CULTURAL MAGAZINE

The plot
Taken from Empireonline.com

1199. As Richard The Lionheart (Danny Huston) returns from the Third Crusade, both he and his right-hand man, Robert Loxley (Douglas Hodge), are slainvengono uccisi in France. It’s left to one of their archers, Robin Longstride (Russel Crowe), to return Richard’s crown to London and Loxley’s sword to Nottingham. There, compelled to pose as Loxley, Longstride finds himself embroiled in Plantagenet politics - and has to tackleaffrontare a French plot abettedfavoreggiata, incitata by the traitorous Sir Godfrey (Alex Strong).

Not About Robin Hood at All
Taken from Film.com

The interesting thing is the way in which Robin Hood fails: by being too long, too illogical, too silly, and most damninglycolpevolmente, schiacciantemente by not really being about Robin Hood, at least not the one you're familiar with. It's a shocking turn of events given the pedigree of everyone involved.
This version of Robin Hood centers around Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe). He's an archer in Richard the Lionheart's maraudingpredatoria army. The opening scenes are quite lovely; Ridley Scott remains a visual master. The film jumps around from Longstride's travels to Marion's Nottingham and back to matters of state in London. It's an ambitious script in that Robin isn't really the main character (there isn't one). Robin Hood is supposed to be about him running around in the forest, isn't it? This story isn't. It's about politics, and war, and Anglo-Franco relations. It's almost
purposefullyintenzionalmente, deliberatamente not about anything you've ever seen attributed to Robin Hood.

The film is pretty, and there are a few solid moments every hour. But considered as a work of cinema, with paid professionals involved, it's an extremely lacklusterpoco interessante, opaca story.

 

Ridley and Russell go Robin-robbing
Taken from Totalfilm.com

Seen Gladiator? Highlander? Braveheart? Any of the Lord Of The Rings trilogy? How about Troy? 300? King Arthur? Kingdom Of Heaven? If you nodded offse vi siete appisolati for at least half of those, then you really don’t need to see Ridley Scott’s turgid and joyless take on the outlaw icon.

Robin Hood is a redundant frankenstein-movie stitchedcucito together from embarrassingly recognisable riffsmotivi from other - mostly better - mud ‘n blood epics.

After the well-documented script tusslesconfonde , Scott has settled on the slowly tale of how 12th century soldier Robin Longstride (Crowe) rises from sullensvogliato , dead-eye archer to all-round leader of unshaven men and smitersbaragliatore of tyranny and corruption wherever it may dwell.

At first, it seems the source of tyranny and corruption is the pantomime-villain Sheriff of Nottingham (Macfadyen). But he turns out to be just a pawnpedina in the bigger game of tyranny and corruption played by the petulant King John (Isaac). And then his shameless tyranny and corruption is soon usurped by the underhand tyranny and corruption of multilingual turncoat Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong).

The battles are so bland, the action so transparently choreographed and the characters so interchangeable, it’s never clear who to root for or what to care about. The choice mostly comes down to either ‘Bad guy hit by an arrow. Good!’ or ‘Good guy hit by an arrow. Bad!’

Crowe seems happy to coast. For an actor of his ability, it’s criminal that no director has stretched him since Peter Weir in 2003’s Master And Commander. In some scenes, he’s grizzled and mumbling and inscrutable. In others, he just aims for inscrutable and goes easy on the grizzled, with maybe a little mumbling for good measure.

Kevin Reynolds’ Anglophilic, Costner-starring 1991 version of the Hood story is easy meat for sneeringghignanti purists. But at least it’s fun and frothyspumoso and isn’t afraid to revel in antihero folklore.

 

Robin Hood: one star and half
Taken from Slantmagazine.com

According to one of Robin Hood's opening title cards, and to Sir Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) himself, the outlaw takes his place in history in times of tyranny. That sort of recycled philosophical wisdomsaggezza typifies this new film about the mythic Robin Hood's life and times, filling it to its mice-infested rafterstravi . Though realistically ancient-looking, this burlycorpulenta, muscolosa but
sluggishapatica, lenta production takes very obvious pains to engage with the myth of Robin Hood in a way that it conforms to modern political biasespregiudizi .

Robin Hood is mostly a triumph of costume design and art direction. Yes, there's a real sense here for the look of the story's Medieval setting that doesn't feel kitschy or overwrought, and Helgeland's script carefully, subtly even, links key historical flashpoints from the time period, but the story's evocation of the economic troubles and political backbiting that allowed for Robin Hood's rise to infamy is still elementarily drawn. There's no patience or sincere regard for the
strifeconflitto, dissenso of the poor, no commiseration for the horrors inflicted on them by Nottingham's
dastardlyignobile sheriff. What most registers on screen is the manner in which the arrow-flinging Robin Hood can, through superhuman ingenuity (which is to say, the powers of CGI), hit his arterial targets from Olympian distances.