LAKE OCONEE — “Robin Hood”

Rated PG-13 (for violence, including intense sequences of warfare, and some sexual content)



This particular “Robin Hood” is sort of a prequel to all other Robin Hoods. It is a how-Robin-Hood-got-to-be-Robin-Hood type of Robin Hood.

Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) is an archer in King Richard the Lionheart’s army. He is present with the King when they are sacking a castle in France. The King is killed. Robin, who had been in the stockades for daring to tell the King a truthful opinion, escaped but on the road to the French coast witnesses an ambush. The dead King’s crown was on the way to the soon-to-be-crowned King John. Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong), a traitor working for the King of France, trying to ferment revolution in England, is the aforementioned ambusher.  Robin and a few of his fellow deserters attack the Frenchmen (and Sir Godfrey). The knight, Sir Robert Oxley, carrying the crown back to England is dying and begs Robin Longstride to take his fancy sword home to his father, Sir Walter Oxley (Max von Sydow) who lives in (drumroll, please) Nottingham.

Now, let me be clear: “Robin Hood” (the movie) is sort of a reworking of the reworked-to-death legend/myth of Robin Hood. And the historic background, in the film, is very, very, uh, (how do I write this?) upside down and turned inside out. And so, to make this story work, director Ridley Scott, inserts into the plotline, so many coincidences that it makes “Robin Hood: Men in Tights,” Mel Brooks’s treatment of the story, seem like a documentary. So, honestly, park your brain, education, and sense of logic at the door.

Having written that, I must admit that it was, for me, still fun. It is not an aristocratic swashbuckler exactly; more like a slugbuster with slings and arrows and plenty of battle scenes, castles, and lusty wenches. Oscar Isaac as King John does evil well. Max von Sydow is particularly dignified (he, quite frankly, steals the picture). Crowe does a fine job (even if he is more like Robin Longinthetooth than Robin Longstride) and Cate Blanchette is pretty good as don’t-mess-with-me-I’m-a-sexy-and-tough-non-maid Marian. However, that one scene of Marian becoming Joan of Arc, prompts some serious eye-rolling; the Non-Maid Marion is not the Maid of Orléans.

This is a manly Robin Hood not the mincing, pretty boy Erroll Flynn version. Testosterone and spittle practically fly off the screen, spraying upon us in the audience. The teeth are nasty and the hygiene is lacking. We certainly believe it when Sir Walter Oxley tells Robin Longstride to wash before dinner because he stinks. This is a gritty Robin Hood, not the type fellow we would see dressed in frilly green leotards any time soon.

Robin Hood is also a bit too “battlesome.” I almost expected Mel Gibson’s William “Braveheart” Wallace to top the hill and join Robin in the fray. On the other hand, the epic style is worth a viewing. Sure there is a lot of CGI in this cinematic depiction, but all in good fun and this is the kind of film worth seeing on the big screen.

“Robin Hood” is also perhaps a tad too long, a tad too serious, and a tad too political. This is no socialistic, wealth-redistributing Robin Hood. It is more of a Libertarian, anti-tax and anti-tithe, Robin Hood. It even places Marian in an “I am not giving up my 5,000 acres” stance against an apparently communistic Frenchman who wants to violate her body and property. I think this is a little silly. Perhaps, however, the writers thought by adding a line or two about wasting taxpayers’ money on foreign wars mitigated the message. Either way, I would have preferred staying firmly in the 1199 A.D., thank you.

Despite these minor shortcomings, “Robin Hood” is a fine way to bide your time while waiting for the summer to charge your way.

“Robin Hood” earns three and a half bow ties out of five.