Movie Review: ROBIN HOOD (2010) – Origin Story With Middle Aged CharactersMovie Review: ROBIN HOOD (2010) – Origin Story With Middle Aged Characters

Published by Shah Shahid on

Ridley Scott + Russell Crowe x Kings to the power of War = GLADIATOR… or otherwise known as a film of pure awesome-ness. So when you hear them teaming up with a film of a similar style and era, you automatically think of undiluted, refined awesome-ness the sequel! Sadly, ROBIN HOOD was nowhere near that, it was barely ‘good’.

Rating: 1 Out Of 5 Stars

Honestly speaking, there was nothing glaringly horrible with the film in its entirety. The problem lay in the fact that it seemed like Scott and Crowe just got together to do this film, purely to spin off of their GLADIATOR success. The fact that despite countless movie versions of Robin Hood, they didn’t even bother changing the name to give this version its own unique identity, shows their lack of any originality when doing this movie. Lazy asses. This re-teaming of a previously successful actor-director combo actually makes sense, given the fact that neither has done anything of significance lately. And I mean Box Office significance since I actually liked STATE OF PLAY and BODY OF LIES, but neither performed as well as movies usually associated with The Crowe do.

The story itself was modified from the usual Robin Hood stories we’ve come to know, in my experience at least. Crowe plays Robin Longstride, an archer in King Richards’s army—so far so good. However there is also a knight named Robert Loxley, who dies in an ambush, giving our Robin the responsibility of delivering his sword to his father and wife, Marion in Nottingham. So the deserter Robin Longstride takes on the duty of delivering the sword and news of Loxley’s death to his family. Through a sequence of events and happenings, he ends up taking the identity of Robert Loxley and takes up the cause to fight against the corrupt king.

Russel Crowe as Russel Hoo– I mean Robin Hood…

Sounds pretty damn good no? I thought so too. But, there was little character development, besides the typical clichéd hero-like qualities. He does some good deeds, has a heart of gold despite being a fugitive, and is able to rally even his enemy into his band of ‘merry men’, not to mention a budding romance with the widowed Marion. Typical. There was nothing in the movie that seemed to drive Robin to do the things that made him ‘legendary’… he just seemed to do it… for kicks.

The other iterations of the Robin Hood story that showed him as being of aristocrat blood, who returns home from war to find his land and status has been taken away by King John’s corrupted nature, and in some versions, even his father’s death. This makes sense, since it gives the title character a motivation to become the man that legend recognizes.

Another thing that didn’t work for me throughout the film was the fact that Russell Crowe is way too old to be portraying Robin Hood in a movie that claims to be about his origins. This story was about how Robin became the legendary robber of rich and giver of the poor, yet we have a Robin that looks 40+ along with Cate Blanchett who—despite her terrific performance as always—doesn’t gel with the ‘Maid Marion’ that I think of.

Over all, I just didn’t care about the movie. I don’t mean that I didn’t like it, I had no interest in the actions of the characters, I had no desire to find out what happens next, I had nothing vested in the outcome of the plot. There was even a time that I was just waiting for the film itself to end. Having said that, now, I’m glad that I can put this movie behind me as soon as I end this sentence… and the subsequent posting of it online. THEN… I’m done!

Get The Blu ray

Shah Shahid

Entertainment Writer | Film & TV Critic | Bollywood Blogger | Host of Split Screen Podcast | Proud Geek Girl Dad


Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

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