Rating of
1.5/4
Just call it Hood cuz that's his name in the film.
Indyfreak - wrote on 03/20/19
The latest attempt to revive the classic Hollywood swashbuckler fails to hit the bullseye. Otto Bathurst's ROBIN HOOD is not quite as awful as the horrific trainwreck that was Guy Ritchie's King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. But it's still a messy slog to get through.
The sad part is that the casting for the leads is not awful. Taron Egerton is a solid fit for the noble outlaw, displaying the cocky charm and sly wit that made him a star in the Kingsman movies. Ben Mendelsohn can play movie villains like the Sheriff of Nottingham in his sleep so it's no surprise that he's a suitable baddie. It's too bad both are hindered by a poor script which is so heavy-handed and politically charged that it gets in the way of basic filmmaking mainstays. Such as I dunno, character development and actually adhering to the basic three-act structure of cinematic storytelling.
See it takes but a few opening lines of dialogue to recognize the problem with this latest incarnation of Robin Hood. It is the same problem that plagued Ridley Scott's infamously bloated misfire which was a misplaced sense of ambition. Despite lacking the clear pedigree which gave that earlier film a C-grade for effort, this film aims to pass off as a highbrow production but seems unaware of its schlocky B-movie trappings. The cast is mostly made of television actors and the CGI shots for various locations and action setpieces is garish to look at. Therefore, any attempt at conveying an actual sociopolitical agenda comes across as pretentious.
Given the obvious Chris Nolan influence that references Batman instead of you know Robin Hood ffs, the movie also comes across as a purely calculated business venture by a film studio trying to revive a classic property by way of a standard 21st century superhero plot.That is a shame because it had a chance to stand out better from what's become the norm for blockbusters these days.
