I still say Ridley Scott’s best movie is Thelma & Louise. Other may argue that another of Scott’s films is better, but I doubt that anyone who’s seen both could launch a persuasive argument that Robin Hood is better than the director’s iconic 1991 film.
As for Robin Hood, not only am I longing for Errol Flynn, I’m thinking Men in Tights (which is not one of my Mel Brooks favs) is a better way to spend time than seeing the new tale of Robin Hood. It’s not that the new film is terrible – I don’t think Scott makes terrible films – but what’s the point?
Russell Crowe is too old, this character seems nothing like the legend, and the story just plods along without giving us a sense of him as a person. What drives this man who does not seem a leader until circumstances lead him to impersonate one? The circumstances set up in the movie and the convenient flashbacks (that feel both too fey and like an imposition of modern themes in ways that subvert history) run counter to popular narratives of Robin Hood.
I love the country landscapes and enjoy seeing Cate Blanchett as Marion (no maid here, a widow) and her father-in-law played by Max von Sydow, but this version of Robin Hood is pretty forgettable.
I agree, Robin Hood was a lackluster affair. A movie with delusions of Gladiator grandeur. Crowe is too old for this role but the team up of Scott/Crowe was too tempting for studios to ignore. But it’s not 2000 and the movie is too long for its own good. Scott was able to collect a the top tier of actors to play small roles but the performances in the movie (especially Blanchett’s) do not hide the fact that this movie runs out of steam half way through it. In fact, only until the very end does the story catches one’s attention when the popular tales of outlaw lore present themselves, but in a vain attempt at a sequel the good part is immediately followed by the credits.