As with 2003's King Arthur (and Troy, to a lesser extent), you have to be a little suspicious of a film that purports to be the true story of an ancient myth, the actual truth of which continues to elude historians.
Fortunately, the Robin Hood legend has proven to be not only durable but also somewhat malleable; parts of the story can be changed so long as key elements are retained. The problem with attempting to tell the story in a realist way (besides the dodgy and completely unverifiable claim to historical accuracy) is that its the embellishment of the myth that have given it its power and enduring appeal. Removing the fantasy from Robin Hood, King Arthur or The Iliad is, on some level, to fundamentally misunderstand the essence of those stories. Sure people are interested in the history that underlies these legends, but once you strip away the magic you lose a lot of what makes the story unique.
The fact that Scott's film is a prequel story works somewhat in its favour, but strangely it seems to be more enjoyable the less you think of it as a Robin Hood film. The action kicks off almost exactly where Scott's 2005 medieval epic Kingdom of Heaven finished; so close in fact you could be forgiven for thinking it a sequel. And like the earlier movie it is as much as a commentary on modern day politics as it is an attempt to do justice to the underlying history. In the case of Robin Hood case we have the coronation of King John and the events leading up to the signing of the Magna Carta, with the Robin Hood figure presented as the catalyst for those events.
It's a bold idea, but it doesn't quite pay off because the film spends so much time on build-up and exposition that Robin's character is never fully integrated into the narrative. Unlike Gladiator, which overcame a relatively thin plot by never taking the focus away from Maximus and the arena, Robin Hood is so densely plotted (which is surprising as the story it tells is relatively simple) that just as some character development gets going the film jumps abruptly to a build-up scene halfway across the country.
If only more of a focus had been placed on Robin Hood and less on the extraneous events going on around him it could have been a lot more satisfying. As it is, what we have essentially is a poor man's Braveheart, a period action film with a liberty from tyranny subtext, that while competently directed and acted has no emotional core.
As you'd expect Scott's trademark visual style is very much in evidence and there is some amazing cinematography of rural England. The action too is competently handled, and the major set piece battles are thrilling - though nothing really on the scale of Kingdom of Heaven (or Gladiator) or which goes beyond a 12 rating.
Russell Crowe is perfectly adequate in the central role as Robin Longstride, but it's not exactly a memorable performance, though this is more to do with the limitations of the screenplay than with any faults in his acting. Similarly, Cate Blanchett is always worth watching, but I couldn't help but think that she was a little too old to play Marian; and by and large she isn't given a whole lot to do.
The supporting cast are solid, but play rather close to type. Mark Strong is fast becoming the eponymous Hollywood bad guy and he certainly doesn't disappoint as Sir Godfrey, a French spy in King John's court. I wouldn't mind seeing Strong in some more varied roles, but when you're good you're good - and Strong has obviously cornered his particular market. Similarly, Max Von Sydow only seems to play father figures these days (see Solomon Kane Review). It's not really a fair complaint perhaps as many actors find themselves pigeon-holed in their later years; but it would be nice to see Sydow doing something a bit more challenging - as Henry Fonda did in Once Upon a Time in the West.
In many ways Scott's film is reminiscent of Richard Lester's Robin and Marian, in that the Merry Men play are sidelined and play little role in the story. Clearly this is so that more screen time is given to the interplay between Robin and Marian, but it does have the effect of removing another layer from story and further distancing it from its mythic roots.
Robin Hood is a perfectly enjoyable film in its own right, but it does nothing that Mel Gibson's Braveheart didn't do several times better and is a more satisfying film into the bargain. As a retelling of the Robin Hood legend, it's doesn't really work and Kevin Costner's Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (despite the mullets, American accents and the vomit inducing Bryan Adams theme) was a lot more fun.
