Critic's Rating: 2 1/2 stars 
 
 Journal Sentinel TV and film critic Duane Dudek looks at life on the small and big screen, and some of the cool stuff on both. 
 
 There have been more films about Robin Hood than arrows in a quiver. 
 
 The earliest, with Douglas Fairbanks is almost 90 years old; the definitive version, with Errol Flynn, is more than 70 years old; and Sean Connery, Kevin Costner and Disney have all taken a whack at the myth. 
 
 And if you've seen any of these - or "Braveheart," "Rob Roy," "The Patriot" or "Gladiator," for that matter - then you've seen the new version by director Ridley Scott with Russell Crowe, a torpid action movie about land reform with the exhausted quality of material so thin you can see right through it. 
 
 It is not your father's, or your grandfather's, "Robin Hood"; it just acts like it is. As a prequel, it throws a new coat of paint on a familiar legend, but its revisionism feels like artifice and contrivance. 
 
 The backstory, about the Crusades, Robin's tortured personal life and how he met the fair MaidMarian is a burdensome and dirge-like overture to a 140-minute-long tale in which both the journey and the destination are predetermined. 
 
 Scott - working from a screenplay by Brian Helgeland, the Oscar-winning writer of "L.A. Confidential" and of the medieval fantasy "A Knight's Tale" - sets this prefabrication on an impressively tactile, live-action foundation. Costumes, locations and other inanimate affectations add a verisimilitude that makes the digital effects in "Iron Man 2" look like the cartoons they are. 
 
 But "Robin Hood" is less old-school than prehistoric, a primer in genre boilerplate, period generalizations and action-film set pieces. 
 
 Crowe's title character is an archer on his way home from the Crusades who, aping the legend of Martin Guerre, assumes the identity of a dead knight; falls in love with the man's widow, played by a dignified and unadorned Cate Blanchett; stumbles onto a plot by the French to invade England; and organizes an army of noblemen and peasants with various grievances against their foolish and duplicitous king to fight against them. 
 
 And he is helped throughout by eccentric and bawdy sidekicks who will become his merry band of guerillas. 
 
 There are even scenes where he robs from the rich, Blanchett is harassed by the evil sheriff of Nottingham and Crowe rides into battle in slow motion. 
 
 And, as with most pre-Industrial Revolution mechanical devices, you can see all these gears turning slowly before your eyes. 
 
 Although moon-faced Crowe is still agile a decade after he and Scott collaborated on "Gladiator," he never seems emotionally engaged here. Whether propped on a horse or plopped into a scene, he has the detached quality of someone doing his job because it's his job. 
 
 As a result, his character never feels completely integrated into the dense and convoluted story that bears his name. 
 
 Robin Hood ** 1/2 
 
 Cast: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Max von Sydow, William Hurt, Mark Strong, Oscar Isaac, Danny Huston, Eileen Atkins, Mark Addy, Kevin Durand, Scott Grimes, Matthew Macfadyen 
 
 Behind the scenes: Produced by Ridley Scott, Brian Grazer and Russell Crowe. Written by Brian Helgeland. Directed by Ridley Scott. 
 
 Rated: PG-13; violence, warfare, sexual innuendo 
 
 Approximate running time: 140 minutes 
 
 E-mail: ddudek@journalsentinel.com ||||| Cannes Film Festival Review: “Robin Hood” 
 
 Photo copyright © Universal Pictures 
 
 A conjectural “origins” story about the career birth of England’s legendary people’s outlaw, Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood” is neither as good as the director’s personal best period epic, “Gladiator,” nor a match for Hollywood’s most memorable previous accounts of the beneficent bandit of Sherwood Forest (it is, however, superior to the Kevin Costner entry two decades back, which I at the time dubbed “Robin of Wood”). Earthy, rugged and earnestly advanced in quasi-plausible historical terms, this grandly produced picture can be regarded as something of a tangential sequel to Scott’s ambitious “Kingdom of Heaven,” with Richard the Lionheart as the connective thread. After several pictures dedicated to documenting his increasing girth, it’s reassuring to see Russell Crowe back in fighting form, but the villains here chart new territory in one-dimensionality, the essential storyline is bereft of surprise and the picture ends where most Robin Hood tales—sensibly, as it turns out—begin. 
 
 In the context of the film’s launch as the opening night attraction at the 2010 Cannes Film Festival, it’s amusing that the yarn’s greatest villains are the French, under King Philip II; to counter them, the assorted warring English factions are compelled to unite, a theme with contemporary resonance of its own in the wake of the recent fractious election in the U.K. 
 
 With opening titles incorrectly stating that the action commences at the beginning of the 12th century when, in fact, King Richard died in 1199, on the eve of the 13th, the film shows English soldiers in the final stages of retreat from the Third Crusade. Having materialized at the very end of “Kingdom of Heaven,” Richard (a grandly shaggy Danny Huston) lays successful seige to a French castle on his way back to England for the first time in a decade, only to be killed by a (historically correct) arrow through the neck. 
 
 With the troops in disarray, a few of the king’s best archers, including Crowe’s Robin Longstride, witness a forest ambush led by Godfrey (Mark Strong, as if portraying a direct ancestor of his perfidious gangster in “Kick-Ass”). At stake, literally if not officially, is the English crown, which Robin scoops up and stealthily spirits across the Channel to return it to Richard’s beleaguered mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine (Eileen Atkins). The spectacle of Robin’s boat proceeding up the Thames estuary on its way to the Tower of London, accompanied by an increasing number of escorts, makes for a fresh and impressive sequence, the pageantry leavened by the fact that Robin is an imposter, masquerading as Sir Robert Loxley, a former-comrade-in-arms whose dying wish was that Robin return his sword to his father in Nottingham. 
 
 What Sir Robert failed to mention, however, was that he also had a wife, a feisty lass named Marion (not a Maid this time, thank you very much) who has spent the decade tolerating local louts while tending to her blind, dear and very old dad-in-law, Sir Walter Loxley (Max von Sydow). 
 
 As written by Brian Helgeland from a story cooked up by him and the “Kung Fu Panda” team of Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris, the film’s first 45 minutes and much thereafter are narrowly devoted to establishing myriad deadly oppositions; this is a world with no shortage of vendettas, grudges and plain old hatreds. John, the arrogant, insecure and youngest of Eleanor’s sons and now the new king, dismisses the longtime royal adviser William Marshall (William Hurt) and is persuaded by the venal Godfrey to soak the already strapped northern barons for everything they’re worth; Godfrey takes it upon himself to eliminate Marshall and Robin, especially after the latter bestows him with an unsightly scar that extends his mouth by a couple of inches; Eleanor loathes the French tart Isabella (Lea Seydoux) who will become John’s queen, and Robin, his memory gradually reawakened to a convulsive childhood trauma, realizes who was responsible for depriving him of his father. 
 
 Other than from the occasional roaring fireplace, the only warmth in this cold and distinctly unmerry olde England comes from the bonds that grow, first, between Robin and Sir Walter, who quickly embraces the new arrival as a surrogate son, then between Robin and Cate Blanchett’s Marion, here reconceived as a self-sufficient woman and nascent warrior very much along modern lines. Even though there are no better actors one could imagine for either of these roles, the predictably programmed progress of the relationship prevents even Crowe and Blanchett from doing a whole lot with it; the underplayed romance is presented as a gradual, inevitable thaw rather than a lightning bolt of passion, but while this feels plausible between two wary, fortyish survivors, it’s not very dramatic or emotionally engaging. 
 
 One half-hearted, incidental sequence featuring Robin and his three barely identified, much less characterized crusader mates, on a larky escapade dispatching some bad guys in the forest is enough to demonstrate that Scott would scarcely have been the right director to pull off a high-spirited, old-fashioned romp in the style of Michael Curtiz’s and William Keighley’s immortal “The Adventures of Robin Hood” with Errol Flynn. 
 
 But, the dramatic sobreity and historical consciousness with which the director approaches this new take is knee-capped by the sort of broadstroke villainy and motivational simplicity more suitable for a straightforward audience pleaser of yore. The extreme punishment Godfrey and his crew mete out on ordinary citizens in the latter stretch seem wholly gratuitous and off-puttingly bring the film down to the level of violence for violence’s sake. 
 
 Matters pick up a bit thanks to the spectacular logistics of the climactic battle; with Godfrey’s men poised on a Channel beach to welcome the French fleet as it arrives to invade England, Robin, the barons and a dithering King John surprise them on the high cliffs above, from which the archers rain down a torrrent of arrows before mounted troops engage the enemy on the sand and in the water. The history-minded will enjoy the wit of a subsequent scene which is consciously set up to suggest the signing of the Magna Carta. 
 
 Still, what we’re left with is a fashionably gritty period drama, conceived by intelligent minds and handsomely decked out, but featuring no beating heart or compelling raison d’etre. The very ending, a sort of cliffhanger followed by the title, “And so the legend begins,” makes you want to see something other than the movie you’ve just seen. The problem is that this “Robin Hood” is unlikely to spawn a sequel, so unless Scott has already filmed a secret follow-up, as Richard Lester did with “The Three Musketeers,” this legend will simply have to be imagined. 
 
 A small afterthought: Does Ridley Scott have something against Peter O’Toole? This is the second Scott film in which there is an important role that all but cries out for O’Toole to play it. Richard Harris was okay as Marcus Aurelius in “Gladiator” but there can be little doubt O’Toole would have been sensational. I am second to none in my esteem for Max von Sydow; his name in a cast always increases my desire to see a film. But good as he is here, I still wished I’d been seeing the rascally Irishman as the 84-year-old patriarch who warms up over the course of a long evening with the help of abundant conversation water. 
 
 Get the latest updates via Twitter. 
 
 Well written review but I have to disagree with Gladiator being Ridley Scott’s best epic. Russell Crowe MADE it a good film. My choice would easily be Kingdom of Heaven which not only focused on breathtaking set peices and action but a complex (if fictional) story of religion and politics. 
 
 Saw Robin Hood last night and was utterly bored, and shocked at the dreadful story line, the badly casted performances. 
 
 Very disappointed in Russel Crowe, till up to now was some actor I admired, but this was for him an embarassed. Stick to acting and not producing. All action and no contents! 
 
 The film is a disaster. I have an earlier version of Brian Helgeland’s script which is one of the best I’ve ever read. Unfortunately there were too many people getting involved later on. Could have been awesome, that’s what’s really sad about the whole thing. Excellent review thou! 
 
 <a >Watch Robin Hood Movie</a> as this movie will surely hit theaters. I do really like the concept and the production of this movie. 
 
 Great review Todd. But you seem way too good for IndieWire. It’s like an esteemed professor giving a colossal lecture on some girl’s Facebook wall. 
 
 Todd is back, doing what he does best—saving us movie ticket $$!!! 
 
 Thanks! 
 
 “violence for violence’s sake” says it all for me. It’s an unnecessary tactic to get you to cheer on the hero. 
 
 ARN’T WE HI-TECK? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy, so glad you’re back. 
 
 I agree with Stefan V - good review, and I’m disappointed. On top of that TCM was nice enough to re-run Lion in Winter, w/ O’Toole and Hepburn, and Flynn’s Adventures of Robin Hood and more over the weekend. Robert Osborne not only provided historical accounts of the movies and how they were made, but he accurately provided the context of the times. He actually knew where we were starting was around 1182. 
 
 I have loved this mythical story all my life, even watching the TV version as a kid, so I was really looking forward to this. But as I saw the preview, heard Cate B., when asked if there was a romance, say “well it’s an adventure,” which to me means she’s a prop, and heard Crowe repeatedly talk about how accurate their depiction of fighting is - how they got their bow and arrow attacks just right - I thought “bomb is on the way.” 
 
 Russell - guess what? - if you blow the STORY - if the WRITING is not there - your movie won’t work despite how you hold your bow!! 
 
 And I agree about von Sydow (who I totally respect) vs. O’Toole. O’Toole is pure genious. Go watch Lion in Winter! 
 
 Todd: Thanks for the great review! I will be looking forward to your future reviews and would love it if you could report on how Scott’s Robin Hood goes over in Cannes. 
 
 Hoped it would be along the Kingdom of Heaven Directors Cut, by far the best of Ridley Scotts sands epics. 
 
 Oh well. Now we can concentrate on Alien! 
 
 Todd, Ridley Scott’s best epic is actually the director’s cut of Kingdom of Heaven. 
 
 So far, seems like the critics embargo drama casting… 
 
 Dan Jolin of Empire Magazine as Robbin the Hood 
 
 Drew McWeeny as the Sheriff of NotOnMyWatch 
 
 Anne Thompson as Maid CarryOn 
 
 is more entertaining than the film itself. 
 
 The embargo was broken by Empire Magazine, followed by THR and Variety. indieWIRE has the same embargo as the trades. 
 
 So this film isn’t Merrie Old England enough ,it needs more of what drove the Adventures of Robin Hood ,72 years ago? Comparing and contrasting films of the past with new presentations is what a lot of film reviewers do best. I’m sure there are advocates for the silent Ben-Hur over the 1959 Ben-Hur .This Hollywood makes a lot of frothy fantasy driven ,CGI films for summer consumption.I do believe this Hollywood is arguing for yet another fantasy film, Lots of CGI vIdeo game looking action,some hot babes. Yes ,I can see Robin as a secret wizard with the power of flight..etc; etc; 
 
 Aren’t you supposed to be under an embargo for this? 
 
 Thank god you’re back. Great review,. 
 
 I liked this review, and I’m disappointed that Scott settled for simple ‘black-and-white’ portrayals of the characters. Could have been a must-see. 
 
 Thanks for the review! 
 
 What a joy! Beautiful review! And epic in length compared to Variety. Can’t wait for more Cannes stuff. 
 
 Post a Comment ||||| Robin Hood 
 
 May 12, 2010 
 
 Little by little, title by title, innocence and joy is being drained out of the movies. What do you think of when you hear the name of Robin Hood? I think of Errol Flynn, Sean Connery and the Walt Disney character. I see Robin lurking in Sherwood Forest, in love with Maid Marian (Olivia de Havilland or Audrey Hepburn), and roistering with Friar Tuck and the Merry Men. I see a dashing swashbuckler. 
 
 That Robin Hood is nowhere to be found in Ridley Scott's “Robin Hood,” starring Russell Crowe as a warrior just back from fighting in the Third Crusade. Now Richard is dead, and Robin is essentially an unemployed mercenary. This story is a prequel. It takes place entirely before Robin got to be a folk hero. The idea of taking from the rich and giving to the poor was still in storyboard form. Grieving Richard the Lionhearted and now facing the tyrant King John, Robin leads an uprising. 
 
 
 
 This war broadens until, in the words of the movie's synopsis, “it will forever alter the balance of world power.” That's not all; “Robin will become an eternal symbol of freedom for his people.” Not bad for a man who, by general agreement, did not exist. Although various obscure bandits and ne'er-do-wells inspired ancient ballads about such a figure, our image of him is largely a fiction from the 19th century. 
 
 
 
 But so what? In for a penny, in for a pound. After the death of Richard, Robin Hood raises, arms and fields an army to repel a French army as it lands on an English beach in wooden craft that look uncannily like World War II troop carriers at Normandy. His men, wielding broadswords, backed by archers, protected from enemy arrows by their shields, engage the enemy in a last act devoted almost entirely to nonstop CGI and stunt carnage in which warriors clash in confused alarms and excursions, and Russell Crowe frequently appears in the foreground to whack somebody. 
 
 
 
 Subsequently, apparently, Robin pensioned his militia and retired to Sherwood Forest to play tag with Friar Tuck. That's my best guess; at the end the film informs us, “and so the legend begins,” leaving us with the impression we walked in early. 
 
 
 
 Ah, you say, but what of Maid Marion? In this telling, Marion (Cate Blanchett) is not a maid but a widow, and not a merry one. At one point she threatens to unman Robin with her dagger, which is unlike the Maid Marions I've known and loved. Blanchett plays the role with great class and breeding, which is all wrong, I think. She's the kind of woman who would always be asking Robin, “Why do you let that smelly so-called friar hang around you like a fanboy?” 
 
 
 
 If you listen closely to the movie's commercials, you may hear of a royal edict being issue against “Robin of the Hood.” A hood, in medieval English, was of course a wood or forest — a point that may be lost on many of the commercial's viewers. 
 
 
 
 “Robin Hood” is a high-tech and well made violent action picture using the name of Robin Hood for no better reason than that it's an established brand not protected by copyright. I cannot discover any sincere interest on the part of Scott, Crowe or the writer Brian Helgeland in any previous version of Robin Hood. Their Robin is another weary retread of the muscular macho slaughterers who with interchangeable names stand at the center of one overwrought bloodbath after another. 
 
 
 
 Have we grown weary of the delightful aspects of the Robin Hood legend? Is witty dialogue no longer permitted? Are Robin and Marion no longer allowed to engage in a spirited flirtation? Must their relationship seem like high-level sexual negotiations? How many people need to be covered in boiling oil for Robin Hood's story to be told these days? How many parents will be misled by the film's PG-13 rating? Must children go directly from animated dragons to skewering and decapitation, with no interval of cheerful storytelling? 
 
 
 
 The photography is, however, remarkable, and Crowe and the others are filled with fierce energy. Ridley Scott is a fine director for work like this, although in another world, Hollywood would let him make smarter films. God, he must be tired of enormous battle scenes. ||||| It's difficult to do a "Robin Hood" movie without making it a cover version of an earlier story. After all, we've been retelling this straight arrow's tale for at least 500 years. Still, the Russell Crowe/Ridley Scott edition is a more energetic and interesting entry than you might expect from this overpopulated genre. 
 
 This lighthearted drama feels like its own show, thanks to its strong, character-driven screenplay. Scott's natural tone is brooding and sardonic, and Crowe (squint, scowl, rumble, glare) is not the lightest of actors. They need material that lifts their spirits, and that's just what the story provides. Brian Helgeland, the screenwriter of "Mystic River" and "L.A. Confidential," elevates this film above its genre by taking the time to develop its characters and scenario. Quite a bit of time: "Robin Hood" runs a languorous, sometimes-laggy 140 minutes. 
 
 But patience has its rewards. Alongside impressive battle sequences, we get likable heroes, indelible villains and strong, feisty female characters. There's ribald humor without "Men in Tights" tomfoolery. Scott's films are usually high on technical polish but iffy in terms of emotional engagement. This one scores on all counts. 
 
 The film focuses on Robin's pre-outlaw days, the formative period when he became an anti-authoritarian individualist. We meet him during the crusade of King Richard the Lionhearted (Danny Huston, whose sense of entitlement and invulnerability only goes so far in battle). This is where the battle-weary archer acquired the particular set of skills and attitudes that make him a nightmare for the ruling class.
– Naturally Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe doen't skimp on fights or period color in their gritty take on Robin Hood, but they've both done better, say critics, than this downbeat tale some feel lacks a "beating heart." "it’s reassuring to see Russell Crowe back in fighting form, but the villains here chart new territory in one-dimensionality, the essential storyline is bereft of surprise and the picture ends where most Robin Hood tales—sensibly, as it turns out—begin," writes Todd McCarthy on IndieWire. If you've seen other Robin Hood movies, or Braveheart—or Gladiator—you've seen this before, writes an unimpressed Duane Dudek at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, calling it "a torpid action movie about land reform with the exhausted quality of material so thin you can see right through it." The lack of swashbuckling rankled with Roger Ebert at the Chicago Sun-Times. Robin Hood ”is a high-tech and well made violent action picture," he writes, but "it's using the name of Robin Hood for no better reason than that it’s an established brand not protected by copyright." Colin Covert at the Minneapolis Star Tribune was more impressed. "Scott's natural tone is brooding and sardonic, and Crowe (squint, scowl, rumble, glare) is not the lightest of actors.They need material that lifts their spirits, and that's just what the story provides."