Robin Hood

Over the years, there have been plenty incarnations of the world’s most celebrated arrow-slinger. We’ve had a bearded Sean Connery. Disney’s talking fox. A mulleted Kevin Costner. And quite recently, the BBC’s flawed-but-occasionally-brilliant series. So then, do we really need another? Sadly, in this case, no. While the enduring legend will always lend itself to new (and welcome) interpretations for new generations, Ridley Scott’s take is an non-essential version that tries to do something different, but ends up feeling like something we’ve seen before.

In this reimainging, Richard The Lionheart (Danny Huston) and his right-hand man Robert Loxley (Douglas Hodge) are killed returning from The Crusades. As a result it falls to noble archer Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) to return the King’s crown and the latter’s sword. Heading to Nottingham, Longstride ends up assuming Loxley’s identity while Prince John (Oscar Isaac) takes the throne while his traitorous friend Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong) sides with the French.

For those expecting Gladiator: Part II as Scott re-teams with Russell Crowe for a past-set, swords-and-dirt ‘epic’ (their fifth collaboration), be warned – it’s not. And yet, while the sharper minds will find similarities with Sherlock Holmes - a new spin put on an enduring icon to start a franchise, Mark Strong as the villain who isn’t the hero’s main nemesis - the most obvious comparisons lie with the hordes of similar battle-scarred flicks of recent years. In contrast to the likes of, say, 300 or Troy though, here the largely bloodless clashes (PG-13 rating anyone?) feel plain and ordinary. As for the climactic Dover-beach set-piece, its inferior to any of the battle scens in Braveheart.

In all fairness, you have to credit Scott and scripter Brian Helgeland for taking an adult and mature approach. But yet, while their ambition is to be applauded, their execution isn’t. A lot of time is spent talking, yet we’re never sure what exactly is going on plot-wise, who we’re to root for and why we’re supposed to care (you get the feeling lots was left on the editing room floor). As much as Kevin Reynolds’ Costner-starring Prince Of Thieves was slaughtered by snobby critics, it remains every bit as rousing and fun as it was back in 1991. This version however fades from memory as soon as the titles roll.

Importantly, it also never feels like we’re watching Robin Hood. Now, this isn’t because it’s more of a prequel that only gives us the character we know at the end – as this reboot approach worked wonders for both Batman Begins and Casino Royale. One reason is the obvious mis-casting of Crowe who cruises through with a constantly-changing accent (Kev’s was American, but at least it was consistent), unable to capture the mixture of spirit, playfulness and intensity that the BBC’s Jonas Armstrong always did.

And then there’s the man who can’t make a movie without him nowadays, Ridley Scott. This is a Scott picture through and through - slow, beautiful at times, slow, style-over-substance and, well, slow. The 140-odd minute running time might not approach Braveheart’s length, but it feels twice as long. We spend plenty of time with the characters, yet as usual we don’t get close to knowing any of them. True, the three merry men (Kevin Durand, Alan Doyle and Scott Grimes) offer some nice banter, but there’s too many players on show. Isaac’s petulant Prince-then-King John, Matthew Macfadyen’s hugely sidelined Sheriff Of Nottingham, perma-villain Strong’s Sir Godfrey, Max von Sydow’s Daddy Loxley (Max von Sydow), Cate Blanchett’s Marion, Mark Addy’s bee-keeping Tuck, William’s Hurt’s something-or-other… and, oh who cares.

Applaudable ambition, but poor execution, mis-casting and too little soul. Now, where’s that Prince Of Thieves DVD…