Robin Hood (Director’s Cut) (2010)

Review: written Nov 2010

Detailed and somewhat interesting, but with a clumsy ending

Ridley Scott comes with a certain expectation, of sumptuous cinematography and attention to detail.. and this movie does not disappoint in those departments. Particularly in the extended version which makes a little more sense than the theatrical version. I feel part of the movie’s disappointment first time round in theatres, may be in part due to a measure of mis-marketing. This is not a Robin Hood movie as such - this is a precursor, a prequel of sorts - an origin story that reimagines how such stories and myths could come about. Gone are the men in tights, gone is the jaunty humour, no more the scenes of robbing the wealthy and paying back the poor as a set up for the character. ‘In’ is a historical context, a history which reaches far beyond Nottingham, and large battle scenes. Indeed, the addition of a huge D-Day style battle at the climax feels rather too over the top, and as well photographed and executed as it is, feels like a betrayal of the build up rather than a necessary dramatic high to end the movie.

The movie starts with a myth busting moment - a recreation of King Richard dying at the hands of the French (and a cook, at that..), which sets Robin Longstride (soon to become Robin of the Hood) off on a journey with a band of (not so merry) men, back home. At first, they are out to save their own skin and maybe accrue some wealth to ensure their future- and gradually, involved in a more altruistic fight, to quell a French plot to ignite the Baron's War. The history after Richard's death is muddled, and liberally draws on events which occurred over a longer period and shuffles them around to fit this new version of history. So we get the Magna Carta introduced years before it came about, a French invasion which never happened - or at least, not in a massive battle like this, and the Baron's war happening much earlier than it did. But putting that to the side, this has a few compelling and imaginative elements, and has ambitious scope, worthy acting and as we expect from Scott, well shot throughout. Where we are let down, is the tagged on `big battle scene' and the excised levity. Even real life has more smiles than this joyless exercise. The deleted scenes give some clue that perhaps more humour was originally intended.. but as Roger Ebert suggested, it does rather make you pine for the smiling and happy Errol Flynn to carry off the darker moments with a bit more pizzazz. Special mention should go to Mark Strong as the treacherous Godfrey, and Oscar Isaac as Prince (and King) John.. they at least uphold the tradition of the villain being entertaining.

As for the extended version - yes, it's long. Too long. On the other hand, it’s significantly better than the theatrical version. Included now are scenes which flesh out the burgeoning relationship between Robin and Marion, particularly the scenes involving the orphans running feral in the forest, to whom they both try and reach out. The background to Robin Longstride remembering his past and its significance is also much clearer here, with the addition of just a few short moments.

All in all, what was rubbish in the theatre has become a reasonable movie in this version - but still lacks the resolution and soupcon of humour that would have made it more memorable.