Robin Hood (2010)

Featuring the "Gladiator" team of Russell Crowe and director Ridley Scott, "Robin Hood" takes a more historical look at the man behind the legend and how he became the outlaw as we know him.

    This movie is very close to being epic. It's not there, but it's so very close. I believe the main flaw was it assumed too much of its audience, it assumed that we were quite familiar with the actual history surrounding Robin Hood and would recognize subtle references to the Magna Carta, the reasons and results of King Richard's Crusade, and the mindset of English royalty as it had existed for many, many years. One viewer who wrote a review on IMDB complained that he/she had no idea what was going on. That's a problem.

     However, for me, a relatively astute historian, I respected the historical approach. The movie really did capture the heart of what was going on that time if not all the details and did an excellent job of setting up a serious, realistic base for Robin Hood's exploits as they exist in legend. It was good to see a Robin Hood movie where our hero doesn't resemble some sort of Medieval court jester and Marian actually has a personality of her own. 

    Speaking of Marian, I am SO glad they cast Cate Blanchett. For a while, they considered Natalie Portman, which would have been atrocious for many reasons, such as she is a terrible actress and way too young for Russell Crowe's somewhat-grizzled Robin. Blanchett proves yet again she can be simultaneously feminine and threatening, playing her Marian as a hard-working woman of the field who loves her family, her village, and her freedom. No way "Padme" or whatever her name is could pull that off. 

    In a nutshell, it's a worthwhile movie. It's very long, but it's definitely a worthy entry in your "Russell-Crowe-with-two-expressions-angry-or-angrier-and-still-somehow-being-completely-baddass-while-doing-it" collection. "Gladiator" is better, but "Robin Hood" is good.