Skip to main content

Gives man a halo, does mead.

Robin Hood
(2010)

(SPOILERS) It’s all about story for Sir Ridders, which is why he signed on to a direct an original take on Robin Hood that he promptly disabused and changed into something much more run-of-the-mill. The same Ridders who cocked a snook at the entire history of big screen Sherwood Forest forays by suggesting Men in Tights was the best version of Robin Hood yet managed to make a picture inferior to most of the ones he probably sidelong glanced at en route. Robin Hood is most definitely not one of Scott's best movies, and yet, the first half has just enough pissed-away potential to leave one with a whiff of what might have been.


Scott had been angling for a Robin Hood picture before seizing on Nottinghamby Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris (BrimstoneSleeper Cell). Their take flipped the protagonist and antagonist, with Robin as the villain and the Sheriff of Nottingham as the hero. They also had – I know, not exactly vouching for its quality – a serial killer plotline (Robin would be unjustly accused) and the Sheriff as "a CSI-type" investigator (an exaggeration according to the writers, but he was "a man of science"). A bidding war ensued, Universal won, and Ridley Scott agreed to the screenplay because of his American Gangster relationship with producer Brian Grazer (whose Imagine has offices on the Universal lot). And then threw it away. Brian Helgeland wrote his own version, in turn subject to rewrites by Paul Webb, again by Helgeland and then Tom Stoppard took a stab at it while filming was underway.


Scott dictated the initial main thrust of the Helgeland take (with the emphasis on initial): the idea of the Sheriff and Robin being the same guy, "kind of like Fight Club. He'd be chasing himself for the whole damned movie!" Now, in anyone's hands but Scott, I might have gone for this on the grounds of how bug-out, batshit bizarre the notion is. But look at the final movie and wonder how that would have fitted in any way that was remotely fun or deliriously demented. More likely we'd have got Matchstick Men meets Robin Hood. Which wouldn't have been nearly crazy enough. 


This is the guy who's all about story, remember, and that was his premise. There's a germ of this remaining, when Crowe's Robin Longstride takes the sword of the dying sheriff (Douglas Hodge, of the recent Red Sparrow and on scene-stealing form in the BBC's Decline and Fall) and returns it to his father (Max von Sydow), where he's persuaded to assume the man's identity. But going from a starting point focussing on the Sheriff to one where he' barely in it is the kind of thing Scott, the master of narrative, who labelled the Reiff and Voris script "fucking ridiculous… It was terrible…", decides over a fat stogie. Like requiring Helgeland to churn out rewrites "to focus on archery and archers" because the director has become obsessed with the subject. Or having the Sheriff chasing himself around for the entire movie. 


The various rewrites and production delays resulting from Scott's erratic demands saw the budget spiral to $200m (again, this is the guy who berated exorbitant price tags when Alien Covenant, a notorious underperformer, was released). If it had come in for less, Robin Hood would probably have been regarded as a hit (it grossed $322m worldwide), but any talk of a sequel promptly expunged itself. 


Notably, the latest take, imaginatively called Robin Hood (!) has been shuffled in the schedules twice. Like Scott's, it's an origins tale (and like King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, it comes replete with brazenly anachronistic costuming), but unlike Scott's it doesn’t star a 45-year-old (Taron Egerton’s nearly two decades younger than Crowe was). Yes, the decision by Ridders to go with an actor older than Connery was when he played a veteran Robin in Robin and Marion is one that made very little sense, any more than his accent (which saw him curtail an interview with Mark Lawson when he was accused of forcing Irish tones on East Midlands ones). Ironically, the delays on the picture led to tension between actor and director, and they haven’t paired since. 


King RichardWill God be pleased with my sacrifice?
Robin LongstrideNo, he won't.
King RichardWhy do you say that?
Robin LongstrideThe massacre at Acre, sir.

Crowe's merely okay in the movie, which means he's far and away better than the lead in Scott's previous period romp, the era near-identical Kingdom of Heaven (both also featured Richard the Lionheart). But there isn't enough to make the character stand out, brogue aside. And (whisper it) he looks a little silly in those Sherwood greens (and much more "Russell Crowe, fearless warrior" when clad in chainmail). As with Balian in Kingdom, Robin speaks his mind via a very modern strain of enlightenment. The screenplay during the first half, however, manages to juggle plot and character engagingly, such that the deficiencies don’t intrude on an engrossingly-established series of conflicting perspectives and goals.  


We have Mark Strong's Sir Godfrey, English when he wants to be, plotting with King Philip of France (Jonathan Zaccai); there's a nice visceral moment where he eats the bloody oyster the king has just cut himself opening. There's Robin, masquerading as a knight, returning the crown to John, a scene pregnant with potential exposure as both Sir Godfrey and William Marshal (William Hurt) know he isn’t what he seems. William Hurt sounds like a strangled budgerigar attempting his English accent; it's a shame he's distracting, because there’s another interesting plot strand of the loyal Marshal dismissed when he's unable to disguise his contempt for the new king's methods.


Then there's Isaac, really good as John in an oversized crown. Such that it's a shame there's nothing mould-breaking about his craven, leching incarnation, aside from having a mum (Eileen Atkins) who gives him a hard time; if Scott wasn't upsetting the applecart with the Sheriff and Robin, he might at least have given John a bit more nuance. As it is, Peter Ustinov's is probably the definitive portrayal. There are occasional nice touches, such as John's promise of a charter of rights for the people in return of fair rule over the land ("I give my word. Such a charter shall be written. Upon my mother’s life"). Naturally, he hates his mother, so changes his mind at the first opportunity ("I did not make myself king. God did").


Sir Walter LocksleyI woke this morning with a tumescent glow. I feel invigorated. 84. A miracle!

There are also some highly enjoyable scenes between Crowe and Max von Sydow, even if they're weighed down by the turgid Robin backstory, whereby Crowe just happens to have forgotten his heritage until Max's Sir Walter nudges him (dad's a stonemason, visionary, philosopher) with a man-of-destiny spiel. When brute Sir Godfrey kills blind old Walter Robin's rise to people's hero is assured, leading to revenge by that there archery Scott got so obsessed with ("This is for you, Walter!" cries Robin, operating at a cheese factor of maximum gorgonzola).

 

Other traditional elements of the story are damp squibs. We barely see Robin doing any outlawing (this is only an origins, after all), merely stealing a grain train. I suspect this is the first Robin and Marion where Aussie actors play both leads, but unfortunately, the main takeaway is that their romance fails to spark. Scott and Helgeland's pallid idea of beefing up Cate Blanchett's character is to have her ride into battle wearing a knight's helmet at the end àla Éowyn in The Return of the King. Which, frankly, just comes across as desperate and naff (as Robin says "For God's sake Marian!") The beach invasion is at least noteworthy for there being useless kings on both sides.


Robin LongstrideIf it is illegal for a man to fend for himself, how then can he be a man in his own right?

And the merry men are given short shrift, thus fail to become very interesting, despite the efforts of Kevin Durand and Mark Addy as Little John and Friar Tuck respectively. Blink and you'll miss Matthew Macfadyen as the new Sheriff of Nottingham ("I’m French, on my mother's side” he protests to Strong and his men). 


I think I might have seen the Director's Cut on first viewing, but I've little desire to revisit it. Scott takes too long getting to the punch anyway, and then decides to add fifteen minutes? By the time we reach the big battle, any interest in this telling has been long exhausted, and the glimmers of wit and intrigue have given away to clumsy, ham-fisted character moments and plotting. This does, at least, represent the final chapter of an autopilot trilogy on Ridders' part, telling unremarkable tales in routine fashion, but it is, nominally, the best of the three. It's also the Crowe-led bookend to a decade of (mostly) bankability he probably never thought he would see, but one that confirmed he didn't really have much to offer apart from technical prowess. The irony was, just as you thought it was time to give up all hope, Scott would appear interested once more in his next two movies. Of course, the responses to those two movies were even more mixed, but at least Sir Ridley seemed awake.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Your honor, with all due respect: if you're going to try my case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it.

The Verdict (1982)
(SPOILERS) Sidney Lumet’s return to the legal arena, with results every bit as compelling as 12 Angry Men a quarter of a century earlier. This time the focus is on the lawyer, in the form of Paul Newman’s washed-up ambulance chaser Frank Galvin, given a case that finally matters to him. In less capable hands, The Verdict could easily have resorted to a punch-the-air piece of Hollywood cheese, but, thanks to Lumet’s earthy instincts and a sharp, unsentimental screenplay from David Mamet, this redemption tale is one of the genre’s very best.

And it could easily have been otherwise. The Verdict went through several line-ups of writer, director and lead, before reverting to Mamet’s original screenplay. There was Arthur Hiller, who didn’t like the script. Robert Redford, who didn’t like the subsequent Jay Presson Allen script and brought in James Bridges (Redford didn’t like that either). Finally, the producers got the hump with the luxuriantly golden-haired star for meetin…

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

The simple fact is, your killer is in your midst. Your killer is one of you.

The Avengers 5.12: The Superlative Seven
I’ve always rather liked this one, basic as it is in premise. If the title consciously evokes The Magnificent Seven, to flippant effect, the content is Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None, but played out with titans of their respective crafts – including John Steed, naturally – encountering diminishing returns. It also boasts a cast of soon-to-be-famous types (Charlotte Rampling, Brian Blessed, Donald Sutherland), and the return of one John Hollis (2.16: Warlock, 4.7: The Cybernauts). Kanwitch ROCKS!

Never mind. You may be losing a carriage, but he’ll be gaining a bomb.

The Avengers 5.13: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Station
Continuing a strong mid-season run, Brian Clemens rejigs one of the dissenting (and departing) Roger Marshall's scripts (hence "Brian Sheriff") and follows in the steps of the previous season's The Girl from Auntie by adding a topical-twist title (A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum came out a year earlier). If this is one of those stories where you know from the first who's doing what to whom, the actual mechanism for the doing is a strong and engaging one, and it's pepped considerably by a supporting cast including one John Laurie (2.11: Death of a Great Dane, 3.2: Brief for Murder).

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

I freely chose my response to this absurd world. If given the opportunity, I would have been more vigorous.

The Falcon and the Snowman (1985)
(SPOILERS) I suspect, if I hadn’t been ignorant of the story of Christopher Boyce and Andrew Daulton Lee selling secrets to the Soviets during the ‘70s, I’d have found The Falcon and the Snowman less engaging than I did. Which is to say that John Schlesinger’s film has all the right ingredients to be riveting, including a particularly camera-hogging performance from Sean Penn (as Lee), but it’s curiously lacking in narrative drive. Only fitfully does it channel the motives of its protagonists and their ensuing paranoia. As such, the movie makes a decent primer on the case, but I ended up wondering if it might not be ideal fodder for retelling as a miniseries.

Who are you and why do you know so much about car washes?

Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)
(SPOILERS) The belated arrival of the Ant-Man sequel on UK shores may have been legitimately down to World Cup programming, but it nevertheless adds to the sense that this is the inessential little sibling of the MCU, not really expected to challenge the grosses of a Doctor Strange, let alone the gargantuan takes of its two predecessors this year. Empire magazine ran with this diminution, expressing disappointment that it was "comparatively minor and light-hitting" and "lacks the scale and ambition of recent Marvel entries". Far from deficits, for my money these should be regard as accolades bestowed upon Ant-Man and the Wasp; it understands exactly the zone its operating in, yielding greater dividends than the three most recent prior Marvel entries the review cites in its efforts at point scoring.

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)
(SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison.

Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War, Infinity Wars I & II, Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok. It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions (Iron Man II), but there are points in Age of Ultron where it becomes distractingly so. …

You use a scalpel. I prefer a hammer.

Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018)
(SPOILERS) The latest instalment of the impossibly consistent in quality Mission: Impossible franchise has been hailed as the best yet, and with but a single dud among the sextet that’s a considerable accolade. I’m not sure it's entirely deserved – there’s a particular repeated thematic blunder designed to add some weight in a "hero's validation" sense that not only falls flat, but also actively detracts from the whole – but as a piece of action filmmaking, returning director Christopher McQuarrie has done it again. Mission: Impossible – Fallout is an incredible accomplishment, the best of its ilk this side of Mad Max: Fury Road.