Before watching
the movie, I saw a clip from it and worried it wouldn’t live up to the hype
surrounding it. After seeing the film, I’m still puzzled by the praise it
receives. The movie wasn’t funny, the adventures were stretched thin over a
weak subplot, and the Robin character came off as an overconfident brat.
There must be
something I’m missing about why this movie is so well-regarded. Looking at the
characters and the plot, I honestly don’t like it and can’t understand why some
consider it the best adaptation of Robin Hood. I’ve seen many versions of this
British folklore hero, and in my opinion, even Mel Brooks' 1993 Men in
Tights was better. However, only two Robin Hood adaptations truly stand out
to me. One is Disney’s 1973 animated Robin Hood, and the other—the best
of them all—is the BBC’s 1984 series Robin of Sherwood. That show
combined incredible set design with elements of real-life history, 20th-century
fiction, and pagan mysticism. Who could forget its use of witchcraft and magic?
This movie may
lack the mature depth of the BBC’s Robin of Sherwood, but it falters
even more in its storytelling. Here’s a summary of the plot:
Richard the
Lionheart is held captive by Leopold V of Austria while returning from the Holy
Land. Meanwhile, his treacherous brother, Prince John, seizes the throne and
oppresses the people by raising taxes under the pretext of paying Richard’s
ransom. In reality, Prince John is using the money to secure his own power,
leaving the people destitute.
One man rises
against Prince John: Robin of Locksley (played by Errol Flynn). Known to the
people as Robin Hood, he gathers a group of outlaws and outcasts to form his
band of merry men. Their mission is simple—steal from Prince John and give to
the starving people.
Robin’s
interference in the prince’s plans becomes such a nuisance that Prince John and
his allies will do anything to capture him. The love interest, Lady Marian,
enters the story when she’s being escorted by Sir Guy of Gisborne (Basil
Rathbone) and is ambushed by Robin.
One aspect I
looked forward to in this movie was Basil Rathbone showcasing his
swordsmanship. Rathbone, one of the best swordsmen in the acting world,
actually trained Errol Flynn. Their final battle didn’t disappoint—it’s the one
redeeming feature of the film. The duel was executed with masterful
cinematography, including a scene where only their shadows are shown fighting.
That scene alone earned the movie an extra two points from me. Without it, I
would’ve rated this movie a 2/10.
At the time of
its release, this was Warner Bros.’ most expensive project, and their priciest
film in color. It went on to win three Academy Awards: Best Art Direction, Best
Original Score, and Best Film Editing.
Despite its
accolades, I stand by my opinion—I just don’t understand why this movie is so
highly rated.
0 comments:
Post a Comment