NVinNYC

The latest treatment of Robin Hood legend should really be called something like ‘Robin Hood: Origins’ rather than simply Robin Hood. Instead of telling the familiar story of Robin and his merry band of outlaws fighting the unjust taxes of the Sheriff of Nottingham, Ridley Scott’s film tackles Robin’s origins in the Crusades and how he becomes the outlaw of Sherwood Forest.  Furthermore, it feels like Scott shot a movie that was three or more hours long, only to have it cut down to two in editing.  This was exactly what happened with Scott’s prior medieval-period film, Kingdom of Heaven, which went from 144 minutes in theaters to 192 minutes in the superior director’s cut.  In Hood, there are numerous characters and events that feel unexplained or underdeveloped while other parts of the movie move at a leisurely pace, leaving the audience to wonder what happened that was left out.

All this criticism makes it sound like the movie is bad, but that’s not the case at all.  Like you would expect from any blockbuster from Scott, the entire film shines from the quality of the acting, cinematography, and everything else.  The many beautiful shots of rustic landscapes, towns, & castles were all quite memorable and the frenzied battle sequences were appropriately mayhem filled and epic.

What the film lacks is the outlaw element.  The whole movie feels like a prequel to the real Robin Hood outlaw movie (which you’d think you were going to see when you buy tickets for a movie called ‘Robin Hood’), and I left the theater wanting more.

3 out of 5 (which could easily be bumped up to a 4 if they release an extended cut.)

Update (5/13/10): Cinematical mentions there will be about 17 minutes added to the DVD/BD version. Hopefully this addresses some of the movie’s shortcomings.