless a performance that is best forgot by the lauded Hollywood actor.
The rest of the performances were equally unenthralling. Again, it’s not that they were horrible, it’s simply that they lacked any kind of emotional appeal to the viewer.
Cate Blanchett does offer some fire as Maid Marion and Mark Addy provides a twinge of comic relief as Friar Tuck.
Nonetheless, the cast as a whole, for all their star power, simply underperforms. Unlike in “Gladiator” the audience is unable to make any emotional connection to the characters, which really hurts the quality of this film in particular because it is so character driven.
Scott and Helgeland clearly were trying to give a more realistic portrayal of the mythic origins of Robin Hood while simultaneously attempting not to feed into the normal clichés that proliferate such movies such as fighting for freedom in 12th century England.
However, two and a half hour movies need relatable characters to keep the audience interested, and frankly the characters that Scott, Helgeland and Crowe play lack the emotional depth and purity that can allow audiences to sympathize and connect.
For two and a half hours viewers watch a few uninspiring battle scenes waiting for something, anything to happen, only to be sorely disappointed when the film suddenly ends and the viewer walks out considerably less entertained and hopeful than when he or she went in.
Expectations probably hurt this film more than anything else, however, with a star-studded cast and award-winning director the viewer has every right to expect greatness. Unfortunately, “Robin Hood” doesn’t deliver it.
