![robin hood the legend of sherwood kickass robin hood the legend of sherwood kickass](https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.1366539881.1992/icr,iphone_13_soft,back,a,x600-pad,600x600,f8f8f8.jpg)
Why was she cast? She adds nothing to the role, and she's not attractive. This is a question that has been burning in the back of my head since I saw the film. Everything else seemed kind of phoned-in, like Scott didn't really care how anything looked.Īnother problem I have with the film is Cate Blanchett.
![robin hood the legend of sherwood kickass robin hood the legend of sherwood kickass](https://c4.wallpaperflare.com/wallpaper/349/134/348/kick-ass-kick-ass-2-hit-girl-robin-character-wallpaper-preview.jpg)
Sure there were a couple aerial shots of the countryside, and one (yes just one) brilliant-looking bow-and-arrow slow-mo shot, but that was it. I don't know if it's "award worthy" but it was without a doubt the best-performed job in the film.Īnd to worsen the blow that is "Robin Hood" even more, the stylish and slick-the visually stunning-directing style that Ridley Scott is known for was almost completely absent. Sydow is the only one who really adds something to his character, who really makes us sympathize (or feel for in anyway) for him. There was however a saving grace who came in the form of Max von Sydow who plays Walter Loxley (Maid Marian's father-in-law in the film). His performance in "Robin Hood" is, like the other's, just mediocre, not even close to being on the same level as his role "Kick-Ass" or even his turn in last year's "Sherlock Holmes". Strong (Who plays Sir Godfrey, the film's primary villain) is a particular favorite of mine, and I had high hopes for the usually-astounding actor. Most surprising of all was Mark Strong's performance. The main cast all kind of gave mediocre performances that added nothing special to the movie. Russell Crowe (who plays Robin Hood) and Cate Blanchett (Maid Marian) don't give bad performances, but not particularly memorable ones either. That's not to say that the acting was bad per se, it was just…there-I guess you could say. The writing of the film isn't helped much by the acting. The film pales in comparison, and is (all relative (and subjective) of course) like garbage in comparison. Confidential", "Conspiracy Theory", "Mystic River", and "Man On Fire".
![robin hood the legend of sherwood kickass robin hood the legend of sherwood kickass](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_vj2e1m7Hlgw/S8-w1t_4MxI/AAAAAAAAkZk/QOXDmpU7cNM/s1600/kickass.jpg)
The worst part about the poor writing of the film, though, is the fact that Brian Helgeland is responsible for writing such great films as "L.A. It feels as long as "Braveheart" actually was. But even the humor couldn't make this movie, which was mostly about fighting, exciting the film moves along at a painstaking pace that would make a snail weep with embarrassment. Though, there are some comedic touches to the film that garnered some laughs from the audience I saw it with, so the script wasn't as bad as some scenes would lead you to believe. All the flip-flopping of genres isn't really that big a deal, if done well, which this does not, making drastic changes in tone that the entire audience is aware of the second they happen. By the half-way mark, this film is now a heavy-handed love-story drama that is essentially the story of the creation of the Magna Carta (Which gets written up, but never signed, 'cause the one-time good guy/pseudo-bad-guy-who's-really-just-a-jerk King John sets in on fire). But this kind of genre-switching isn't enough, as it once again makes the ole' switcheroo. The film starts off as an epic war movie, but quickly switches gears, now presenting itself as some sort of sociopolitical-thriller that involves revolution, conspiracy, and betrayal (gasp!).