Skip to main content

I’m the spoiled toff who lives in the manor.

Robin Hood
(2018)

(SPOILERS) Good grief. I took the disdain that greeted Otto Bathurst’s big screen debut with a pinch of salt, on the basis that Guy Ritchie’s similarly-inclined lads-in-duds retelling of King Arthur was also lambasted, and that one turned out to be pretty good fun for the most part. But a passing resemblance is as close as these two would-be franchises get (that, and both singularly failed to start their respective franchises). Robin Hood could, but it definitely didn’t.

Robin of Loxley (Taron Egerton, crashing and burning horrifically) isn’t a not-so-humble peasant/grifter per the Ritchie movie, though. He is, at least in some passing acknowledgement of the legend, a nobleman. And one happy to flaunt his stuff, in particular towards Eve Hewson’s plucky (of courseshe is) Maid Marian. Until he gets a draft notice (WTF?), called up to serve in a War on Terror version of the Crusades, complete with missile launcher arrowpults that obliterate the Brits as if under heavy machine gunfire. Robin, being progressively principled and ethically alert, blanches at the execution of heathen prisoners and gets shipped back to Blighty after being shot by platoon leader Guy of Gisborne (Paul Anderson, doubtless picked by Bathurst due to their Peaky Blinders relationship).

But not before he managed to save Jamie Foxx’s Yahya (Little John), give or take a hand. As recompense, Foxx comes searching for Robin, to train him to be the best kind of rebel he can – in order to steal back the people’s funds being funnelled into funding the conflict – by way of an inane and tedious training montage. Cue Robin leading a double life, posing as the Sheriff of Nottingham’s pal while leading raids as masked avenger the Hood. Ben Mendelsohn does his best to give the proceedings some welly as the Sheriff, and comes as close as the picture ever does to sparking interest when he delights in pushing the captured John’s buttons, but the makers are so moribundly earnest in intent that they wouldn’t even think of allowing him to be someone we could root for (àla Alan Rickman).

Also showing up are F Murray Abraham, wasted as a dodgy Cardinal, Tim Minchin trying and conspicuously failing to be the next Eddie Izzard as Friar Tuck, and Jamie Dornan, unutterably bland as Will Scarlet. Egerton has been a bright talent through his work with Matthew Vaughn (Kingsman, Eddie the Eagle, Rocketman), but he falls squarely on his face here, unable to draw on a winning personality and stuck for finding a semblance of character. He’s left seething and grimacing and giving vacuous rallying speeches (“This is our crusade, and each and every one of us has to stand up or we go under”). The dispatching of the Sheriff (“You bastards, I’m the Sheriff of Nottingham”: “Not any more”) is about the only point of flippancy where the picture connects; otherwise, it’s entirely lacking the sense of brio and zest that Ritchie brought to King Arthur: Legend of the Sword.

Indeed, if Robin Hood was silly and outlandish or outrageous – as the ridiculous designer clothing might lead you to expect – that might at least have been be enough to justify its existence, but it’s simply dead in the water. As such, the movie that came to mind was the recent Tomb Raider boot, also with no shortage of money and talent thrown at it, but entirely without a pulse or reason to exist. Of course, Bathurst’s film crashed and burned at the box office, having started out as Robin Hood: Origins and undergone several rescheduled release dates. Will this put the kibosh on another retelling for a while? Well, Sir Ridders’ version came out in the relatively recent 2010, and it’s more likely a movie no one went to see will actually give impetus to a new version people might(the Crowe movie underperformed relative its excessive price tag, but it nevertheless did perform). The problem is, studios are so obsessed with finding ways to make the source material different (ie similar to other movies it has essentially nothing to do with), they will most likely keep missing the mark.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I think I’m Pablo Picasso!

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) (SPOILERS) I get the impression that, whatever it is stalwart Venom fans want from a Venom movie, this iteration isn’t it. The highlight here for me is absolutely the wacky, love-hate, buddy-movie antics of Tom Hardy and his symbiote alter. That was the best part of the original, before it locked into plot “progression” and teetered towards a climax where one CGI monster with gnarly teeth had at another CGI monster with gnarly teeth. And so it is for Venom: Let There Be Carnage . But cutting quicker to the chase.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Are you, by any chance, in a trance now, Mr Morrison?

The Doors (1991) (SPOILERS) Oliver Stone’s mammoth, mythologising paean to Jim Morrison is as much about seeing himself in the self-styled, self-destructive rebel figurehead, and I suspect it’s this lack of distance that rather quickly leads to The Doors becoming a turgid bore. It’s strange – people are , you know, films equally so – but I’d hitherto considered the epic opus patchy but worthwhile, a take that disintegrated on this viewing. The picture’s populated with all the stars it could possibly wish for, tremendous visuals (courtesy of DP Robert Richardson) and its director operating at the height of his powers, but his vision, or the incoherence thereof, is the movie’s undoing. The Doors is an indulgent, sprawling mess, with no internal glue to hold it together dramatically. “Jim gets fat and dies” isn’t really a riveting narrative through line.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Fifty medications didn’t work because I’m really a reincarnated Russian blacksmith?

Infinite (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s as if Mark Wahlberg, his lined visage increasingly resembling a perplexed potato, learned nothing from the blank ignominy of his “performances” in previous big-budget sci-fi spectacles Planet of the Apes and, er, Max Payne . And maybe include The Happening in that too ( Transformers doesn’t count, since even all-round reprobate Shia La Boeuf made no visible dent on their appeal either way). As such, pairing him with the blandest of journeyman action directors on Infinite was never going to seem like a sterling idea, particularly with a concept so far removed from of either’s wheelhouse.

I can do in two weeks what you can only wish to do in twenty years.

Wrath of Man (2021) (SPOILERS) Guy Ritchie’s stripped-down remake of Le Convoyeur (or Cash Truck , also the working title for this movie) feels like an intentional acceleration in the opposite direction to 2019’s return-to-form The Gentleman , his best movie in years. Ritchie seems to want to prove he can make a straight thriller, devoid of his characteristic winks, nods, playfulness and outright broad (read: often extremely crude) sense of humour. Even King Arthur: Legend of the Sword has its fair share of laughs. Wrath of Man is determinedly grim, though, almost Jacobean in its doom-laden trajectory, and Ritchie casts his movie accordingly, opting for more restrained performers, less likely to summon more flamboyant reflexes.

Five people make a conspiracy, right?

Snake Eyes (1998) (SPOILERS) The best De Palma movies offer a synthesis of plot and aesthetic, such that the director’s meticulously crafted shots and set pieces are underpinned by a solid foundation. That isn’t to say, however, that there isn’t a sheer pleasure to be had from the simple act of observing, from De Palma movies where there isn’t really a whole lot more than the seduction of sound, image and movement. Snake Eyes has the intention to be both scrupulously written and beautifully composed, coming after a decade when the director was – mostly – exploring his oeuvre more commercially than before, which most often meant working from others’ material. If it ultimately collapses in upon itself, then, it nevertheless delivers a ream of positives in both departments along the way.

I’ll look in Bostock’s pocket.

Doctor Who Revelation of the Daleks Lovely, lovely, lovely. I can quite see why Revelation of the Daleks doesn’t receive the same acclaim as the absurdly – absurdly, because it’s terrible – overrated Remembrance of the Daleks . It is, after all, grim, grisly and exemplifies most of the virtues for which the Saward era is commonly decried. I’d suggest it’s an all-time classic, however, one of the few times 1980s Who gets everything, or nearly everything, right. If it has a fault, besides Eric’s self-prescribed “Kill everyone” remit, it’s that it tries too much. It’s rich, layered and very funny. It has enough material and ideas to go off in about a dozen different directions, which may be why it always felt to me like it was waiting for a trilogy capper.

Madam, the chances of bagging an elephant on the Moon are remote.

First Men in the Moon (1964) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen swaps fantasy for science fiction and stumbles somewhat. The problem with his adaptation of popular eugenicist HG Wells’ 1901 novel isn’t so much that it opts for a quirky storytelling approach over an overtly dramatic one, but that it’s insufficiently dedicated to pursuing that choice. Which means First Men in the Moon , despite a Nigel Kneale screenplay, rather squanders its potential. It does have Lionel Jeffries, though.

I’ve crossed the Atlantic to be reasonable.

Dodsworth (1936) (SPOILERS) Prestige Samuel Goldwyn production – signifiers being attaching a reputable director, often William Wyler, to then-popular plays or classical literature, see also Dead End , Wuthering Heights , The Little Foxes , The Best Years of Our Lives , and earning a Best Picture nomination as a matter of course – that manages to be both engrossing and irritating. Which is to say that, in terms of characterisation, Dodsworth rather shows its years, expecting a level of engagement in the relationship between Sam Dodsworth (Walter Huston) and his wayward, fun-loving wife Fran (Ruth Chatterton) at odds with their unsympathetic behaviour.