Saw the new Ridley Scott version of "Robin Hood" last night. Umm, left a little to be desired, but I was having trouble putting my finger on exactly what was missing. When I was little I was a big fan of the Disney version, and then "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" when I got a bit older. So today I embarked on a quest to review these modern classics and find out what makes the perfect Robin Hood film. (And yes, I know there are other Robin Hoods out there -- Errol Flynn, "Men in Tights," etc. -- but come on, I did need to get a couple other things accomplished today besides watching Robin Hood movies, so I had to draw the line somewhere.) I started with Disney's "Robin Hood," a cartoon featuring personified animals as the Robin Hood gang. Obviously being a children's movie, this is the most light-hearted of the three films, with jaunty musical numbers in place of violent battle scenes. I felt the biggest strength of the Disney version was that it featured the best Robin Hood. Okay, so yes, I understand he's a cartoon fox, but hear me out. Unlike the over-brooding Russell Crowe or the over-American Kevin Costner, Disney's Robin Hood seemed to hit the perfect note. Imagine if James Bond were a medieval do-gooder/archer, who knows when to be dashing and charming, when to courageously save the day, and when to provide comic relief. THAT's Robin Hood. Another great thing about this movie? It's never to early to train American children about the evils of paying taxes. But should we cut government spending or just steal from the rich to feed the poor? Ahh, the debate remains. Next I popped in my VHS copy of "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves." My favorite part about this version was the "buddy comedy" relationship between Kevin Costner and Morgan Freeman. After Robin saves Azeem's life by helping him escape from the Turkish prison where they were both enslaved, Azeem vows to stay at Robin's side until he can return the favor. So the dynamic duo (a pair that probably wouldn't fly in today's anti-Muslim climate, but that played quite nicely in 1991) brings their cross-cultural shenanigans from the Holy Land all the way to Sherwood Forest. Also, I loved Alan Rickman's scene-stealing performance as the Sheriff of Nottingham and the excellent archery displayed throughout. Which brings us to the latest Robin Hood variation starring Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett. After watching the other two films, I believe I figured out what was missing here -- the fun! I did enjoy the drunken revelry of Robin Hood's band of merry men, but otherwise, this movie was definitely missing its sense of humor. The jokes were few and far between and the ones that were attempted seemed to come across as forced and awkward. Compared to Kevin Costner, I appreciated the badass quality that Russell Crowe brought to the role, but on the other hand, he fully takes himself too seriously. And okay, sure, Ridley Scott is entitled to make his gritty take on the Robin Hood legend, but don't expect me to love it. I mean, isn't swashbuckling silliness part of the essence of Robin Hood? Do we really want to see Robin debating politics and Marian sweating in the fields? I should say though, I didn't hate this film. It wasn't terrible -- it was just void. But come on Hollywood, we're still in a recession, so just lighten up and let us have a good time at the movies this summer!
Sunday, May 16, 2010
My "Robin Hood Trifecta" marathon
Saw the new Ridley Scott version of "Robin Hood" last night. Umm, left a little to be desired, but I was having trouble putting my finger on exactly what was missing. When I was little I was a big fan of the Disney version, and then "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" when I got a bit older. So today I embarked on a quest to review these modern classics and find out what makes the perfect Robin Hood film. (And yes, I know there are other Robin Hoods out there -- Errol Flynn, "Men in Tights," etc. -- but come on, I did need to get a couple other things accomplished today besides watching Robin Hood movies, so I had to draw the line somewhere.) I started with Disney's "Robin Hood," a cartoon featuring personified animals as the Robin Hood gang. Obviously being a children's movie, this is the most light-hearted of the three films, with jaunty musical numbers in place of violent battle scenes. I felt the biggest strength of the Disney version was that it featured the best Robin Hood. Okay, so yes, I understand he's a cartoon fox, but hear me out. Unlike the over-brooding Russell Crowe or the over-American Kevin Costner, Disney's Robin Hood seemed to hit the perfect note. Imagine if James Bond were a medieval do-gooder/archer, who knows when to be dashing and charming, when to courageously save the day, and when to provide comic relief. THAT's Robin Hood. Another great thing about this movie? It's never to early to train American children about the evils of paying taxes. But should we cut government spending or just steal from the rich to feed the poor? Ahh, the debate remains. Next I popped in my VHS copy of "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves." My favorite part about this version was the "buddy comedy" relationship between Kevin Costner and Morgan Freeman. After Robin saves Azeem's life by helping him escape from the Turkish prison where they were both enslaved, Azeem vows to stay at Robin's side until he can return the favor. So the dynamic duo (a pair that probably wouldn't fly in today's anti-Muslim climate, but that played quite nicely in 1991) brings their cross-cultural shenanigans from the Holy Land all the way to Sherwood Forest. Also, I loved Alan Rickman's scene-stealing performance as the Sheriff of Nottingham and the excellent archery displayed throughout. Which brings us to the latest Robin Hood variation starring Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett. After watching the other two films, I believe I figured out what was missing here -- the fun! I did enjoy the drunken revelry of Robin Hood's band of merry men, but otherwise, this movie was definitely missing its sense of humor. The jokes were few and far between and the ones that were attempted seemed to come across as forced and awkward. Compared to Kevin Costner, I appreciated the badass quality that Russell Crowe brought to the role, but on the other hand, he fully takes himself too seriously. And okay, sure, Ridley Scott is entitled to make his gritty take on the Robin Hood legend, but don't expect me to love it. I mean, isn't swashbuckling silliness part of the essence of Robin Hood? Do we really want to see Robin debating politics and Marian sweating in the fields? I should say though, I didn't hate this film. It wasn't terrible -- it was just void. But come on Hollywood, we're still in a recession, so just lighten up and let us have a good time at the movies this summer!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment