Robin Hood
Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood” tries to tap into the appetite of contemporary moviegoers for comic-book-style origin stories and franchise reboots. That’s an appropriately modest goal for Scott, who’s shown little vision or creativity in the nearly 30 years since “Blade Runner.” There’s nothing new in his tepid and humorless take on the mythical bandit of Sherwood Forest, unless you consider it innovative to transform Robin into a dour grump who, like so many comic-book heroes, has unresolved Daddy issues. And please don’t buy into the marketing that touts this movie as realistic or historically accurate. The Robin Hood of this tale is a lowly archer called Robin Longstride, an absurd and transparently made-up name for a 13th-Century English yeoman. Scott also seems to believe his native country is around the size of San Diego. You might as well watch Errol Flynn wage exuberant swordfights in a doublet and hose, but if it’s a gritty “Robin Hood” you’re after, that’s been done, too. Check out Richard Lester’s bleak, anti-heroic “Robin and Marian,” in which Sean Connery plays Robin Hood as a grizzled warrior and a charming rake. That’s beyond the capabilities of Russell Crowe, whose charisma has deserted him. Scott and screenwriter Brian Helgeland waffle ineffectually between medieval politics and Robin’s mild personal struggle. There are some amusing performances at the margins, and Scott lavishes welcome attention on King John’s French mistress-turned-queen. But his “Robin Hood” is several arrows short of a quiver.