ROBIN HOOD
Dir: Ridley Scott. Starring: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Mark Strong

When Robin Hood was released at cinemas it got it in the neck from all directions.
People complained about its lack of Errol Flynn heroics. Where was the fun, the extravagant derring-do? Then they whined that it wasn't historically accurate – Russ was too old to play Robin Hood (since average life expectancy back then was about 25), the music was 16th century folk music but the story was from the 13th century, and (at a remove of 800 years) his accent wasn't right. Reviews on Amazon are a salutary glimpse at the joyless negativity of internet fanboys.
In fact, all the criticisms are accurate. But who cares? This new Robin Hood is its own film and stands and falls on its own merits. Further infuriating some was the fact that this is a 'prequel”, set before Robin Hood was 'Robin Hood”, tracking the time between his return from the Crusades to heading off to the green woods to become an outlaw.
The film is gritty and tough, Ridley Scott being a dab hand at that historical look, and the battles are suitably muddy; with only a weird excursion into Saving Private Ryan territory seeming blatantly anachronistic. Crowe is solid and convincing – he is one of the few actors to exude a real physicality as opposed to simply gym-pumped Hollywood abs – and the 'Merry Men” are well-drawn.
And if the moments of geographical and historical inaccuracy really bother you then I suggest sticking to documentaries. This is well-made stuff, neither cartoon fun nor accurate history but a perfectly good bit of modern period storytelling. I, for one, hope they make the next one.
When Robin Hood was released at cinemas it got it in the neck from all directions.
People complained about its lack of Errol Flynn heroics. Where was the fun, the extravagant derring-do? Then they whined that it wasn't historically accurate – Russ was too old to play Robin Hood (since average life expectancy back then was about 25), the music was 16th century folk music but the story was from the 13th century, and (at a remove of 800 years) his accent wasn't right. Reviews on Amazon are a salutary glimpse at the joyless negativity of internet fanboys.
In fact, all the criticisms are accurate. But who cares? This new Robin Hood is its own film and stands and falls on its own merits. Further infuriating some was the fact that this is a 'prequel”, set before Robin Hood was 'Robin Hood”, tracking the time between his return from the Crusades to heading off to the green woods to become an outlaw.
The film is gritty and tough, Ridley Scott being a dab hand at that historical look, and the battles are suitably muddy; with only a weird excursion into Saving Private Ryan territory seeming blatantly anachronistic. Crowe is solid and convincing – he is one of the few actors to exude a real physicality as opposed to simply gym-pumped Hollywood abs – and the 'Merry Men” are well-drawn.
And if the moments of geographical and historical inaccuracy really bother you then I suggest sticking to documentaries. This is well-made stuff, neither cartoon fun nor accurate history but a perfectly good bit of modern period storytelling. I, for one, hope they make the next one.