Robin Hood: Rebooted, Retighted, Retunicked, etc., etc.

Having already dressed Russell Crowe up as a gladiator and a cop, to say nothing of vacationing with him in Italy’s wine country, Ridley Scott decided he was finally ready to take the next step with his go-to leading man, so he put him in tights and surrounded him with “Merry Men.”

Just kidding.  If anything, Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood” exists to explode the parts of the myth left over from the days of Errol Flynn, like the feather in the cap and the idea that England used to ordain bears as friars. This new iteration of the classic tale serves as the next entry in two different cinematic series. First, it’s a de facto sequel to 2000’s Gladiator, reuniting star, director, and leather leggings. Second, it‘s the latest milepost in Hollywood’s seemingly unending race to “reboot” every property that’s ever been registered with the WGA. “MacGruber,” for instance, comes out in a couple weeks.  Louis Letterier’s “reimagining,” however, is already set to open 4th of July weekend. It will star Will Smith as Will Forte and Ryan Gosling as Shia LaBeouf. Forte’s love interest will be played by Jason Sudeikis getting kicked in the throat. 

The point is, rebooting something is no guarantee of improvement – Bond, Batman, and Star Trek worked just fine– but it does seem to be an effective marketing tool. Even when the end product is questionable, initial audience curiosity gets enough butts in seats to make make the whole rebooting thing a viable business model (I’m looking at you, “Incredible Hulk.” Also, Louis Letterier likes punching orphans. Because, apparently, I like taking jabs at people for no good reason. Like my hero, Louis Letterier: Orphan-Puncher).

So, Robin Hood: worthwhile revision, or cynical, Letterier-style cash grab?

As a matter of fact, this Robin Hood is pretty refreshing.  It’s the grown-up version of a story that easily lent itself to being cast with talking animals. In the 70’s. So…yeah. The film is strangely timely as well, although that timeliness is actually sometimes borderline disturbing. Robin Longstride is no longer a random, happy-go-lucky brigand, but essentially a grizzly, unemployed vet. But with a title. If you can call “Earl” a title. He’s recently returned from fighting for his country in the Crusades to find the bureaucratic fatcats at home toying with both his livelihood and that of his fellow little guys. So Robin rallies the villagers to throw off the yoke of their oppressors in what is probably the most thrilling movie that can be made about income tax reform.  The semi-disturbing bit is that whole thing about a disenfranchised proletariat fighting a seemingly all-powerful imperial regime using whatever means necessary in the name of a cause they see as just and righteous. It just used to be a lot easier for us Westerners to get behind underdog vigilantes before real-life underdog vigilantes started beheading Westerners. Regardless, it’s still tough to abandon that “noble outlaw” ideal altogether. Thanks a lot, American Revolution. 

The worst thing I can really say about the film is that it doesn’t stay with you. Had this been the first Robin Hood film, or even the first in a generation, it would probably leave more of an impression, and maybe even set a bar or two. As it is, it’s a fine summer film with a few sublime moments that ultimately feels pretty disposable. It’s just one more option on your Robin Hood menu: would you like your Merry Men Old Hollywood style, Disney style, Iowa style, Serious Filmmaker style, or Szechuan style? There’s nothing wrong with it. It’s really a damn good movie. The performances are engaging, the action well-staged and exciting, the locations and visuals striking, and the script is more than competent. But one expects true excellence from the like of Scott, Crowe, and Cate Blanchett. For a group so experienced and compulsively talented, you get the feeling that they can turn out a film of this quality without breaking a sweat.  This movie could have been quite a proving ground for some young, hungry talent, a la Star Trek, rather than a group of grizzly old vets (I know, I know, I used the term twice. Just pretend that for one of them I was talking about bear doctors).

While it’s great to see a new take on some well-worn material (and I certainly prefer the film that ultimately came to be over the original revisionist pitch that spawned it - turning the Sherriff of Nottingham into the protagonist), at the risk of sounding like a knee-jerk cinephile, it would also be nice to see this level of time, money and talent thrown into a bucket full of new ideas at some point.

To borrow Phaea’s ratings system, I give this one 3 out 5 Quints.