Robin Hood (2010)

I had forgotten how funny this movie was.  Also, Jesus, this is a terrible write-up.  You can easily tell that this was one of my earliest attempts at movie blogging.

I didn't even say who was playing who.  Ugh.

For the record, Russell Crowe is Robin Hood, Cate Blanchett is Marian, Oscar Isaac is King John and the villain is Mark Strong.  I feel like this is an adaptation that will continue to grow on me in future viewings.  Originally posted 22 May 10.   Ah, Robin Hood! One of my all time favorite legends, much more so than lame-ass King Arthur. We haven't had a really good Robin Hood movie since I was in the third grade. Even then, you didn't watch Prince of Thieves for Robin Hood. You watched for Alan Rickman and Michael Wincott.

In this Robin Hood, to paraphrase Cary Elwes, unlike other films, everyone has an English accent.

Ooooooh.

Well, except for the French. They sound French.

Ridley Scott decided to go for realism over some of the more fantastic elements of the legend, a move that has earned him some backlash from the critics. I'm going to give it to him, though, because for every bile-spitting angermonger bitching that Russell Crowe isn't wearing tights, there would be an equally vociferous nerd complaining that in the 12th century tights hadn't been invented yet. So everything is dirtier and grimier, although everybody is surprisingly literate.

The characters are still the same, boiled down to the bones just waiting for a reapplication of flesh. Robin Hood is an archer with a heart full of noble ideas, his merry men are loyal to him, Maid Marion is his lady love, and Friar Tuck likes to get down with some mead.

For me, King John was the standout performance. Talk about a guy you love to hate. He puts the capital D in Douchebag. He bangs the sister of his mortal enemy (King Philip of France), lives with his mom whom he disrespects at every opportunity, wears too much jewelry, oils his hair, and thinks that the world exists for his amusement. He could have been on Jersey Shore in a heartbeat.

Now, I do want to warn you: there is very little "robbing the rich to feed the poor". In fact, there's only one scene...and he's actually ripping off the church. Again, more historically accurate (the church did demand tithes in addition to people being taxed by the state, which they were exempt from). That's why future English kings took such a dim view of religion. Like I said, I'm a big fan of this time period. I've read biographies on Eleanor of Aquitaine, I've seen both versions of The Lion in Winter (and you thought your family Christmas was a trainwreck...), and read tons of fiction based around the legends. I think that probably prepared me a little bit more for this version, which is less frolicking-in-Sherwood and more establishment-of-constitutional-law. Like I said, John was such an epic d-bag that he set historical precedent.

Some people have called this Gladiator-lite, but I would say that's unfair to the movie. You can see Ridley Scott's hand all over this film but his presence is relegated to the background, where it should be.