Russell Crowe's Historical Action Flop On HBO Max Deserves A Second Chance

Hollywood can't stop, won't stop making "Robin Hood" movies. The 2010s alone gave us not one but two big-budget prequel films about the legendary English outlaw, both of which are simply titled, well, "Robin Hood." Of the pair, however, "Robin Hood" (2018) is far more in line with what you would expect from this era of tentpole cinema: It's a gritty historical adventure movie (in the Christopher Nolan mode) where everyone is sexy, the villain is played by Ben Mendelsohn (he's the Sheriff of Nottingham, to be exact), and it ends on a note blatantly teeing up a sequel that never came to pass.

Nevertheless, that particular "Robin Hood" has its charms, and so does "Robin Hood" (2010), itself directed by none other than Sir Ridley Scott. But where the former is clearly angling to make the Robin Hood mythology more appealing to younger viewers, Scott's film is an intentionally downbeat and unromanticized affair. In his and co-writer Brian Helgeland's version of this story, for example, Robin (Russell Crowe) is already middle-aged and roundly disillusioned after years of warring in the muck and mud as an archer serving King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston). Scott's period action epic is also staunchly anti-Crusades, which shouldn't come as a surprise for those who've seen his director's cut of "Kingdom of Heaven."

It's not just Robin; all the famed heroes of Sherwood Forest are older, more tired, and grimier here, including Marian (as portrayed by Cate Blanchett). Sure enough, Scott's "Robin Hood: The Bummer Version" didn't light the box office on fire, either, though that was mainly due to its way-too-high budget. That being said, it's charting on HBO Max stateside right now (via FlixPatrol), and for fair reason: It's the kind of flop that's worth checking out on streaming.

Look, I get that 21st century Ridley Scott films aren't easy sells. They're long, slow, and shot with filters that make everything look steely and stone-cold. But the director has also gotten more irreverent and subversive with time. His days of trying to redeem Christopher Columbus (a thing he actually did) are long behind him, and his revisionist approach suits this version of "Robin Hood," a movie that's all about bringing the titular swashbuckler and his adventures down to earth.

Not everything works in Scott's "Robin Hood," obviously. Mark Strong as Godfrey, an English knight who's secretly conspiring against England with the French monarchy, was pretty uninspired villain casting even back in 2010, and the film could've benefitted from some tightening. All the same, Oscar Isaac (who was basically an unknown when he made this movie) is spot-on as the sneering, lecherous Prince John, and Matthew Macfadyen is equally up to snuff as the buffoonish and vile Sheriff of Nottingham. Similarly, you can't miss with Cate Blanchett, and you just know that Scott's going to deliver the goods once the arrows start flying and the swords begin clanging in the massive combat sequences.

That action cost a pretty penny, too. Scott's "Robin Hood" sported a $200 million budget (not including marketing expenses) and only managed to bring in $322 million in theaters, as neither critics nor general audiences were that enthused by it. Still, those who prefer their Russell Crowe/Ridley Scott joints to be stoic, thunderous, and skeptical towards the tales we tell about history would do well to stream it while it's on HBO Max.

And, yes, sad old Robin Hood himself will return (just not in "Avengers: Doomsday").