Film Review: “Robin Hood”

Film Review: “Robin Hood”
When people hear of Robin Hood, what linger in their minds is the ancient “Adventures of Robin Hood,” starred by Errol Flynn. “Robin Hood” is a stylish rascal that involves a “noble” king fighting to oppose the unreasonable taxes that are imposed on the people by Prince John through the authorities of Nottingham. From 1938, the manifestation of Robin Hood has always been different, but the plot and the theme of the story have always remained related to make more sense to the partially changing audience. The 2010 Robin Hood film is an epic British-American war that is directed by Ridley Scott. The stars in the movie include Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchette, Max Von Sydow, William Hurt, Mark Strong and Oscar Isaac.
The film begins with Sherwood robbers running through the forest in the middle of the night. The robbers race through the Nottingham and put their horses ready for invasion. Cate Blanchette, who plays Lady Marion and wife of Sir Robert Loxley, wakes up her workers and demands that they open up the gates. She then takes an arrow, set it on a flame and then shoots it at the feet of one of the attackers. Just after the robbers had left, she comes to realize that the grains were stolen and therefore, they had nothing to plant on the fields. Meanwhile, Robin leads his troops back to their camp where they sit to strategize for another invasion. Unfortunately, in the next Crusade, King Richard is killed by an archer, and that marks the genesis of another regime.

It is perhaps one of the most epic and darkest stories that have ever been told.
Disappointed after the brutality, they experienced in the first attack, Robin Hood and some of his friends return to England. The King had died in the war; therefore, the people were left with no choice but to submit to the leadership of the king’s younger brother, King John whose traits are explicitly captured by Ridley Scott. In the absence of his brother, Prince John cheats on his wife with the niece of the French leader. According to John’s mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, it is his son’s habit that gives the king of France more reasons to invade their people. In his tenure, King John sent his soldiers to collect taxes from the northern barons, who lived in abject poverty. He even ordered the burning of houses and homes of those who couldn’t afford to pay the taxes. In John’s statements, he even orders Robin to tell his father to pay his tax dues. He said to Robin, “Your father Sir Walter owes taxes to the crown, my crown; tell him that it’s bloody expensive to run a country and everyone must pay their way.” These statements indicate his greed to collect taxes from everyone without sparing the father of Robin, who had done much for his country as an archer. As it is anticipated, Robin sharply criticizes and disagrees with the King’s decree.
Notable, are some of the positive aspects of this film. It is undeniable that Ridley did a commendable job in producing a classic piece that has got a beautiful landscape and set pieces. The beautiful scenery of England that is clearly demonstrated in this film captures some sense of ethereal fantasy and historical realism. Also, the fight scenes are also more stunning. While other movies seem to be full of fiction with unrealistic numbers of warriors, the fights in “Robin Hood” only involve a few numbers of fighters. That makes it a battle that is more unusual and intuitive experience.
The acting that has been displayed in this film is also much professional. Even though nothing much is revealed to happen between Russell and Cate, their roles have been expertly played as Robin Hood and Lady Marion, correspondingly. Mark Strong also does well in portraying an evil traitor, and Oscar also gives the best of him in representing an immature and adulterous King John. Arguably, the most positive element in this movie might be the political philosophy. Robin Hood has always been a traditional liberator who embraced the idea of robbing from the affluent to give to the most disadvantaged in the society. The tradition is, however, different in this film. Ridley has depicted Robin as a conservative liberator who is focused on the people’s rights. That is clearly illustrated in some of his responses to the King. When asked by the King whether he wants to give a castle to every man, Robin confidently replies, “A man’s home is in his castle.” His primary objective is to make the King ascend to a statement that guaranteed the liberation of everyone. He sharply criticizes the heavy and oppressive taxes that are imposed on the people. In his view, Robin feels that the barons should be assisted to help the greater community. In a nutshell, some other scholars put it that Robin speeches were a reflection of some of the Republican Party ideas. It is one of the unique pieces of the “politically correct” pieces that have ever been done in Hollywood.
Just like any other piece, “Robin Hood” also has some shortcomings. The most fundamental set back is that the filmmakers have strained the movie by failing to restrict it to one particular audience. Having Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe work together is a move that can be speculated to be aimed at the fans of “Gladiator.” The toned bloodshed in the movie might have also appealed to the younger and older viewers. To clearly manifest its political relevance, the movie should have been restricted to its historical context. Ridley has partially achieved that by introducing Crusades and the Magna Carter; however, other elements of explicit scenes should have been omitted for lacking political relevance.
Certainly, the movie also takes a silent ambiguous stand on religion. The worldview aspects are relatively muted with only a few instances to note. At the start of the film, Robin says that he and his friends remained “godless” after the battles. Also, they had negotiated their faith in their murderous deeds. On the contrary, some element of personal conviction can also be cited when he prayed for the fallen heroes. The better part of this film has also been used to portray the church as a congregation of evil people, and the likes of King John evidently supports the premise.
To conclude, the film “Robin Hood” has achieved much in proving that not everybody can be evil in a politically corrupt society. Despite John being the supreme authority of the English community, Robin stood firm to disagree with him on his oppressive policies. Besides, he feels that every person has a right to take part in the creation of laws that governed them. Certainly, Ridley has done a good job, and my only issue with the piece is the desperate attempt to appeal to all manner of audiences. That has sparked the lack of sufficient political relevance.
Work Cited
Robin Hood. Hollywood: Ridley Scott, 2010. film.