I never cared much for the Robin Hood movies, which is somewhat of an anomaly for me. After all, I love heroic adventure cinema, especially period pieces with clearly drawn lines between good and evil. My heart also holds a special affection for beautiful English countryside. Yes, all the ingredients are there, but the cake never quite bakes to my satisfaction. With the exception of one Errol Flynn version, Robin Hood, for some reason, has never grabbed me. Even if it had, that horrible Kevin Costner portrayal ran the potential of killing poor Robbie’s franchise for good.

In any event, I did view the latest Robin Hood incarnation.  Artistically, the film was impressive. With Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett in the cast one would expect first-rate acting and we were not disappointed.

Unfortunately, the acting is a little too convincing as Robin Hood scolds Richard the Lionhearted for his Crusade massacre of the poor Muslims. An extra ironic touch was added in that many of these Muslims were beheaded by the evil Christians. Gotta see the irony of that one. Strong, vibrant pathos is added when Hood describes pity in the eyes of a Muslim woman for the godless murderers of her own people. So much for the eyewitness of Robin Hood, that historically accurate chronicler of history.

Admittedly, Christians do not have much to brag about as far as the Crusades are concerned but those who want to absolve the Muslims of their own massacres are living in a dream world, or perhaps a modern university. Truth be told, Christians were taking back land stolen by Muslims on their Jihads ordered by Mohammad. Still, any Christian theology that feels a need to expand territory for the sake of the gospel is waged in disobedience to the teachings of Jesus who commanded his followers not to take up the sword.  Muslims, on the other hand, were fighting in obedience to Mohammad. I find that a significant difference.

Had 9/11 not motivated Hollywood to lecture us about how peaceful Islam truly is, I wonder if Robin Hood’s “first hand account” of the Crusades might have been different.

Political Correctness and decent acting put aside, there is not much more to distinguish this film from other Robin Hood entries, with two notable exceptions:

1) This is kind of a Robin Hood prequel in which we learn how the man and his mission developed.

2) In all likelihood, Ridley Scott’s latest fare will inspire the very first movie to be titled Robin Hood 2.

Perhaps a more pertinent discussion is the fascination people still hold for this time honored story. These days, those who believe in the evils of Capitalism and mandatory redistribution of wealth, are making frequent references to Robin Hood, claiming the hero as one of their own.

In point of fact, we know very little about the real Robin Hood except that he did exist and did rebel against the king. But legendary as the man may be, we should at least relay the legend accurately: Robin Hood did not steal from the rich and give to the poor. He stole from the government after they imposed unfair taxes on their citizens and gave the money back to the people it had been taken from. That doesn’t sound like a Marxist Robin Hood to me. But it does sound like somebody whom I wish would run for office this November.

Share this on