Turan review: ‘Robin Hood’ misses the target

May 15, 2010 | 3:15 a.m.

I haven’t seen “Robin Hood” yet but Kenneth Turan, the senior film critic for the Los Angeles Times, watched it at the Cannes Film Festival

Robin Hood battle


When you call a movie ” Robin Hood,” you set up expectations: a gallant archer, a maid named Marion, a band of Merry Men, a crusading king and a certain camaraderie in Sherwood Forest. The latest version has those elements, but they don’t play out in a way that’s easy to recognize or respond to, and that’s a problem.

It’s an especially frustrating problem because the key creative people involved in the film are among the best in the business and their work here is for the most part solid. Director Ridley Scott is a contemporary master of wide screen action entertainment, Oscar-winning screenwriter Brian Helgeland is coming off a strong showing in “Green Zone” and costars Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett, Australians a long way from home, clearly enjoy each other’s company. So what could be wrong?

The difficulty is that this “Robin Hood” has been misconceived twice over. The first misstep, albeit a defensible one, was the decision to make this an origins story, a kind of “Robin Before the Hood.” While there is no lack of action and intrigue here, those expecting traditional Robin Hood satisfactions will be left wondering if it’d be asking too much to have the guys kicking back in Sherwood the way we remember them.

Still, origins stories are all the rage these days and with a property like the Robin Hood legends, filmed literally dozens of times with actors such as Douglas Fairbanks, Errol Flynn and Kevin Costner in the title role, doing things differently (as Sean Connery and Audrey Hepburn did in “Robin and Marian“) is a justifiable way to go.

What is harder to forgive is the cumbersome, too-complicated story credited to Helgeland (who shares story credit with the “Kung Fu Panda” team of Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris). Simultaneously simplistic and over-plotted, revisionist and predictable, this “Robin Hood” has trouble getting untracked and, once it does, proves an awkward mix of international geopolitics, repressed memory, old-fashioned villainy, human rights advocacy, the Magna Carta and pigeons that send secret messages…


— Kenneth Turan


Russell crowe24 FRAMES: Crowe says a modern Robin Hood might target media

Ridley Scott on “Robin Hood”: “There’s a very strong destiny story”

Ridley takes a knee — ailing “Robin” director skips Cannes

Ridley Scott brings “Alien” and “Blade Runner” to L.A. on June 13

Ridley Scott rolls dice on “Monopoly”

Ridley Scott takes Robin Hood beyond Sherwood

24 FRAMES: Russell Crowe,man in tights?

Christopher Nolan breaks silence on “Superman” and “Batman 3”

Top, “Robin Hood” in battle (Paramount Pictures); bottom, Russell Crowe at Cannes (Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images )


5 Responses to Turan review: ‘Robin Hood’ misses the target

  1. Edmund Foster says:

    The author of this review is an unmitigated simpleton.

  2. Greeves says:

    In a sense he has done us a favor. The moment I saw Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett, I knew I had to see this movie and my expectations were extremely high.
    This often leads to disappointment!
    Now maybe I can enjoy it for it's own sake without any preconceived notions.
    Just a thought.

  3. For anyone who'd like to learn a little more about the history and literature of Robin Hood, here's an interesting interview with Prof. Stephen Knight on the medieval origins of Robin Hood on the Chivalry Today podcast: <a href="http://www.ChivalryToday.com” target=”_blank”>www.ChivalryToday.com

  4. Ophelia says:

    "Simultaneously simplistic and over-plotted, revisionist and predictable" … uh, what?
    Saw this film last night. I loved that it was a Robin Hood plot I'd never seen before. It's not especially rousing (it doesn't pack the punch that LotR did in the same amount of time) but it's entertaining.
    Cate Blanchett kicks ass.

  5. marvin nubwaxer says:

    a big budget D-U-D. hackneyed script and russell may as well have phoned it in. SAD.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

E-mail It
Powered by ShareThis