Director Report Card: Ridley Scott (2010)

19. Robin Hood

Robin Hood is one of the greatest myths of all time. The story of an outlaw fighting against tyranny, redistributing wealth, and hiding out in the woods with a band of like-minded rebels reverberates through the history of modern fiction. The legend of Robin Hood is also very old, dating back to at least the 15th century. This means Robin Hood is a name almost everyone has heard and is entirely in the public domain. Naturally, that has made the story extremely attractive to Hollywood. There's been countless cinematic Robin Hoods, from the silent era onward. Whether he's been Errol Flynn, Kevin Costner, or a cartoon fox, every generation has had a version to call their own. Last decade, when movie studios became obsessed with exploiting highly recognizable but very cheap I.P.s, Robin of Loxley was suddenly a hot property again. Out of this litany of dueling Hoods, a “Robin Hood” from Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe would be the first to emerge.

Robin Longstride, a veteran of the Third Crusades, fights alongside Richard the Lionhearted during the siege of Chalus Castle. Robin and his friends – Allan A'Dayle, Will Scarlet, and Little John – desert after the king is struck dead. Returning home, they encounter the knights escorting the king's crown back to England. Robin assumes the identity of the knight – Sir Loxley – after they are killed in an ambush. He returns to Nottingham and is soon adopted by Loxley's actual father and wife, Marion. Robin and his men soon uncover a conspiracy, led by English knight Godfrey, to lead a French invasion of England.

When first conceived, 2010's “Robin Hood” was going to be a radically different project. Originally entitled “Nottingham,” the script by Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris envisioned the Sheriff of Nottingham as a sympathetic protagonist and Robin Hood as a more morally gray character. The script focused on forensics and had the Sheriff as a man torn between an unjust king and a dangerous outlaw. This is the version of the movie that Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe signed on to make initially. At one point in development, the idea was floated to have Crowe play both the Sheriff of Nottingham and Robin Hood. If nothing else, that would've been a new take on the often-told tale. Eventually, as the project mutated through development, it became a more traditional retelling of the classic story. 

Instead of radically shifting perspectives, the project inflicted another popular storytelling trend of the time on the world famous archer and his merry men: Scott's “Robin Hood” is an origin story, essentially being “Robin Hood Begins.” We see, in extended detail, how Robin Longstride gained his famous alter-ego, meet most of his well-known friends, fell in love with Maid Marian, and came to reside in Sherwood Forest. In practice, what this actually does is tell a “Robin Hood” story without most of the fun stuff people actually associate with the character. This is Robin Hood before he was Robin Hood. There's exactly one scene of Robin and his crew being outlaws and stealing from the rich. The movie ends with Robin having made an enemy of Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham, overzealously saving all the cool shit we actually want to see the character do for a sequel that was destined to never be made. The movie even takes some time to flashback to Robin's childhood, letting us meet his dad!

Origin stories that laboriously set-up future sequels was not the only misguided obsession movie studios had in the 2010s. They also wanted to see gritty re-imaginings of well-known characters. And thus we get a “Robin Hood” movie that is awash with royal conspiracies, bloody battle scenes on muddy fields, daddy issues, and roots itself in actual historical events. You might notice that this also causes Scott's reboot to heavily resemble “Gladiator.” As in that Oscar-winning epic, Russell Crowe plays a veteran left behind by his own country who stands up to a tyrant and leads a rebellion. The film makes sure to include Crowe giving a rousing speech, where he presents his own goals and tears down his enemy's beliefs, as if to deliberately reminds us of the unforgettable “Maximus Decimus Meridius” speech.

If a “Robin Hood” movie without most of the elements we associate with the character sounds tedious... It is. Instead of focusing on Robin and the Merry Men being bad-asses who steal from the rich to give to the poor, the film focuses on a convoluted conspiracy to undermine the British crown. There are many long scenes, where Godfrey sets his scheme in motion. Extended sequences are granted to Eleanor of Aquitaine, Prince John's mother, debating what to do with her clearly unfit-to-rule son. Similarly, there's a largely superfluous subplot devoted to William Marshal wringing his hands about the change of power surrounding the British crown. Even scenes that might've been charming otherwise, like Robin and Marion getting closer after he pulls a sheep out of a bog for her, feel like tiresome digressions. Was it really more important that we see how Robin got his name than seeing him do the stuff that makes him interesting?

“Robin Hood” is another example of a Ridley Scott movie with a visual design that's all over the map. Sometimes, the movie looks pretty damn nice. Scott obviously savors a chance to shoot in the rolling green hills of the English countryside. Naturally, such a setting allows for lots of rolling clouds of fog. The forest lends itself well to sun shinning through the tree limbs. Yet at other times, “Robin Hood” looks unexpectedly schizophrenic. The entire movie has a gloomy, gray, overcast look about it, which certainly fits the British setting but isn't very appealing. There's a gang of orphans hiding in Sherwood Forest. At one point, the camera takes their perspective as they run through the underbrush. It feels like something out of a horror movie and looks like nothing else in the movie. 

The film's uncertain visuals are most apparent in the action sequence. Some of the earlier battle sequences, like King Richard's siege of Chalus Castle, are concise and tight. Battering rams, arrows, and sword fights all look smooth enough. Sometimes, you can even see the director really enjoying himself. Such as a CGI-assisted tracking shot of an arrow flying through the air, towards an enemy. Yet too often “Robin Hood” degrades into sloppy shaky-cam during the various combat sequences. This is especially apparent during the climatic battle on the beach, where the camera starts to jerk around as men clash swords and wrestle in the surf and mud. Scott definitely knows better than this, so it's disappointing to see “Robin Hood” fall for such a tactic. 

If the film has such little interest in exploring the traditional elements of the Robin Hood story, you have to wonder what attracted Scott to the material in the first place. The movie makes sure to give Robin Hood some father issues, as a late-in-the-film flashback reveals that Robin's dad was executed when he was a boy. That his father's words still reverberate through his memory. Yet the theme that most connects this film to Scott's other ones is Robin Hood's status as a good man in a corrupt world. Like “Body of Lies'” Roger Ferris and “American Gangster's” Robert Richie, he does the right thing even when those around him do not. Directly to the king, he details the atrocities he saw committed in the Middle East and how horrified he was by them.  This gets him thrown in the stocks but establishes him as someone whose ethics are not intimidated by authority. Which certainly foreshadows his fate as an outlaw, fighting against the king to protect the innocent.

“Robin Hood” is the fourth movie in a row Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe made together, suggesting the two must've liked working together. Crowe, at least, puts his own stamp on the classical character. He attempts to add some swashbuckling spirit to the role, which is most obvious in the early scenes where he's talking and joking around with the other Merry Men. However, as the movie goes on and the focus turns more towards the convoluted plot, Crowe's performance becomes less distinct. By the time he's giving big speeches to his army or slamming a war hammer around on the beach, most of what might've made the performance charming has faded. (Though Crowe's English accent here is better than the one he used in “A Good Year” and better than the rage-filled radio interviews about imply.)

Starring opposite Crowe is Cate Blanchett as Maid Marian. The film wildly puts a modern spin on Marian. She stands up to the oppressors around her. She is strong-willed and opinionated. The film follows this idea to its logical conclusion, by having Marian putting on armor and riding into combat alongside Robin at the end. Blanchett, naturally, is excellent at playing this kind of character. She exudes determination and power all throughout the film. What she doesn't have is much chemistry with Crowe, which makes their romance feel especially forced-in. Obviously, Robin Hood and Maid Marian have to fall in love and that feels like the only thing pulling them together here.

Regardless of the quality of the script, obviously a Ridley Scott film can still attract a high-profile supporting cast. Reappearing from his brief role in “Body of Lies,” Oscar Isaac shows up here as Prince John. Isaac goes gloriously over-the-top as the conceited, childishly self-obsessed prince that uses every opportunity he has to establish how greedy and evil he is. Mark Strong plays Godfrey, another in a series of villainous roles in big budget movies Strong was playing at the time. Strong is obviously adapt at sneering and scheming, even if he can't quite make the character come alive amid all the plotting. Max Von Sydow is delightful as the real Loxley's father, who becomes a father-like figure to Robin. Once again, a wise mentor with a humorous glint in his eye is a role that Von Sydow is extremely well-cast in. Kevin Durand and Scott Grimes have a likable energy as Little John and Will Scarlett, even if neither are given enough to do. The movie does largely waste talented performers like Lea Seydoux and William Hurt, in small supporting roles. 

Like a lot of attempts in the last decade to reboot well-known – but not widely beloved – public domain properties, “Robin Hood” had a middling reception. Reviews were largely soft and audiences were largely indifferent. Even though the movie made over 300 million worldwide, this was still not much compared to its massive budget. Plans for future sequels were immediately squashed. This might expose the biggest problem with making a reboot that acts as a prequel to the well-known parts of the story: Audiences get a largely unrecognizable version of a character and stay away, meaning a sequel that contains the story people actually want to see won't get made. There's already been one other failed attempt to reboot Robin Hood for modern audience since this one, which was an even bigger flop... Which suggest people don't give that much of a shit about Robin Hood at all. Which further suggest that this entire project might've been doomed from the beginning. Misguided and mediocre, the virtues of Scott's “Robin Hood” are not enough to overcome its flaws. [Grade: C]