This Robin Hood is very different from the witty and humorous Robin Hood I saw in the previous books. Old, vicissitudes, heavy.
An ordinary archer in the British army, who escaped from the army with a small group of people, became a knight by accident, and gradually developed into the savior of the people.
When the British soldiers shouted "Robin" after the victory of the Great Britain-France war, I couldn't help laughing and crying.
Such an archer who hardly shows a smile, looks like he has already passed middle age, is full of trauma and exhaustion, and inexplicably becomes the savior of the world. How did he become the familiar, somewhat naughty and cunning Robin Hood in my memory after this prequel? It's not about one person, is it? ? ?
Russell Crowe is old. "Gladiator" more than ten years ago was full of enthusiasm and righteousness. More than ten years later, he played with an older face and a deeper mind and played the same national hatred as a gladiator. Robin Hood, a family feud, feels weird no matter how you look at it.
Blanchett still has the graceful smile of an elf queen, while Russell Crowe only has a deeper sense of mission in his eyes. It is precisely this sense of mission that makes me think that it is the last thing a clever and treacherous rogue in a novel should have. .
If that's the case, what's the point? Might as well just revisit "Gladiator" directly.
View more about Robin Hood reviews
