Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood: Is just good, good enough?

.

The summer months are the most crowded movie season. Every weekend ushers the release of a new, multi-million dollar blockbuster. It’s easy to get lost in the onslaught of tent poles and inevitably some will fall through the cracks and be missed. The summer of 2010 was no exception. Although Ridley Scott has long been one of my favorite directors, his reimagining of Robin Hood was one of the films I missed this summer. It’s not that I wasn’t anticipating the film. I closely follow all of Scott’s projects. It just got lost in summer shuffle, largely due to less than stellar reviews.

I was actually rather disappointed in myself that it had taken me so long to see the film. After all, I went to see Scott’s underperforming Body of Lies on opening night. But thankfully, I managed to pick up a copy of the Unrated Director’s Cut. I put almost blind faith in Scott’s various director’s cuts, especially after the magnificent Kingdom of Heaven revamp. So naturally I was ready to completely deny all the negative reviews and blindly defend Scott.

My verdict of the film: it was good.

But is good good enough? This is a good film coming from a great director. Scott has produced some great films; essential films really, including Alien, Blade Runner, Black Hawk Down and Gladiator. I think that, perhaps, the negative reaction to Robin Hood comes out of extremely high expectations. If Robin Hood had been directed by a first timer, perhaps the film would have been hailed. It really is quite unfair.

Truthfully, there is a lot to like about Robin Hood. One of Scott’s greatest gifts as a filmmaker is as his ability to create a world and absorb his audience. Robin Hood is no exception. The film is set in 12^th century England and Scott beautifully transports us to that period. Nothing feels like a set. Nothing feels like computer generated imagery. Everything feels very lived in; very three dimensional. And that is one of the defining features of a Scott film: the feeling. Other period films have good production design. They work. They function. They look good. But Ridley Scott’s production design feels natural. Of course, credit must be attributed to Scott’s team. Janty Yates has worked as Scott’s costume designer since Gladiator in 2000 and she deserves an incredible amount of credit. Her work is so detailed, so layered. Nothing feels like a costume. Everything feels right. I compare it to 2004’s Troy. The costumes in that feature just didn’t feel authentic. Arthur Max has worked as production designer on a number of Scott’s films as well and the same thing can be said about his work. It just feels like he put his heart and soul into his work on this film.

Scott began his work as a commercial director, and it’s easy to see why he became such a success. He has got a great eye. His shots are so natural, so fluid. He has a great mind for spatial geography and his action scenes are in exercise in precision. The battle scenes in Robin Hood are chaotic but Scott ensures we are never lost. The period epic has been overdone in the years since Gladiator, with some successes and many failures. Scott proves that he can still excite us with the battle scenes. There are some damn cool things to see in Robin Hood. In particular, I thought the French boats crossing the English Channel and landing on the shore looked pretty damn good. So as an action film, the film works and works well.

Russell Crowe leads the cast as the titular Robin Hood, a crusader returning to Europe after ten years of battle. Crowe is a great actor and we can feel his weight as Robin Hood. However, seeing him in this role, one can’t help but draw comparisons to Gladiator. It’s not that there’s something wrong with his portrayal of Robin Hood, it’s just that his role as Maximus in Gladiator was better. The story of Gladiator is a simple one. It’s a story about a father and a husband. It’s a story about revenge and anger and love. As a result of this simplicity, we feel more empathy for Maximus. We feel his passion, his sorrow and his rage. We root for him, we cry for him. Robin’s motivations seem much more complicated. There is emotion there. He has a sense of right and wrong. He has a voice. It just feels like his character gets lost in the politics of the period because the film seems just as concerned with that as with the character. Gladiator may have been criticized for its lack of historical accuracy, but it made for a better film. The character of Robin Hood, as well as the film itself, lack the focus and intensity that made Gladiator such a great film.

The film is blessed with a great supporting cast, although in comparison to Scott’s other films, they character’s fall rather short. Marc Strong plays Godrey, one of the films villains. He is suitably evil, and we root for Robin to give him his just desserts. However, there is something missing. I was never quite clear on his motivations. He seemed to exist in the film to be evil. And while that works in getting the audience to cheer for the hero, it feels like a missed opportunity. In Gladiator, Joaquin Phoenix played the villain Commodus with such fierce insanity and depth. We understood completely his motivations, however extreme or illogical they might have been. The same criticism could be made of Prince John (Oscar Isaac). He’s there and we root against him, but we never quite connect with him in the same way we did Commodus.

Cate Blanchett is a wonderful actress and plays Marion strongly. I liked that the romance between Marion and Robin develops slowly, and isn’t forced down our throats. However, I couldn’t help but feel at some points that she was only being used as the stereotypical Strong Female Character. Marion lacked the depth of Eva Green’s Sibylla from Kingdom of Heaven. In the Director’s Cut of that film, she is seen as a character with not only strengths, but weaknesses. It was one of the best and richest additions to that film and it was something I missed in this one.

I suppose, when it all comes down to it, Robin Hood just stands in the shadows of Scott’s other epics. Kingdom of Heaven and Gladiator were intense films, about ideas and emotions. Robin Hood has some ideas and some emotions. It just gets too caught up in the politics of the period and a script that isn’t as focused as it should be. The plot doesn’t move as smoothly as it should, based on Scott’s other work. However, there are some enjoyable performances, even if they lack some depth and some great cinematography. The action scenes are terrific. There was one moment at the film’s climax, when Robin cocks an arrow and aims it towards Godfrey that was absolutely inspired. That moment gave me goose bumps. I was engaged and you know what? I had fun with the film. It might not have been great, but it was good and that really isn’t a bad thing.