Russell Crowe, Robin Hood
Ridley Scott's Robin Hood has been greeted by less than merry reviews. And I'm putting it kindly.
Starring Russell Crowe as a Robin Hood with little in common with previous cinematic Robin Hoods — and those range from Douglas Fairbanks in 1922 to Errol Flynn in 1938 and Kevin Costner in 1991 — the latest retelling of the Robin Hood legend offers little of interest as well, according to movie critics.
Robin Hood, which features its title hero fighting the evil French (!), opened the 2010 Cannes Film Festival, located in where else but France itself. If the reviews from US-based critics are an accurate indication of the mood at the Cannes premiere, French attendees were likely too bored to feel offended.
James Mottram, of the London daily The Independent called Robin Hood an "inauspicious start" to the 63rd Cannes Film Festival, adding that while the Scott-Crowe Oscar-winning Gladiator (2000) "revived the swords-and-sandals epic, it's hard to foresee Robin Hood precipitating a host of imitators. Not least because Crowe's ho-hum take on the Nottingham outlaw never comes close to matching the blood-and-thunder of his gladiator. Playing Robin with all the mumbling machismo he can muster, there are times when watching him is as fun as a visit from the tax inspector."
But why would Cannes want to open their prestigious film festival with Hollywood garbage? Sheer desperation for Hollywood-generated publicity, apparently. That, in addition to a convenient marketing tie-in: this week Universal is opening Robin Hood — a $237m production ($200m after rebates) — in the United States and in dozens of countries around the world.
Note: Universal had claimed that Robin Hood had cost $155m. That makes you wonder about the real production cost of stuff like Universal's own Green Zone (a major flop officially budgeted at $100m), Iron Man 2 (officially about $200m) and Avatar (officially about $220m or whereabouts).
Robin Hood production cost source: TheWrap
Photo: Universal Pictures