When we went to see Robin Hood yesterday, I wasn’t expecting a lot. Ridley Scott may be Ridley Scott and I do adore Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett but after the disappointment over Iron Man 2, I learned not to set high expectations with these big-budget movies.
The curious thing is how Robin Hood far exceeded my expectations. True, there were obvious historical inaccuracies. For starters, based on what I learned in history, in school and from my own readings, Richard I of England, or Richard the Lionheart as he is more popularly known, was in fact able to return home from the Third Crusade. He was not killed by a cook’s arrow during a siege as portrayed in Ridley Scott’s film. Never mind the confusion surrounding Robin Hood’s identity — as far as history is concerned, there’s really no proof that he ever existed in the first place.
Never mind too the brouhaha over Crowe’s accent. Like I could tell if he sounded Irish or Scottish. And never mind criticisms that both Crowe and Blanchett were too old for their roles — how old should Robin Hood and Marion be portrayed anyway when they never really existed?
Yes, I enjoyed Robin Hood. Although some critics claim that the heavier and darker mood of the film took the fun out of Robin Hood’s adventures, I like the idea of a hero who got hurt and bled — unlike Kevin Costner’s portrayal in the 1991 version as well as the older swashbucklers before him including the alleged Nazi spy, Errol Flynn. You know, in the same mold as Daniel Craig’s James Bond vis a vis his predecessors who never seemed to perspire or got their hair messed up despite all the action. I like it too that the characters were not made out as caricatures.
I like it even more that the issue of abusive collection of taxes was not heaped on the shoulders of the Sheriff of Nottingham but on the king himself. Richard the Lionheart bled England to death to finance his wars and that was made very clear. The Sheriff of Nottingham was only implementing orders of the Crown. That, for me, was very important. In any story with historical references, the story teller has no license rewriting facts to turn a monster into a saint. I’ve always felt that those who went on those holy crusades were being lauded as beloved heroes only because our history lessons have been written by those who actually instigated and benefitted from those wars.
Finally, I like Robin Hood for the same reason that I loved Martin Scorsese’s Shutter Island. In a generation when most people seem to equate a movie’s worth and superiority with the level of computer technology involved in its making, it is absolutely great to see a film without all the modern overkill. It’s not that I don’t appreciate what modern technology can contribute to filmmaking. I do, actually, and I loved my most recent computer animation experiences — Rainy With A Chance of Meatballs and How To Train Your Dragon. Still, there are times when there’s nothing like human presence onscreen to breathe life to a story. Although they belong to different genres, and Shutter Island for me is a far more superior cinematic achievement than Robin Hood, they share that common bond of not relying too much on computer generated effects to capture the viewer’s attention and imagination.
When a film is bad, I only recommend it to people I don’t like. Robin Hood is one film I’d recommend to friends.
Thank you! Now I know what film to see tomorrow on my date with my girlfriend. We’ve been torn between A Nightmare on Elm Street or Robin Hood.
So I’d hold my direct comments on the film after we’ve seen it. Though I’m glad tales like this are being given a modern and a more humanist treatment by good film makers. I only wish the same could said of Filipino movies.
“I only wish the same could said of Filipino movies.”
Haaaaay, me too. Bong Revilla in Ang Panday came to mind and I almost spilled my coffee hahahaha
hahaha…so you watched ang panday? hahaha!
we’ve watched robin hood, we liked it! and it’s 2 hours din kaya sulit.
No, actually (I wouldn’t waste money and time on Bong Revilla), but there was never any escape from the trailers in movie houses. Grrrr.
My husband and I are looking forward to this one – maybe this is worth paying for a babysitter =) I’ve heard many disappointed reviews of Ironman 2.
Btw, it’s off-topic but I noticed on your sidebar that you read Isabel Allende, I haven’t read a book of her yet but I recently saw her on Craig Ferguson and it was enough to make me want to read her book. She’s so feisty and beautiful, I would never guess her to be 47! http://tiny.cc/ihqy4
If you haven’t read any of her books, I suggest you start with The House of the Spirits. That was what got me hooked on her.
Ooops! 67 I mean…
Gorgeous, isn’t she? That’s growing old gracefully.
I passed up a chance to watch Robin Hood to watch Here Comes the Bride.
I don’t regret that decision – HCTB was as funny as hell, moreso that it actually had some original, well-timed humor. Kudos to the script writers for going to extra mile, and for making me remember why I used to watch pinoy films.
But now that you’ve mentioned Robin Hood, Tita Connie, I’ll see if I can convince my siblings to watch that this weekend.
On a side note, have you seen 3:10 to Yuma? That was another underappreciated Russel Crowe film
No… I haven’t. Another title to look for in Astrovision. Thanks.
Hello, sorry for butting in! Found your blog quite randomly and thought you might find this interesting.
Actually, Richard I did make it home to England after the Third Crusade and did die during a siege in France from a peasant’s crossbow bolt. His death came later, though, not during the Crusade. He was trying to secure lands in French territories for his Angevin Empire and happened to be a genius at cracking castles. They were like rubix cubes to him.
This particular castle was in Limousine, and purported to have some kind of treasure hidden there (it had none, in fact). The garrison had only about 15 soldiers and were REALLY poorly armed. At one point they even offered to give up if the English would spare their lives, but Richard said no because he wanted to take the castle and hang them all. He rode up to take a closer look in his careless cavalier way. A man who was using a frying pan as a shield got in an easy shot with his crossbow and hit the king in his left shoulder near the neck. Richard was furious and ordered the attack anyway, the garrison fell, and all were hanged except the crossbowman with the frying pan shield. He was hunted down and killed later, even though Richard pardoned him as he died slowly over a few days with gangrene.
The rest of the movie was about as accurate as Hollywood is ever going to get, since there was no Sir Geoffrey the French Spy and nobody ever landed a French army on English soil during the reign of King John. And the Charter of Liberties was in the day of his grandfather Henry I; why they didn’t just call it the Magna Carta that John actually did sign in 1215 is a mystery to me. And anyway, both documents were less like the bill of rights that they made it out to be and more like a business contract between some barons and the king, which came about fifteen years after the Lionheart’s death because John was an idiot about trying to win back lands in France. They did a great job with showing what an arrogant idiot John was, but frankly that wasn’t so tricky.
For what it’s worth, I am an archer and a young amateur historian and I loved the movie. I just had to speak up about Richard’s death, because I thought it was cool that they tried to include some of situation, if not all the particulars.
Quite interesting. Would love to find the historical sources for the Limousine account.
Like you, I love reading about English history — although my obsession is the Tudor dynasty.