Robin Hood - Director's Cut

Man denkt, dass Robin Hood ein gewisses Unterhaltungspotenzial hat. So, wie er über schöne Drehorte und eine ausgezeichnete Besetzung verfügt (insbesondere der Superschuft Mark Strong). Es ist nur schwer, ihn als eine nächste Zusammenarbeit von Scott + Crowe zu akzeptieren, bei der man sich an hochwertige, ehrgeizige und reife Filme mit einer starken Berührung des Regisseurs gewöhnt hat. Robin Hood ist (wenigstens in dieser Kino-Version) nur ein direkter, ideologisch naiver Sommerhit, der aus allen möglichen Werken etwas klaut und überhaupt nicht originell ist. Crowe berührt in ihm wieder lethargisch den verbrannten Boden und geht durch ein Getreidefeld, aber diesmal spüren die Zuschauer*innen nichts. Ich mag es nicht, wenn schlampig gearbeitet wird und ich mag auch keine unpersönliche und routinemäßige Einstellung gegenüber den Filmen. Und insbesondere bei Autoren, für die sonst Filmbilder alles bedeuten, und die wissen, dass von ihnen die Welt etwas erwartet… (11.05.2010)

Loads of money wasted on a pointless, sterile and lifeless film. Scott is still a master of the craft, but that doesn’t mean anything if has to work with a screenwriting monstrosity that doesn’t even allow the beautiful Cate Blanchet or the charismatic Strong to express themselves properly. In short, two and a half hours of delayed sleep and bitter memories of the never made Nottingham. Ridley, please, go back to the Aliens and make me happy this time. (03.09.2010)

It's nice to see a film on the screen where bytes are not being smashed against each other, but where a massive ensemble is pushing conquering battering rams and stuntmen in fireproof suits are falling from the walls. The trailer was off-putting, while Ridley’s name was carrying it. I don't regret the money in favor of honest filmmaking, which compromises on ratings and, in the second half, on the tolerability of the runtime (I will, like many, be looking out for the DVD with the extended bloodier version), but otherwise entertains with well-written and acted characters that you fully believe in. Crowe’s pathetic charisma drips throughout, while the rest of the gang spit out dry catchphrases and Cate Blanchett is breathtaking. That's what makes even the romantic storyline pleasant and spirited. In a way, it's nothing we haven't seen from Ridley before, but his paintings have always had eyes boring into them, and Robin Hood isn't going to change that. (01.06.2010)

Ich versuche für dieses abstoßende und aufgegangene Drehbuchkonglomerat, das durch Ridley Scotts zitternde Hand zu völliger Impotenz geführt worden ist, die passenden Worte zu finden. Mir kommen da Worte wie Verzweiflung, Verlegenheit, unkritische Herangehensweise, Anachronismus und ideologischer Naivismus in den Sinn, die an Simpelheit grenzen. Wir können das Ganze jedoch grob wie folgt zusammenfassen: Robin Hood wurde im Wald gefangen genommen und unter lautem Vorlesen von Marx´ Kapital sodomisiert. Was im Königreich der Himmel recht niedlich anmutete, wirkt hier beleidigend und langweilig. Nur Max von Sydow hebt sich von den schwachen Versuchen um Heldentaten ab, der in einer einzigen Szene zeigt, was der Rest des Films in den seelenlosen Ausschlachtungen von Shakespeare, dem Herr der Ringe und ca. fünftausend weiterer Filme vergebens versucht einfangen. Ein Stern aus purer Respektlosigkeit gegenüber Scott, der sich entweder eine größere Schere zulegen, oder die Story in Ruhe lassen sollte. Sie ist von ihm bereits sprichwörtlich so richtig verdroschen worden. (10.05.2010)

I was too content to be disappointed, but... I expect rather more from Ridley than a slipshod, while entertaining historical snack. I don’t doubt that in a year and a day we’ll see the release of a dozens of minutes longer and countless percent better director’s cut. Because mainly the editor had to do inhumane overtime on the second half and so in many places it doesn’t make too much sense. But it isn’t ridiculous, not at all (apart from the lady charging on the pony, huh?). The reason why Robin Hood is worth seeing isn’t sumptuous production design (there is none, anyhow) or monumental battles (there are none, anyhow), but the electrifying courting chemistry of the central two. Despite all of potential for mediocrity, I would certainly like to see a part two. Or, better still, I want Scott to give us a whole new movie about Richard played by Huston! P.S.: And although this has almost nothing to do with the legend, still it is a hair’s breadth closer to it than what they did in the version starring Costner. (13.05.2010)

He promised us the story of the Duke of Nottingham, then a dual role for Russell, and finally reminded us of Gladiator through the trailers. And there Ridley Scott luckily remained. Robin Hood is indeed about a rebellion, but it is not a pathetic epic about noble heroes' victory. It is a cautiously romantic memory, but not a fairytale about Robin and Lady Marion. But most importantly, it is the story of a few righteous men and the rough birth of a legend. (14.05.2010)

What a nice surprise. I really didn’t feel like watching the new Robin Hood, but all the more Scott managed to persuade me that there is sense in this fairly fundamentally innovated version. Helgeland’s screenplay is one of the greatest boon of the picture, making something more out of this dusty old legend. The main problem is that the closer it gets to the end, the more scenes are simply missing. As if someone was hurrying somewhere and to make the movie shorter, they just trimmed down the ending eliminating any climax and so it just “happens". But they could have gotten so much more of the battle by the sea. The ingredients are there, but just not used. Russell gives his standard and what surprised me most was the excellent chemistry between him and Cate Blanchett. The role of Maid Marion suited her wonderfully. Strong’s bad guy is exquisite, despite playing them all the time. You would have thought it would wear a little thin, but it doesn’t. And a final thanks to Marc Streitenfeld for the wonderful soundtrack. (14.01.2011)

In the Kingdom of Heaven, I was expecting another Gladiator and I got something completely different. The initial disappointment was replaced by amazement and understanding after the second and especially the third (extended version) screening. With Robin Hood, I was expecting another Kingdom of Heaven, and, once again, the film was completely different. This time, however, I was prepared for such a possibility and it didn't surprise me so much. The muted rating really bothers me; the absence of blood is incomprehensible, especially considering that the film takes place in the harsh Middle Ages, and one of Ridley Scott's main trademarks is his unmistakable sense of visuality, therefore I consider it fatal that one of the key ingredients is missing. The music is average, it's not comparable to either of the aforementioned films as a standalone soundtrack by any means. The acting is high-quality, and most importantly, the romance of the Middle Ages was exactly what the film needed, and at the same time, it was something one wouldn't expect. Surprisingly, there was almost no pathos and unnecessary heroic scenes – equally unexpected. I would greatly welcome a sequel where everything really begins, an extended version where the story is better analysed and edited, and most importantly, an unrated version because otherwise it really doesn’t work with Robin. For now, it's an average rating, but it's highly possible that it will fluctuate, as it has already happened with Ridley. Kevin Costner still remains the best Robin Hood. (23.05.2010)

Ich erfülle mein Versprechen und füge – nachdem ich mir den Director’s Cut angeschaut habe – noch einen fünften Stern hinzu. Und ich mache es gern. Bei dieser Art von Filmen ist Ridley Scott als Regisseur toll. In Robin Hood führt er wieder ein sehr solides Handwerk vor, das zusammen mit Gladiator und Königreich der Himmel ein fantastisches historisches Triptychon bildet. Schwer zu sagen, was ich zuerst loben sollte. Das Drehbuch, das keine Angst hat, die Legende aus einer anderen Perspektive zu betrachten? Die Regie, die visuelle Seite, die Musik und die ausgefeilten Kostüme sowie Requisiten (siehe die DVD-Extras)? Das tolle Paar Crowe und Blanchett, zwischen denen es ordentlich funkt (das Retten des Schafbocks)? Den schleimigen Mark Strong, den würdigen Max von Sydow, den bärtigen William Hurt oder Danny Huston, den man kaum erkennen kann? Ich weiß es wirklich nicht. Deshalb gehört mein Beifall allen. Robin Hood ist definitiv ein guter Film. Es hat sich gelohnt, ihm die zweieinhalb Stunden zu widmen.__PS: Die Art und Weise, wie Scott am Ende Der Soldat James Ryan zitiert, fand ich wirklich unterhaltsam.__PPS: Der einzige Schönheitsfehler: Ich habe gedacht, dass der Director’s Cut mindestens eine halbe Stunde länger ist. (19.09.2010)

The director laughs while the viewers cry. Superbly cast and extremely engagingly narrated, the two and a half hours flow by like water among authentic battle scenes and impressive locations. But despite expectations and Scott's reputation, Robin Hood is nothing but a summer popcorn flick that brings nothing new to the table and incomprehensibly distorts the original legendary story. From Scott, this flabby, impersonal and pointless in every sense film is a scam. (27.11.2015)

"Robin Hood," or how to turn a beautiful legend into an utterly ordinary historical blockbuster. Despite Ridley's efforts to make the film appear historically authentic, the story itself is incredibly dull, and the legendary characters are reduced to mere trees bent by the passage of time. The unbelievably poor casting prevents any likability for the characters. Ridley has turned the legend into something incredibly mundane, and the film fails to save itself by lacking any tension. I have been fond of Russell's recent works, but certainly not for this one. It is difficult to identify with the heroes, and the events essentially do not matter to you. This leads to enduring two and a half hours of suffering or choosing to engage in something else. (16.03.2014)

In the end it’s not a complete travesty, as I feared reading most of the negative reviews here. But far be it from me to suggest that I'm among the defenders and non-critics of Scott's take on Robin Hood. The first thing is more than obvious, and while it may be just a "minor quibble" for some, for me it's a pretty substantial quibble and the first major misstep in the production of this film. I'm referring to the casting of the "aging" Russell Crowe, who is undoubtedly an excellent actor, but tragically unsuited to this role. I was also disappointed by the music – if these films usually don’t "play" with a proper script and elaborate characters anymore, the supplemental components should at least be some kind of satisfaction, which somehow doesn't work in the case of one constantly reiterated polyphonic theme. Nor is Ridley Scott as creative and imaginative as usual this time, so in the end the whole film is dragged along solely by the sets and respectable exteriors. The convoluted and sometimes heavily naive story won't surprise anyone anymore. A borderline 3 stars. (23.02.2012)