Frost Rating ****

There have been many interpretations of the legendary man himself. Popularly first known by Errol Flynn in The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) and then the Kevin Costner version, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991). I’ve only seen the latter, it was all good fun and one of the few films I watched mostly as a kid. I loved the idea of a man standing up corruption and just being an old fashioned swash-buckling adventure. Although Kevin Costner was miscast as the English rebel, only reason for being cast was his big heyday back in the early 90s and winning awards for Dances With Wolves. The only plus side was having a scene-stealing Alan Rickman as the Sheriff of Nottingham. It has been nearly 20 years since, and Ridley Scott/Russell Crowe have now brought us their version of the story.

We’ve seen the tale of Robin Hood been done to death and it’s actually a sigh of relief to see something fresh to an otherwise adventurous story. Another point to make that it’s more a revisionist take, than a remake or reboot. As many have mentioned, this is a prequel than the typical Robin Hood story we all know. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is explained, rather than making it a basis of the film. It shows how Robin Hood (known through-out as Robin Longstride) becomes the man we all know and love. It may be not needed, but Ridley Scott pulls it off rather well. Robin is a soldier for the crusades under the rule of King Richard (Danny Huston, a brief but wonderfully played role), and returns back to England from his long fight in France after Richard dies. He comes back finding the country in a total mess, now Prince John (Oscar Isaac) is pronounced King and starts making an example to his rule by using threats to make the whole of England pay the kings taxes. Robin returns a sword to Walter Loxley (Max Von Sydow) as a promise from his dead son, which his wife happens to be Marion (Cate Blanchett). The theme of the story is self-discovery, although it slightly acts as a bit expositional but it doesn’t linger on to make it that much a critique. Meanwhile, the sub-plot is with France preparing to invade England.

Slightly distracts us from the story of Robin and Marion, but it unravels an exciting climactic battle sequence and the reason King John declares out leading hero to be an outlaw. The performances from the entire cast are top notch. Russell Crowe still proves to be a convincing leading man, although his dialect goes a bit off once or twice (although better than Kevin Costner sticking with his American accent). Cate Blanchett is always a treat whenever she’s on-screen, and is the heart of this film. Both Crowe and Blanchett’s chemistry does spark but only so subtle to make the scenes together work. Oscar Isaac is brilliantly juvenile and devilish, practically a scene stealer and one of the best things of this film. Mark Strong delivers a good performance, but unfortunately doesn’t stand out the best of the villains roles he’s played (the best would be as Frank D’Amico in Kick-Ass). Matthew Macfayden plays as the Sheriff of Nottingham, he doesn’t make it as hammy as Alan Rickman did previously but still makes himself being devilishly likeable. Especially when his house is about to get burnt down by the French, and slyly says to a soldier to save his house “I’m half French, on my mothers side!”

The script by Brian Helgeland is also very well done, showing he’s still at his game being a talented writer. Given credit the development of Robin Hood had been going around quite some time, and went through 2-3 stages before they finalised on a story they wanted to make. It’s a story that somehow makes it culturally significant; especially when we’ve just dealt being in the recession. It also brings a strange cultural heritage, having the character and its setting a strange mythical history. Admittedly, the story may mislead people. Given the title ‘Robin Hood’, it should be about Robin Hood and it does. Ridley Scott mentioned he likes to create worlds, and he does so by bringing up events that will revolve around and has Robin involved to make it plausible.

Ridley Scott’s eye for detail is always staggering and beautifully well shown on-screen. The cinematography is gorgeous to look at, shot very well and all around a great looking film. What also strikes me as the film looks it could be plausible in the history books. Although Scott doesn’t treat it as a History Channel documentary, he makes it very clear he mixes with history but also with a bit of fantasy. The action sequences are exciting and thrilling to watch, just shows how much Robin Hood can be an action hero. It also amazes me Ridley Scott is the only filmmaker who’d do these sequences with very little digital effects and make them look spectacular. Also kudos on the wonderful costume design by Janty Yates (who designed costumes for Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven).

The music by Marc Streitenfeld is atmospheric and delivers emotion to every scene being delightful or tragic. Overall; people may expect the conventional Robin Hood tale, but going to a different route can lead to surprising results. This delivers the goods on both story, characters and the visual spectacle. It doesn’t stand along with Scott’s best films (Alien and Blade Runner), but it certainly amongst his really good ones (American Gangster and Kingdom of Heaven: Director’s Cut). I’m very sure there will be a director’s cut version in future. This is epic filmmaking at its best, and no one does it better than Ridley Scott.

Robin Hood is showing at cinemas right now. See the trailer on the official site.

by Owun Birkett