Ridley Scott’s ROBIN HOOD: Solid Craftsmanship

Ridley Scott + Russell Crowe + Robin Hood = Gladiator 2? It’s hard to resist the temptation of this simple association. But not so fast. Ridley Scott is a directorial genius, far from being predictable. Would he really make such an obvious choice, take the easy route, and replicate the success from ten years ago? These are the thoughts that cross your mind before entering the theater. On one hand, you’d love to experience a film like “Gladiator” again, but on the other, you realize how hard it is to reach the same level of a masterpiece that Scott achieved with “Gladiator“.

Before watching “Robin Hood”, you need to understand two things. First: “”this is not “Gladiator”.”” Ridley Scott is well aware of the high bar he set with that film. So, he took a different route, which we’ll discuss in a moment. Second: “”this is not the story of Robin of Sherwood and his merry band of outlaws who rob the rich to give to the poor.”” This is the story of Robin Longstride, a soldier in the army of King Richard the Lionheart. The tale is set in 12th-century England, at war with France. It’s a story about medieval politics, conspiracies, family feuds, and courtly intrigue. This new “Robin Hood” is a historical film, not a drama about a tragic hero. Once you understand these two fundamental points, the viewing experience takes on a whole new dimension.

Robin Longstride is an archer in King Richard I’s army, which is just finishing its French crusade. In the final battle for a castle on the shores of Normandy, Richard the Lionheart is killed by a French cook. This unexpected event shatters the morale and ranks of the English army. It presents an opportunity for Robin to return home after 10 years of wandering the battlefields. Under the name of another soldier, Robin arrives in Nottingham, where, along with three companions, they encounter poverty, hunger, and a corrupt tax system. Here, Robin meets Lady Marion, and through assuming the name of the deceased Captain Robert Loxley, he gets involved in a masquerade and land dispute. There’s nothing about Robin in a hood leading outlaw raids with his friends? Indeed, there isn’t, because Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood” is a prequel to the story we already know. It’s the tale of how the legend of Sherwood came to be.

The film begins on a rather lighthearted note. However, after the first 10 minutes, it seems Scott regains his senses, and the silly jokes quickly disappear. Fortunately, we didn’t end up with “Men in Tights”, as the opening minutes of a film can set the tone and atmosphere for the rest of it. Nevertheless, the story of “Robin Hood”, in line with tradition and definition, has to be a bit bawdy and cheerful, which is why many later scenes end with some amusing one-liner. Luckily, these are fairly well-balanced and not idiotic. The action kicks in quickly, a conspiracy unfolds, and a traitor is introduced – this is the point where the plot grabs attention and holds it until the end. However, the script doesn’t give the actors much room to emotionally develop their characters or connect with the audience. There’s a lack of empathy even for the main protagonist. Scott shifted the focus to historical facts (as much as can be said for legends and medieval lore). It’s as if he forgot that stories are built by characters, not just history. While the plot is interesting and told skillfully, it comes at the expense of the characters and emotions.

The main strength of the film, however, lies in its atmosphere and attention to detail. The set design, far from Hollywood clichés, is the first thing that impresses. Forget about tacky, plastic-foam decorations. Scott’s Middle Ages are unmistakably dirty and grim, but also fascinating and believable. The rustic celebration in the tavern, straw on the floor in chambers, Brother Tuck brewing mead, castles in the middle of nowhere (instead of fortresses stretching to the horizon), smaller-scale battles – these elements create a unique authenticity. Some may criticize the modest or misjudged budget, but to me, it’s a conscious choice to distance from Hollywood excess and plasticity.

On the downside, the film definitely lacks a strong antagonist. Prince/King John is either dull as dishwater or an over-the-top caricature of a spoiled prince who suddenly finds a crown in his hands. Godfrey (Mark Strong), the English traitor, is weak (an 84-year-old blind man hit him on the forehead with a sword). Neither the French bungling armies nor the infamous Sheriff of Nottingham, a corrupt coward, make much of an impression. Without a solid enemy, there’s no empathy for the protagonist. You watch Robin’s story with interest but without emotion.

The characters are fairly average in their performances (thanks to an overworked script). Russell Crowe constantly tries to avoid falling into his “Gladiator” persona, but he doesn’t seem to have a clear vision for Robin. His performance lacks impact. Cate Blanchett, who can usually work wonders with a role, here is merely competent. Mark Strong feels like he has a pasted-on expression. Only Max von Sydow, excellently mimicking an English accent, creates a character that evokes real emotion, despite his limited screen time. The rest of the characters don’t have enough screen time to win over the audience because they’re overshadowed by the story of 12th-century England and moral lessons about honesty, honor, and righteousness. Scott repeats, for example, the theme of blood brotherhood three times but doesn’t explain if or why it had significance in that era. He briefly touches on Robin’s childhood and then leaves us with a clichéd, tragic backstory (no spoilers). Some scenes don’t quite fit into the whole and somewhat disrupt the coherence.

The climactic battle is underwhelming and lacks suspense. On the other hand, the first battle, full of historical details you might find in a sixth-grader’s history book, is memorable. Nevertheless, you’d expect more from Scott when it comes to battle scenes. The budget, which reportedly ranged between $155 million and $237 million, should have allowed for more. Yet, the battles pass without much impact, and that’s a pity.

“Robin Hood” is solid craftsmanship; Ridley Scott doesn’t fall below the required level. However, it lacks the spark and epic quality that he successfully implemented in “Gladiator”. Waiting for a “wow” moment, we instead arrive at the end credits (which are quite beautiful, by the way), and that’s it. This isn’t an epic that competes with “Gladiator”, but it’s certainly a must-see. A fascinating tale of medieval England and a prelude to the legend of Sherwood Forest.