Simon Dillon reviews the film

Do we really need another version of Robin Hood? It seems that if it's directed by Ridley Scott, we do. By making a version aimed squarely at adults and basing it (albeit loosely) in historical events, he has, against the odds, created a thoughtful, intelligent and satisfying take on the well worn tale.

Scott's Robin Hood, in the form of Russell Crowe, is a battle weary veteran of the Crusades who fights alongside King Richard during his last stand in France. After Richard's death, Robin and his comrades Little John (Kevin Durand), Will Scarlet (Scott Grimes), and Allan A'Dayle (Alan Doyle) intervene in an ambush when Sir Robert Loxley (Douglas Hodge) and his knights who are carrying Richard's crown back to England are attacked. Loxley is mortally wounded, but before he dies, he makes Robin promise to return his sword to his father Sir Walter in Nottingham. Robin makes good on his promise, only to discover great injustice back in his home country.

This is a very different version of Robin Hood, but it's different in a good way. For a start, there is a lot less focus on robbing from the rich and giving to the poor (save a brief sequence where Hood and his men take back some grain that was as good as stolen from Lady Marion and her father's estate). Indeed, the threat comes not so much from King John's taxes but from the threat of invasion from France, thanks to the double dealing Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong).

This is also a Robin Hood mercifully bereft of the loony antics of the Sheriff of Nottingham from the 1991 Kevin Costner version. Indeed, the Sheriff in this version (well played by Matthew McFadden) only has a peripheral, and somewhat comic, role. Instead in the villain stakes we get Sir Godfrey, who is a genuinely nasty piece of work - shrewd, scheming and mercilessly vicious. The rest of the cast are also very good, including the always reliable Cate Blanchett as Marion and fine supporting roles for Oscar Isaac (King John) and Max Von Sydow (Sir Walter). William Hurt manages an English accent with apparent ease as royal advisor William Marshal and Mark Addy is fine as the bee-keeping Friar Tuck.

As far as Robin is concerned, Crowe is actually very good. Like Tom Cruise, Russell Crowe is a far better actor than people give him credit for, and there is genuine charisma between him and Cate Blanchett in their subtle love scenes. Brian Helgeland's screenplay is to be greatly credited for adding plenty of nuance and understatement.

His script also ponders some profound and timely themes, such as the notion of a King needing his subjects as much as they need him. An interesting subplot, involving the proposed creation of a kind of Magna Carta a number of years earlier than it actually occurred, provides interesting contemporary parallels. This is about governments who make promises when it is expedient, then ride roughshod over the electorate, breaking campaign commitments and forcing through legislation that the nation concerned is emphatically against.

Spiritually, there are some interesting explorations of exactly what it means to be "good" and "noble". The church in the Robin Hood story has always been corrupt to some degree (an interesting example of the kind of thing discussed in James chapter 2 verses 15 and 16). The notable exception is of course Friar Tuck who seems to really understand the whole faith-without-works-is-dead thing.

Visually, the film looks terrific. Ridley Scott's compositions do at times recall the opening scenes of Gladiator but it hardly matters as they are beautiful to look at, in spite of the focus on the grittier aspects of medieval life. Indeed, although the entire film uses history and realism as a background, the myth if anything is all the more potent as a result. Although it eschews the swashbuckling romance feel of the 1938 Errol Flynn classic (still the best version of Robin Hood), it does not make the mistakes of the recent BBC TV series (such as shock killings of beloved characters - this is Robin Hood, not 24). Thematically it recalls the rich, elegiac, almost melancholy feel of the 1976 Robin and Marion. The film is also left wide open for a sequel, so this is a kind of "Robin Begins".

To be fair, I do have a couple of small criticisms. The ending feels a little rushed and looks as if it has been pared down from a longer version. Certain plot points in the finale feel contrived. Also, those expecting a relentless spectacle may disappointed as the action scenes are limited, although they are well done and very exciting.

That said I really liked the film and think it has been rather underrated. It's worth reiterating that this is certainly not for children. Apart from anything else, if you take them you may face awkward questions about King John's sexual shenanigans, so show them the Errol Flynn version instead. However, as a grown up take on a beloved story that dares to divert from familiar events yet retain the essence of the myth, this is a very fine piece of work.