The long story, the acting, the dialogue, the costumes, the
lighting and some of the camera work make this feel more like a mid-level
budget TV show than a summer blockbuster.
The whole thing feels very fake and kind of uncool.
But first I gotta get something off my chest. I can’t stand the costume design in this
picture. A lot of people are dressed in
these rags that look cumbersome and they’re like someone’s idea of what old
English folks would wear without doing any actual research. They look too much like what they actually
are: cheap Hollywood costumes that were all designed by one person which makes
everyone look the same. These are
outfits that you would find in a theme park stunt show (which would be
appropriate), not a major film production.
And Reynolds uses this same exact look in Waterworld. I swear they’re
recycled, they just modified the getups slightly.
And this is part of that uncool thing I brought up. Out of the four Kevin Reynolds movies I’ve
seen I only like one of them (The Count
of Monte Cristo (2002)) and another is just ok (187). But this and Waterworld are sister films. They both have the same feel and look. Between the two I’m not sure which is
better. Robin Hood is more competently made so it makes me want to pick
that one. But I have to admit that Waterworld is a unique idea and it’s
just a weird flick. So it actually might
be a little more interesting in that regard.
But you wouldn’t be seen with either fucking movie. It’s not cool to own these films, especially Robin Hood.
Just like how I’m sure no one did research on the costumes, I’m
sure no one did research on anything else.
This production of the old tales comes off as such a Hollywood douchebag
vision. I could see this guy in the
initial meeting saying, “we got to have a big explosion at the end, we have to
include a black side kick so it’s like those really popular buddy cop movies
like Lethal Weapon and Another 48 Hrs., we need to cast someone
in the lead part who’s smokin’ hot right now (who gives a shit if they’re right
for the role, they’ll bring in a ton of people to see it), Robin needs a long
lost brother character too, for the love interest have it be a childhood friend
so there’s already a connection, the bad guy needs to be flat out evil with no
redeeming qualities, Robin will encounter and bond with his band of merry men
over a misunderstanding of some kind, oh and we need a big brief cameo ‘cause the
audience will love that shit, etc.” I
think you get the idea. This is a pure
Hollywood birth.
But it’s not that this movie isn’t watchable because it
certainly is. You definitely get the
feeling though that every decision made about the film was money driven and
that any artistic choices were either quashed altogether or subdued as much as
possible.
Case in point is who they cast in the title role. Kevin Costner had a string of hit pictures
leading up to this one including Bull
Durham, Field of Dreams and Dances
with fucking Wolves. He was
huge. The problem is Costner isn’t a
very versatile actor and can’t play just any role. Robin
Hood proves that. Costner gives
maybe his worst performance ever and definitely does the worst job in this
(along with Christian Slater who is probably equally as bad). Every single word out of his mouth sounds
like he’s reading it for the first time.
Not only that but he doesn’t look the part either. Aside from the very beginning when Robin is
in the Jerusalem prison Costner looks like some fuckin’ American dude. Big surprise: that’s because he is. He should’ve had a beard or different hair or
something to make him look like he actually gave a shit about this thing. It comes off like Costner couldn’t be
bothered to prepare for the role in any way.
Although he apparently tried to do an English accent but it was so
horrible they had to nix the idea. I do
agree with that. If the actor can’t do
the accent then they shouldn’t force it.
Morgan Freeman? I’m
not for or against him in general. He’s
just kinda there and takes on the elder wise man part fine. He also serves partially as comic relief (this
task was divided up between many characters) by pointing out differences
between his culture (Moorish) and Robin’s (English). You know, hilarious classic Yakov Smirnoff
type shit.
Marian is played by Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio (The Abyss, The Color of Money) and she
probably gives the best performance along with Freeman. I mean she’s not as good as she usually is
but she works with what she’s got. She
goes through a range of emotions like anger, happiness, sadness, nervousness, sacredness
(?) and she even goes halfway with the English accent which makes her sound more
like a snotty American but whatever.
The saving grace of the cast should’ve been Alan Rickman but
he’s not that good in this. He plays one
of those pathetic villains. He’s a pussy
and a whiner, not macho at all. And no
matter how hard he tries shit never goes his way, not even once. It’s a little sad because we never see him
score a real victory so he’s just some asshole that keeps getting screwed over. My heart doesn’t really go out to him though because
he doesn’t let up on his jackass personality.
Like at the end of the movie he tries to rape Marian and I’m not gonna
get behind someone that does that shit. Supposedly
Rickman had total freedom to do what he wanted with the role and that does seem
to make sense. I could see the studio
wanting a much less prissy and much more traditionally bad ass masculine
motherfucker, the kind that had been dominating action films for a long
while. But Rickman already played one of
those in Die Hard just a few years
earlier so I’m sure he wanted to change things up. I can respect that.
Unfortunately Michael Wincott (The Crow, Strange Days, Metro) is wasted in his role as Rickman’s
number two. He’s not in it very much and
whenever he is he’s getting his ass handed to him. I don’t believe him as someone so weak. Wincott should pretty much always be the one
kicking the ass.
Speaking of action, there’s a fair amount here. In that Hollywood douchebag meeting for this
film he must’ve strongly insisted that this not be rated R. Widen the net and rake in as much money as
possible. This makes for some awkward
sequences. Like Robin Hood shoots an
arrow into a guy’s forehead at least twice (one of those is a flaming arrow
too) but they had to find angles to shoot that stuff from so it wouldn’t look like
the fucking horrific thing that it is. Blood
is kept to a minimum as well. But at
least they weren’t afraid to kill people.
A lot of henchmen get murdered and that’s a blessing from the era that
this movie was made in. It looks like most
or all of the action scenes weren’t shot with a set choreography in mind but
rather they just tried a bunch of stuff and pieced it together later. The sorta messy editing during those parts
seems to point to that.
So overall this is not a great film. There’s a lot to dislike here. It’s lame and contrived. I never got caught up in the story or cared
very much for any of the characters. But
despite all the shit I said I don’t think it’s completely terrible. We’re given some adventure, some swordplay,
some arrow…play and it’s a fairly big story so there is some scope to it. The sets and scenes that were shot on
location look great. The lighting at
times can be very moody and wonderful but at others it makes absolutely no
sense (there’s one scene where it’s completely overcast outside but when Robin
steps inside the building the sun is gleaming through a stained glass
window). So there are some fun little
moments.
In the end though, this is no one’s favorite version of
Robin Hood. I remember the ’38 one
starring Errol Flynn being fucking awesome but it’s been a long time. Also, Robin
Hood: Men in Tights is a direct response to this Costner one and I think it’s
really funny so you might want to check that out too.
No comments:
Post a Comment