…the best backstory yet.  I’ve always been partial to the theory that Robin Hood was an everyman, a metaphor for the multitude’s resistance to King John.  It always struck me as odd that few of the Robin Hood stories ever mentioned that this is the very King John finally forced to sign the Magna Carta.  Finally, we have a movie that attempts to bridge the gap.  But then do we need an actual embodied Robin Hood?  Does that not then seem to run counter to the “cannot long suppress liberty” theme of the movie?

My initial thoughts are similar to how I thought of Artificial Intelligence: A.I. Notice I did not do the usual attributions I give to movies.  That is because IMDB credits Spielberg as the director, when really most of the movie was directed by Kubrik.  Then Kubrik died and Spielberg finished it.  If by finished, I mean ruined.  AI is two movies.  The first part rocks, I will watch it anytime it comes on.  The last 40 minutes are awful, I turn the movie off.

The same with this version of Robin Hood (Ridley Scott: Blade Runner).  The last 40 minutes are horrible.  Leading up to those minutes though and I was really rolling with it.  What’s most disappointing is that most of the awful portion is a big battle, which is where Scott normally excels.  It’s forced though.  Scott loves his large archer actions – mass arrows arcing through the air causing havoc down below.  But in this case it makes zero sense why the archers would fire this way.  Why also would the cavalry move in for the engagement when the enemy is defenseless against the archers.  There are others of such a simple nature in the writing that the movie easily dips from a “go see it” into the “rental” realm.