Robin Hood (2010, PG-13)

Directed by: Ridley Scott

Grade: B

Robin Hood (the movie, not the man) is a film that works fine as a historical picture, mainly because it really revamps the Robin Hood legend that we are familiar with (I don’t want to release heavy spoilers).  In addition, it captures the feel for the life back in those Dark Ages.  Critical reaction to this film has been decisively mixed, with much of the criticism directed to how dull of a movie this is.  Actually, Robin Hood is not a dull movie, as like I said just above, it successfully captures the feel for the life in the Dark Ages, and let’s keep in mind; life was pretty grim back into those days.  The previous major Robin Hood motion picture outing was the 1991 Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, which was pretty cartoonish overall and played out more as an American action film then a true historical drama (this 2010 version is far more gritty and realistic).  Indeed, Kevin Costner sported an American accent as the English titular character.  This new 2010 Robin Hood is not entirely satisfying in all departments, but I will say yet again, there is no question as to what it achieves in terms of successfully capturing the feel for that era.  The acting, especially by the two leads (Crowe and Blanchett), is focused and determined, and the two carry a good portion of the film substantially.  I just find it unnecessary that the tale told in this motion picture was stretched out to two and a half hours, when it just as easily could have been told in about two.  That alone proves a major hindrance in watching the film from a critical point of view.  On the other hand, it neatly paves way for an actually necessary sequel, and as a whole, I honestly can’t say how Robin Hood could have worked any better as a historical motion picture.  B