Mon May 17, 2010 07:43
Few filmmakers have so many fluctuations in the quality of his oeuvre as Ridley Scott. Give him a script for the line, above average, so you'll get a masterpiece like Alien and Blade Runner, give him a script that hint of worse than usual, so you get the manure-like Pakleno more. Therefore, it is perhaps the most important thing for his latest project - a spectacular saga of the legendary English outlaw Robin Hood - was just the script. And here things are not exactly look good. The original script was, in fact, a thousand times ispri?anoj revisionist story may break - it is the hero of the Sheriff of Nottingham and defended the lives and property of honest Englishmen of bandits from the area. However, studio executives have decided that the audience is not likely to have an understanding for such a drastic departure from the established "truth". Ridley Scott, as in many similar cases, proved to be a good soldier of the Party and disobeyed the directive.
The result is a screenplay by Brian Helgeland, who deviates little from the creature in Victorian England, and from Hollywood stereotypes carburised in which Robin Hood is a fictional character on the actual figures of England from the late 12th century. It is not exactly a happy period of English history, as the popular King Richard Lion Heart (Huston) not only failed in the Third Crusade, but also killed while trying to pay the costs of this fiasco plunder castles in France. Among the remnants of his army and drab scorer Robin Longstride (Crowe) who assumes the identity of Sir Robert Loxley, a knight who was dying promised to take his sword, an elderly father. Robin does so primarily because it would be with his friends as easily returned to their homeland, whose new ruler Richardov incompetent brother John (Isaac) and which attempts to fill empty exchequer astronomical taxes led to the brink of revolt. When Robin finally visited Sir Walter Loxley (von Sydow), aging nobleman he proposes to retain the identity of the sons in order to maintain the family farm in the fraud and the knights are reluctant to participate widow Lady Marian (Blanchet). Meanwhile, John's deputy Godfrey (Strong) deliberately stir up discontent that would cause a civil war and allowed French king to invade England.
Robin Hood, as you might expect, a great film, but viewers will still have an unpleasant feeling that is smaller than it should be. The reason is primarily in the Scott's unsuccessful attempt to meet wider segments of the audience, which resulted in a not very happy with amalgam of contradictory elements. So fans have a chance to see the myth Will Scarlett, Little John, friar Tuck & Co. while fans of "real" historical film look fairly authentic version of international and political intrigue. The latter, however, in amounts worthy for several seasons, Tudor and Ancient Rome, and can not cram into less than two and half hours. That is why - despite the good cast - many of the characters are unfinished and unused (including the doomed ocean sheriff), and Godfrey as the main villain looks like a caricature. Bad impression of Scott completes a tendency to "borrow" scenes from other films such as The Lord of the Rings, Braveheart, Conan the Barbarian, even when it seems anachronistic, including a kind of remake of Saving Private Ryan at the very end.
Finally, Scott is aware that he fired all the ammunition and creative film left unfinished, trying to get away saying "so the legend begins" and trusting that he will continue to fund one. Although a disappointment, Robin Hood will be the spectators, at least those older people who remember Costnerovog Prince of Thieves with a Californian accent, but to provide some consolation. Scott is still the opportunity to make this movie worse.