Ridley Scott's New "Robin Hood " (2010): Film Review of a Folk Legend

The A.O Scott review in the New York Times severely criticized Ridley Scott's new Robin Hood film the film and that may be one reason for its good fortune in earning $111 million bucks right out of the gate. (2^nd to Ironman 2) Nor can we fault American tastes, considering that the lion's share of the film revenues came from Europe, world center of snotty anti-American condescension.

Robin Hood is a greatly entertaining film which needs no one except his Merry Men to defend it. Ridley Scott came up with a great idea in fleshing out the Robin Hood legend with an entirely new story focused on Robin Hood's origins in the wake of the Crusades of King Richard the Lionhearted. There's a sort of King Arthurian nuance attached to the sword Robin must bring back to Lady Marian, where the impossible is attainable, the new King John is a rapacious tax collector, and England is threatened by traitors who are in league with French King Phillip.

A.O. Scott's scant praise is confined to the early sequence siege of a French castle, in which the siege machines, tools and tactics of medieval warfare figure prominently. The action sequences, of which there are many, seethe with bloodshed, passion, and the impossible grime of medieval period living.

Friar Tuck is a palpably human character with crooked brown teeth, and an earthy attitude toward the panoply of human sins. Maid Marian is portrayed in a fetching, restrained way by Cate Blanchett, a character who lives neither in ivory tower nor gilded cage. The woman shoes horses, milks cows, wields swords, and carries a dagger to bed.

Nothing can drain a picture of its vitality more quickly than a dippy, trite, and prolonged romantic dialogue between two principals who have been romantically linked since the 16^th Century. There may not be enough romance in this film for some viewers, but medieval marriages had a practical side, and isn't less better when you find out that history doesn't turn on our little self-absorbed love affairs?

We watch all these computerized special effects fantasy confabs with scarcely a complaint, but inject a little make-believe into a depiction of a mythical-legendary figure Robin Hood, and out come the critical knives. Robin Hood and his band of characters provide sufficient hilarity and entertainment for the 2 hours 11 minutes of the movie, and the spectacularly realistic sets and set pieces are gigantic, huge, dollops of sight, sensation, and sound.

The movie had a few thudding cosmetic lines, I'll admit, and leaned sometimes on plot conventions. You were supposed to feel magnificently triumphant when Robin Hood leads the English to defeat the French on the beach. If you didn't, it's because you weren't listening to the music, paying attention to the jagged cinematography, and aren't inclined toward long-bow archery.

I don't get those people who criticized Robin Hood for its historical inaccuracies. Robin Hood is a folk tale, loosely tacked onto the scoreboard of history. King Richard and his brother are widely believed to have taxed to support their wars and building projects, even during a time of resource scarcity and famine.

New York Times film critic A. O. Scott laments that this latest Robin Hood is not the one he favors--who takes from the rich and gives to the poor in an income distribution scheme--a la Barack Obama, no doubt.

Within Scott's reference context, Robin Hood mockingly becomes a "manly libertarian rebel striking out against high taxes and a big government scheme to trample the ancient liberties of property owners and provincial nobles."

Scott decries Robin Hood's inflammation of "populist passions" and wonders aloud if the film is "one big Medieval tea party," which he says would have made it more interesting and "provocative." Yeah, and why not let the actors wear wrist watches and carry I-Pads? Injecting a little Manhattanite cultural sermonizing might make a dull movie review more "provocative" but it wouldn't get me to the movie theater unless I wanted to catch up on nap time.

The people who made this movie think big in terms of stagecraft, and thinking big means you can enjoy the action scenes even if you're only interested in looking at the horses. The French landing boats on the English beach is evocative of the Normandy invasion or the British arrival in New York harbor during the American War of Revolution.

If Ridley Scott's Robin Hood isn't the perfect true to life historical account some people are looking for, the gigantic sweep of the film compensates for many deficiencies. Anyway, how much can be true of any historical account? Isn't the actual historical record perennially wrapped up in controversy and academic dispute, much of it disproportionately emphasized? Won't some sniffling pencil-necked geek complain of this writing that Maid "Marian" should be spelled Maid "Marion?"

Robin Hood will continue to do well at the box office. I didn't notice a single acting performance that can be found wanting. There many big stars like Max von Sydow, who plays Maid Marian's father, yet none intrude so much that you don't pay attention to the story.

Robin Hood is fun. Buy popcorn. Go see it. A couple thousand movie extras need the bucks.