I don't feel like Mel Brooks' Robin Hood: Men In Tights (1993) was trying to top 1991's Robin Hood: Prince of Theives, and I don't feel that Ridley Scott's Robin Hood was trying to top either of those, or even the Disney cartoon from 1973 (probably my favorite one). These are all films that approached the story of the mythical (but possibly real) Robin Hood in a different manner. While Scott's version is criticized for lacking the fancy-ness of the traditional Robin Hood, is that such a bad thing?
There have actually been over a hundred instances in film and television where Robin Hood has made an appearance, so in an age of film where realism sells (i.e. The Dark Knight, Casino Royale), isn't a realistic version of this classic story what we all wanted? If so, then why didn't everyone like it? One could assume that a realistic perspective of medieval action (also in Valhalla Rising) just isn't as popular as a theatrical (Lord of the Rings) perspective. It's a bold sacrifice Scott makes for his film, although some of the characters slip into Gladiator territory every now and then. People are calling this out as if Scott is ripping himself off, but apparently people haven't heard of auteurs.
Russell Crowe plays the legendary Robin Hood as he is fighting in the Crusades, part of Robin's story that is only mentioned rather than shown in other films. He's somewhat of a "true" person, one who demonstrates good character (in a Christ-like manner, ironically) while fighting for King Richard. The parallel of Robin's ideals compared to King Richard's fuels the beginning of the movie, until Robin moves on to other adventures, where his ideals once again conflict with those of other's. The action's really great, by the way.
While Robin knows that killing any non-Christian (the basic idea of the Crusades) is not exactly the most moral path, he also knows that Richard's choice is the "right thing to do" compared to what others in power are doing. While he sides with the "Christians" he personally sets an example simply by being a just person, which is ultimately what we all want to be, so it's easy to see how Robin became so popular. After Richard dies and Robin Hood must return home, he clashes with others who oppose Richard's throne, and we come closer to some of the stories we're more familiar with, although there never seems to be a central villain. Robin Hood's central obstacle really seems to be wooing Marian (Cate Blanchett).
I honestly enjoyed seeing Robin Hood portrayed as a real person with real problems while he is still seen by others as this grand, noble figure-icon. I see Robin Hood almost like I see Jesus. Maybe he was real, maybe he wasn't. Maybe he was this super awesome noble guy, maybe he was just a normal guy. Rest aside, he was a celebrity of his time, and since some are saying he was actually real, this is the best image we are going to get of the guy (to date). Pop culture always seems to obscure the truth, so I can see how Robin's image changed so drastically over the centuries. While I can't say Scott's version is my favorite, as I enjoyed the other three Robin Hood films I mentioned earlier much more, I'm not going to say it's bad. I dig the search for truth, others find it boring for some reason.
VERDICT:
VERDICT:
