Review of Robin Hood (2010) by Joss D — 06 Jul 2014

Having been heavily panned by the critics, I entered this film with low expectations. And while this film is flawed, it is certainly not for the reasons given by the reviewers. The first half is a beautiful action period piece with superb performances all round.

Unlike Gladiator, here Scott fills his film with actual substance: a sweeping, complex plot, interesting and likable characters, and well shot action sequences. Where the film falls apart, however, is the second half, where a complex plot becomes increasingly convoluted and any sense of causality is thrown out of the window.

The realistic gritty setting which he has established begins to unthread as the three central plot strands are tied together in highly convenient and implausible ways. It is in this quagmire that the original story gets lost and Robin Hood ceases to be a folk hero for his own sake and instead becomes a list of checkboxes to be ticked as he moves from scene to scene fulfilling the various roles required of him by different interpretations of the myth.

And so a film which began as a self-proclaimed gritty historical drama descends into an almost farcical mess of cliches. The production of this film was riddled with indecision and as far as I am concerned this is very much reflected in the final product.

It is still a good film, much better than Gladiator or, for the most part, Braveheart. But when the Lambs do become Lions, they don't quite compare to the reputation preceeding them. 7/10.