Ridley Scott's 'Robin Hood' remake: More poor than rich »

Ridley Scott has probably done more period films than any other current Hollywood director. His new “Robin Hood” is his fifth … or even his seventh if you want to count “Alien” and “Blade Runner” as “period.”

Here the setting is more or less the same as in his 2005 “Kingdom of Heaven.” So are some of the plot points, including the backdrop of the Crusades.

Like Orlando Bloom's Balian in “Kingdom,” this Robin Hood (Russell Crowe) — born as Robin Longstride — starts with no knowledge of his father. Each hero is an average Joe who finds out during the film that he has a loftier heritage. Balian discovers that his dad was a nobleman; Robin learns that his, while a common stonemason, was a noble man — maybe the noblest, since he seems to have composed the first draft of the Magna Carta.

Escaping unjust punishment by a surprisingly ignoble Richard the Lionhearted (Danny Huston), Robin needs to masquerade as the late Sir Robert Loxley to get out of France and back to England. If that sounds like a farce setup, it's played a bit that way, particularly after Loxley's dad (Max von Sydow) urges him to continue the deception, up to and including sharing a bedroom with Sir Robert's widow, Marion (no longer precisely a maid). Marion (Cate Blanchett) is not delighted with this arrangement, even though it helps ward off the unwanted advances of the sheriff of Nottingham (Matthew Macfadyen). Scott and Crowe proved in 2006's “A Good Year” that the list of their many strong points does not include a deft comic touch; sadly, this is merely confirmed here.

Meanwhile, back at the royal palace, the newly crowned King John (Oscar Isaac) fires top advisor Marshal (William Hurt), replacing him with longtime buddy Godfrey (Mark Strong). This is, all in all, a bad maneuver, since the turncoat Godfrey has made a deal with the king of France. He executes unfair policies that drive a wedge between the king and the barons, thereby softening up this sceptred isle for an invasion from across the Channel (a shorter trip than from here to Catalina).

At both the beginning and the end, we get some nifty battles. In that regard, “Robin Hood” isn't in a league with John Woo's epic “Red Cliff” — very few films are — but that's partly the fault of history. You can't really blame Scott, who always does this stuff well.

The most important thing to know going in is that the new “Robin Hood” is essentially a prequel. The ads and trailers emphasize King John's screaming declaration that Robin and his men are now enemies of the state; be forewarned that this moment occurs roughly three minutes before the closing credits.

As a result, the filmmakers laudably avoid a mere regurgitation of the traditional version. With “Robin Hood,” there are none of the usual issues of fidelity that plague biopics: It's not clear that there ever was a person, and, if he existed, his real life is as encrusted with centuries of folkloric embellishment as King Arthur's. The story that most of us know comes from Howard Pyle's 19th century retelling and Sir Walter Scott's “Ivanhoe,” filtered through the magnificent lens of the 1938 Errol Flynn film, directed by Michael Curtiz. (I'm assuming that the awful 1991 Kevin Costner rendition hasn't replaced the Flynn film in anyone's hearts or minds. Never compete against an unforgettable classic.)

But there's a real down-side to this as well: i.e., the film ends just when the fun usually starts. Finally, we're in Sherwood Forest! Carousing and roasting pigs with Robin and Marion and the Merry Men! Time for the rollicking adventures to begin! Fade to black?

Thanks for the source from: http://www.thisisbrandx.com/

Have a nice day