Monday, June 7, 2010

"Robin Hood" (2010) Review

ROBIN HOOD

Universal Pictures presents a film
directed by Ridley Scott. Written by Brian Helgeland. Running time: 131 minutes. Rated PG-13 (for violence, including intense sequences of
warfare, and some sexual content).

Robin Hood is a very, very competent film. It is clearly executed by some of the world's premiere filmmakers, from the production designers to the cinematographer to, I'm sure, the beekeepers that kept Friar Tuck's bees on set. And it's clearly in competent directorial hands--you never for a moment doubt that you are in 11th Century England, and that these characters are caught up in all of the woes and struggles the jam-packed story throws at them. It's also the kind of movie that makes one want to write descriptions about it in Capital Letters, since Serious Things require descriptions in Capital Letters, and this movie has many, many Serious Things. But is this Robin Hood? Is this the legend we've all grown up with, or something else all together?



If you were expecting something along the lines of Errol Flynn's buoyant rendition of a merry green-clad prankster causing no end of trouble for the dastardly Sheriff of Nottingham and the detestable King John, look somewhere else. This is a Serious Rendition, remember, almost scholarly in its approach. I forgot, at times, that this is entirely fiction. Ridley Scott treats his subject matter with the same attention to detail and accuracy that one might reasonably expect from a BBC Historical Reenactment--one begins to wonder if Cate Blanchett's portrayal of Maid Marian would satisfy her ancestors with its authenticity. But of course, Robin Hood is a legend, a tale writ large of a well-meaning thief who stole from the greedy rich to give to the needy poor. There isn't much of that in this movie--in fact, there is all of one scene of Robin Hood and his Merry Men robbing the rich and giving to the poor. The rest is political intrigue, and portents of war, and Noble Men doing Noble Things and sword battles aplenty.

The Robin Hood in Ridley Scott's version is a Saxon Gladiator; a slightly (VERY slightly) more light-hearted version of the Maximus that led Scott and new 'Hood Russell Crowe to Oscar glory. Like Gladiator, this is the tale of a soldier caught up in royal shenanigans far beyond his scope or means; Robin Longstride is not a general, but he essentially becomes one, so that by the end of the movie he's delivering regal speeches about freedom and working with King John to end tyranny. It's true to the NATURE of the Robin Hood legend, if not to the letter. I won't bog everyone down with plot details--and there are many--but I will say that the story could use some trimming, especially in the tacked-on-feeling flashbacks to young Robin's forgotten youth and the search for the father he never knew. He finds him--not in the way he expected--and what should be a big moment of revelation for the character (and the audience) merely comes across as another reason to consider Robin Hood a noble, brooding soldier. At that point, we've received plenty of notice, thanks.

And that points to the film's main weakness: its length. This is an epic, to be sure, and it feels like one. If you're not prepared to sit through every last possible detail regarding what makes Robin Hood Robin Hood, then perhaps you should sit this one out. It's odd, then, that after all the exacting detail and all the elaborate, Gladiator-sized battle scenes, we're still left with a vague image of what the Robin Hood legend is. Robin Hood the man? Sure, he's the noble, honest, strong man King Richard the Lion Hearted finds in a well-played scene near the beginning of the film. And he's exactly the same noble, honest strong man at the end of the film. It's all handled very well, and very realistically; it just doesn't necessarily do anything beyond that.

If you're in the mood for an 11th Century European swords and arrows epic, you can do far worse than commit your time to Robin Hood. The production design is absolutely top notch, and you will genuinely feel like you've spent some time in the idyllic villages of England and the forests of France, with characters who thoroughly understand Medieval Warfare and Politics. If you're looking for a fun, light-hearted Robin Hood retelling, there's always the Erroll Flynn version.

Sunday, June 6, 2010

Welcome To ScreensSeen!

We live in a world dominated by screens of one kind or another. They’re EVERYwhere. In our homes:

In our cars:

At work:

Even in our pockets:

And on each and every one of those screens, there’s content vying for our attention—attention that becomes more and more valuable with each passing day and with every new form of ‘Look At Me’ programming, advertising, and games. We only have so many hours in a day, after all.

That’s where Screens Seen comes in.

This blog will take a look at a smattering of what’s offered on every screen we can get our hands on—Movie, TV, Computer, Mobile, and “Out-Of-Home” screens (those screens you might see at gas stations and supermarkets, for instance), and tell you what’s worth your valuable time and attention and what simply isn’t.

We’ll not only review what we see, we’ll also try to explain some tricks-of-the-trade fundamentals you might not be aware of along the way to increase your awareness and get the most out of what you’re seeing.

This blog is intended as a place to read reviews you can use to form a learned opinion (well maybe not LEARNED, but certainly better-informed-so-you-can-feel-like-you’re-not-dismissing-something-off-hand-or-feel-like-you’re-crazy-because-someone-else-sees-something-in-a-movie-you-totally-missed kind of opinion), AND find out interesting facts and tidbits about what goes into making, say, a movie you love or a TV show you hate. You’ll be better able to pinpoint exactly why you like something or exactly why you don’t.

So check back here for our periodic insights into anything and everything we deem “See-able” on any screen we see.

There’s a lot of media out there—let’s make sure it’s as good as it can be, shall we?