|
|
Sep 4, 2010
register for free | contact us |
||
|
|
|||
|
Sign in
or
Register
forgot password? |
||
|
Viewed 43 times -
Published on Jun 13, 2010
Movie Review: More is less in new `Robin Hood'  The Olde English folk icon Robin Hood has been romanticized in song, dramatized in print and depicted by some of Hollywood's most dashing leading men throughout the years, including Errol Flynn, Sean Connery and Kevin Costner. Russell Crowe is the latest actor to step into the big-screen boots of the Prince of Thieves, fabled since medieval times for robbing from the rich to give to the poor.  Was there was ever a real-life person with that name, or even resembling the character? That's debatable. But the new "Robin Hood" posits him in the historical context of England circa 1100 for this back-story tale about how Robin became a heroic hood. We meet Robin, aka Robert Locksley, as an archer in the service of King Richard the Lionheart, now driving his tired and tattered army home after spending 10 years and most of his homeland's resources on the Crusades.  The king's death during an attempted castle siege begins Locksley's transformation into a crusading woodland warrior with a quiver full of bad news for bad guys, which in this case includes a prissy British tyrant, a traitorous plotter, various murderous minions and a beach full of pesky invading Frenchmen. Yes, this Robin Hood has his hands full---even moreso after he comes across a damsel in distress, the resourceful maiden Marion Loxley (Cate Blanchett). Ten years ago, Crowe made another big-budget blockbuster about a former soldier who squared off with a monarch, and that movie made him a household name and a superstar. The long shadow of "Gladiator" looms large over "Robin Hood," not just because both depict brawling, brawny lead characters in historical settings, one with a broadsword and the other with a bow and arrow. Both movies share the same director, Ridley Scott, who seems like he's trying to out-"Gladiator" himself here, with more of practically everything: more plot, more characters, more star power (award-winning actors Max von Sydow and William Hurt bring a somber "Masterpiece Theater" vibe) and more action.  But sometimes more is less, and "Robin Hood" sags from its bloat. It's overly long, overly complicated, overly staged and, in far too many scenes, awash with British-burr grunts, whispers and growls as part of a bombastic sound mix that over-amps every whisking arrow, every crackling fire, every horse clop. It's a strain just trying to follow what's happening, who's who and what's being said. The grand vistas of lush British Isles scenery, and Scott's knack for showing the muddy, messy details of life in the 12th century, make it a handsome enough spectacle. But it all comes across as a heavy-handed hodgepodge, too weighted down with its blockbuster pedigree to be as much pure fun as it might have been.  Hollywood sometimes forgets that a good, solid story doesn't have to be a spectacle that takes itself so seriously. Walt Disney certainly got it. Just look at his 1973 adaptation of Robin Hood. It was a cartoon, Robin was a fox, and you could understand him when he talked. -Neil Pond, American Profile Comments:
Submit Your Comment:
|
|
| ©2009 All rights reserved. www.hopestarjournal.com | No portion of this site may be copied or reproduced without consent | UNSUBSCRIBE |
