director: Ridley Scott
writers: Brian Helgeland
starring: Russel Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Mark Strong, William Hurt
genre: Adventure
Let me start from the beginning. Ever since Ridley Scott made the announcement for a new Robin Hood film most people weren't thrilled about it. Ridley Scott knowing this tried to change things around which he did no positive and negative effects. But by changing things around he mislead moviegoers on the most simplest fact. This is Robin Hood origin film. Not a Robin Hood film that we all know of and all presumed of seeing. Most people will be dissapointed by this as was I and wont see the overall point of the film.
We first see Robin (Russel Crowe) in battle for King Richard (John Huston) in France on their return from the Crusades. There he will start his first friendships with his merry men. But behind Robin's simple nature of being a great archer there more at play with treachery in the mist of English royal family. Knight Godfrey (Mark Strong) has a secret friendship with French King Philip and a plan to overthrow the English Crown and bring civil war to England. Robin happens to fall in the trap of events that play apart of England's future. He will then have to portray as knights with his merry men to save their lives and try to be honorable men on their return to England. But on their return they will find out what it truly means to be a legend when they are needed to save England from within and abroad.
The film is peculiar as it puts in lots of historical figures and then twists the history around to satisfy the story. Wrongfully I might add in many ways. If you put so many historical figures then do it right. Don't manipulate history a try to play it historically correct. Also the film never feels like a Robin Hood film. The whole film is truly about England vs. France war of kings. And then the English Barons trying to unite over a charter of freedoms. Not about stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. And not even does Sheriff of Nottingham play any true part in the film. The film is a origin story that leads into events for a second film which I don't think many are interested to see or will be made. How could anybody want to see a sequel when they were mislead by the marketing campaign of the film.
If this film was marketed correctly and it was well known that it was about the hero that was born threw the struggle of a country then it would have been a OK film. But due to it's misleading elements, not knowing what film is truly about, and then the twist to who Robin Hood really is in the end, it all seems unnecessary. Robin Hood was a small time outlaw not a big player. Also I don't understand why they needed to put historical facts like the Manga Carta in. Was it necessary also that Robin Hood had to push it to the King. And because of that act he becomes the outlaw that he is known for. Many questions come to mind with this film on its historical dealing and storyline choices.
For all its misleading elements and historical inaccuracies this film isnt bad. It's well made, and proprerly done. Script wise it's horrendous and many people don't know that Ridley Scott original idea was to make Robin Hood the bad guy and the Sheriff the good guy. Also the other idea was to make Robin Hood the Sheriff of Nottingham. Diversions of the original story are not bad but sometimes when done wrong they are the worst. I still prefer Kevin Costner Robin Hood film for all its faults and problems. At least that film made me believe more into the hero aspect and that Robin Hood actually helped the poor and had a villain in the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Personal Rating:
No comments:
Post a Comment