BOTTOM LINE: Despite some well executed sequences and an interesting interpretation of the legend, “Robin Hood” is a mixed bag, with more negatives than positives, starting with its badly miscast lead actors to the feeling that this origin story does not sit well with the traditional tales of the famous outlaw.

THE GOOD: The legend of Robin Hood has been told so many times that another version of the same story probably would have been pointless. To his credit, director Ridley Scott tries to go in a different direction, telling a more realistic version of how Robin Hood and his merry man became who they were. As a result, this film tells a story that we have not seen and where Robin actually rose to a noble position, only to have it stripped away from him at the end as his position within the kingdom threatens King John’s leadership, thus turning him in to Robin Hood. In terms of directing sequences, Ridley Scott is still at the top of his game, creating some exciting drama, particularly with the big battle sequence in the climax. As expected, the film is well shot and edited, and draws you more in to the plot than even some of Scott’s recent efforts. “Robin Hood” is an interesting attempt to give a fresh face to well known material.

THE BAD: This film is disappointing in many ways. Ridley Scott is a great director, but somehow in recent years, his films have contained some questionable choices. This time, the telling of this story of Robin Hood seems to discredit the more traditional legends that we have come to know and love. Despite a more realistic interpretation, Robin Hood at the end of the day is stuff of legend rather than realism, and this origin tale does not make use of any of the colourful aspects of that legend, starting with the man himself, his band of followers and Maid Marion. It is well made, yet it does not add to the legend, but rather gives you a feeling of detracting from it. Despite being played by some great actors, the characters seem lifeless and only serve as plot points; Friar Tuck, Little John and others are not strong in this film, only really showing up to be introduced. Perhaps the worst decisions were the casting of Russell Crowe as Robin Hood and Cate Blanchett as Maid Marion. Yes, they perform well, but they are totally wrong. The rest of the cast is relatively young, as befitting the time when not many people lived past their forties. Yet Russell Crowe is in his late forties, and he looks every bit of it next to the rest of the younger cast. How can an origin tale of Robin Hood be told with a man in his late forties, who by all accounts, would probably not have survived to that age, if we are to use a realistic interpretation of the period as Scott has done? Crowe sticks out like a sore thumb, and every moment he is in the film feels wrong because he is too old for the part and does not, except for a few small instances, carry the mischievous quality of that character that are missing here. Cate Blanchett is in a similar position, and the chemistry between her and Crowe is more akin to friends than lovers. “Robin Hood” is like a noble experiment gone wrong; an attempt to give a fresh perspective on the legend has unfortunately worked against itself rather than for it.