4 stars (out of 5)
By R. Kurt Osenlund
I'm deeply invested in the Robin Hood legend. Three of the more than 30 films that have featured the famous bandit – “The Adventures of Robin Hood” with Errol Flynn, Disney's foxy animated classic, and the 1991 Kevin Costner flick, “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” – were staples of my youth. As a boy, I made arrows from twigs and turned my parents' backyard into my very own Sherwood Forest. I amassed a collection of Robin Hood books and even dressed up as Robin Hood for Halloween – twice. So I think I'm as qualified as anyone to complain that Ridley Scott's “Robin Hood,” an ambitiously epic origin story, abandons the saga's comfy hallmarks, lacking a single scuffle with the Sheriff of Nottingham, killing off King Richard the Lionheart in the first act and – gasp! – boasting only one scene that depicts anything close to robbing from the rich and giving to the poor.
By R. Kurt Osenlund
I'm deeply invested in the Robin Hood legend. Three of the more than 30 films that have featured the famous bandit – “The Adventures of Robin Hood” with Errol Flynn, Disney's foxy animated classic, and the 1991 Kevin Costner flick, “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” – were staples of my youth. As a boy, I made arrows from twigs and turned my parents' backyard into my very own Sherwood Forest. I amassed a collection of Robin Hood books and even dressed up as Robin Hood for Halloween – twice. So I think I'm as qualified as anyone to complain that Ridley Scott's “Robin Hood,” an ambitiously epic origin story, abandons the saga's comfy hallmarks, lacking a single scuffle with the Sheriff of Nottingham, killing off King Richard the Lionheart in the first act and – gasp! – boasting only one scene that depicts anything close to robbing from the rich and giving to the poor.
No comments:
Post a Comment