It’s interesting to look back at Russell Crowe’s career. He had a great 12-year run of films between 1997 and 2009, with memorable turns in “L.A. Confidential,” “The Insider,” “Gladiator,” “A Beautiful Mind,” “Master & Commander,” “Cinderella Man,” “3:10 to Yuma,” and “American Gangster.” It all went haywire after that.
The decline started with Ridley Scott’s botched epic “Robin Hood.” The reviews were not good, neither were the audience scores, and despite making $321M worldwide, Crowe would eventually fall out of the ranks of Hollywood’s A-list actors.
Have we taken “Robin Hood” for granted all these years? Much like most of Scott’s films, there is a director’s cut (which I have not seen, and which runs around 17 minutes longer), and Crowe recently took to X to bang the drums for it, almost 17 years after its Cannes premiere.
In the post, Crowe singles out Scott’s director’s cut of “Robin Hood,” explaining why it’s the superior cut of the film and adds some much-needed depth to the story.
The director’s cut is the movie we all thought we were releasing. However, 17 minutes were cut for the cinema release. A minute is a long time on screen. Imagine any of your favorite movies with 17 minutes of the most emotional connective tissue removed… watch the director’s cut.
Has anyone seen the director’s cut? Is it a marked improvement?
Released in 2010, “Robin Hood” was the fifth collaboration between Crowe and Scott. This was a darker and grittier depiction of the iconic figure. Looking back on it, the cast was stacked and included Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Oscar Isaac, William Hurt, Léa Seydoux, Max von Sydow, and Mark Strong.
“Robin Hood” had its budget increase to $237M during its tumultuous production. Universal most certainly lost a lot of money on it. I’m willing to give the director’s cut a shot, but based on what I saw back in 2010, it would take a lot more than 17 extra minutes of character development to turn it into a great film.
