Robin Hood (Scott, 2010)
Oh wow, so bad. Everything one can expect to be bad about a movie like this is most definitely bad. I don’t know much about the story of Robin Hood. I think the only film version I’ve seen is Disney’s (which is infinitely better than this). But how does Ridley Scott turn a small-town type of story into an epic battle between two nations? Seriously, stop over-doing things. There is so much packed into this film that not one of the characters actually has any time to be anything more than a walking cliché. The scenes filmed in Nottingham were decent as they were the only ones that took a tiny bit of time to slow down (and the setting is kind of pretty too).
Anyway, outside of cliché characters, the situation and the way the story is told is completely unoriginal. The film starts in battle (because this is the only way to capture the audience’s attention), slows down in the middle, then ends in epic battle (because the audience needs to be awoken from the ‘slow’ middle portion). Along the way a man who starts as a simple archer ends up being a great leader of men, though he doesn’t really do anything except stumble into a fortunate situation, be slightly kind, and make a grand speech. The best part is that his speech comes after he randomly remembers a cause his father was fighting for 30+ years ago. Then, of course, there is the oppressive king who is the skinny, selfish, wild little brother of the late, well-respected king. I guess Scott thinks this is the only way to create a villain. Anyway, I was really annoyed by this awful movie. Maybe it was better than I give it credit for. 3.5/10