Review: Robin Hood

The nasty Sheriff of Nottingham (Ben Mendelsohn) has Robin of Locksley (Taron Egerton) drafted into the Crusades, under the command of Guy of Gisbourne (Paul Anderson). In the meantime, The Sheriff seizes Locksley’s land, declaring Robin dead, which eventually sends Maid Marian (Eve Hewson) into the arms of the well-meaning Will Scarlett (Jamie Dornan) who is set to lead a rebellion amongst the displaced populace, albeit reluctantly.  Never mind though, Will. The much more charismatic ex-boyfriend of your current squeeze, Robin of Locksley has returned to set things right because no one gives a shit about Will Scarlett, including your girlfriend. Sorry. Robin finds out what The Sheriff has done, and also that he is in cahoots with the corrupt Cardinal (F. Murray Abraham). Instructed by a Moor nicknamed Little John (Jamie Foxx) in expert archery, he also sets about robbing from the rich in order to benefit the poor. Meanwhile, Marian tries to catch up with her ex, who seems a bit busy at the moment. Will Scarlett broods jealously. Tim Minchin plays Friar Tuck, who also narrates the film (Where’s Alan-a-Dale when you need him?).

Errol Flynn (1938), Brian Bedford (1973), and Sir Sean Connery (1976) can rest easy, as Taron Egerton’s attempt at tackling the fabled charming rogue won’t displace any of them at the top of the throne here. Although he’s alright in the part, Egerton isn’t anywhere near good enough to salvage this otherwise tedious, wrongheaded mess that happens to be even worse than 2010’s “Robin Hood” from Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe. Directed by Otto Bathurst, this is about as convincing and entertaining as Guy Ritchie’s drearily flippant, anachronistic cockney “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” was. Which is to say not at all and not very much.

Egerton seems a bit too young in the part for my liking, but has enough roguish charm to not disgrace himself. However, I knew I was in trouble here the moment someone told me to forget ‘what I think’ I know about Robin of Locksley, which just sounded like ‘We ‘bout to spin some bullshit, so you better swallow it’ Bullshit #1? Robin gets ‘drafted’ into the Crusades. Drafted? Eye roll. Speaking of the Crusades, shooting that footage as though Robin and co. are fighting in Mogadishu is a whole lotta nope from me, too. I know I sound like a traditionalist fuddy-duddy, but remember that one of my favourite versions of the tale features Robin as an animated fox and another favourite features him as a man in between middle and old age. So I’m not that fussy. I just know what I believe works and what doesn’t, and boy did this thing not work for me.

I don’t know why a guy with mostly TV work on his CV was chosen to helm this, but the results are frankly even worse than you’d expect. However, writers Ben Chandler (a debutant) and David James Kelly (with just one short film credit to his CV) deserve to be brought in for questioning here, too. By combining the characters of Azeem and Little John from “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves”, they do correct a mistake that film made by diminishing the latter role. So John at least gets more screen time, I’ll pay Chandler and Kelly that. However, it ends up being largely for nought. As this film’s ‘John’, Oscar-winner Jamie Foxx does not have his finest hour in the slightest and in other ways the character ends up lesser anyway. If you’re gonna change shit, make it work. John being the one to teach Robin archery? Seriously? No, that weakens the story and the title character without really making Little John any more significant. Since the film is called Robin Hood, John ends up playing second fiddle anyway. More Mr. Miyagi than anything else, Foxx is just as unconvincing as most everything else here. This sort of film appears to be very much not his bag. Speaking of bags, the cast overall is very much a mixed bag. While this does not in any way represent the best work of Ben Mendelsohn, as the Sheriff, his barely concealed annoyance at Robin’s re-emergence is genuinely hilarious. His Sheriff isn’t quite a one-dimensional black hat, there’s actually a fairly interesting backstory to him, a dark past. He won’t erase your memories of Alan Rickman in “Prince of Thieves” (which hasn’t aged terribly well, outside of him), but he does make this film a little less intolerable than it might otherwise have been. I did find it strange that his best speech in the film comes when he himself is not seen on camera. Director Bathurst knows how to paint a pretty picture, but he sure cocks up pretty much everything else.

Aussie comedic musician Tim Minchin can’t do a cockney accent for shite, but is otherwise OK as the film’s narrator, Friar Tuck. Ian Peck’s creepy Arch Deacon could’ve been a fine villainous presence if there weren’t already plenty of bad guys given more screen time than he. The rest of the cast though? Oof. Eve Hewson makes absolutely zero impression in the all-important role of Maid Marian, whilst I was distracted by a leather jacket she wears at one point. The costuming throughout the film occasionally comes off as too modern, and reflects the general idea that Mr. Bathurst didn’t have a consistent vision for this whole thing. War movie camerawork, modern dress, Medieval fantasy/folklore story…it just doesn’t come together cohesively into a singular, distinct vision. I should also point out that the filmmakers make seriously short shrift of the Robin and Marian romance to a distressing degree. Jamie Dornan continues to be one of the least interesting and least charismatic actors in the entire industry. As Will Scarlett, he’s not helped by some of the worst 11^th hour character assassination I’ve ever witnessed all in the service of a presumed sequel. I’ll be awfully surprised if that sequel comes to fruition. That’s a shame because up until that moment, this Will Scarlett proved to be the most interesting screen version of the character to date (politically he’s somewhere in between Robin and The Sheriff it seems), despite Dornan’s deficiencies in the role. But the screenplay decides to ultimately betray the (forgive me) shades of grey the character starts out with in what may very well be one of the worst endings in cinematic history. Yeah, it’s that bad. As the film’s Guy of Gisbourne, Paul Anderson of “Peaky Blinders” is rather dull in a role that usually results in some scene-stealing. Meanwhile, F. Murray Abraham may be the only Oscar-winning actor whose presence in a film suggests a film of poor quality. At least Lou Gossett Jr., for all the crap films he’s been in, has rarely phoned in a performance. Abraham has been doing it since about 1985 and indeed does so here as a corrupt Cardinal. It actually pisses me off, because the Sheriff’s relationship with the church is in theory an absolutely fascinating one.

I’m not even 100% purist and even I felt this needless, directionless bullshit version was rather inappropriate and unconvincing. Even fans of the anachronistic “A Knight’s Tale” will be perplexed by this one. It never quite figures itself out and for a visually flashy film, it’s surprisingly boring. Egerton is quite OK in the lead, Mendelsohn reliable enough, and it’s good-looking. It just doesn’t work. It’s also absolutely no fun at all, though at least Robin actually wears a damn hood in this one. I’ll pay that, even if it might be more lip service to the “Assassin’s Creed” crowd than restoration to the Robin Hood myth. Disastrous ending, confused vision, mixed performances, subpar film.

Rating: C-