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

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.