Movie Review: Robin Hood (2010)

A while back, I was a bit in a Robin Hood "phase" it seemed; I was watching through the BBC series of the character on Netflix and by chance during this period this movie came out. As well, I was able to indulge in Robin Hood literature when browsing through my grandmother's collection of Reader's Digest Condensed Books. Though my favorite rendition of the story continues to be Mel Brooks' Robin Hood: Men in Tights, I would say Russell Crowe's Robin might beat Kevin Costner's Hood. It certainly takes an unconventional approach to the legend, being that Robin in this story is not born of nobility. He deserts King Richard's army after being betrayed and assumes the identity of the slain knight, Richard Loxley. I rather like this take on the series. What I like even more is the fact that Robin leads the people in demanding that Prince John sign a document that guarantees certain rights of the people will not be infringed upon by the crown. To me, this provides a superior picture of the spirit of Robin Hood: he was a defender of the people and their rights. This is in deep contrast to the more childish caricature of Robin Hood done by the BBC of "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor." The problem with it is that Robin simply takes from whomever has money, while tradition (as I understand it) is that he "stole" only from the beneficiaries of the onerous taxation of the Prince! This is a big distinction: in the former he is simply a thief, in the latter he is returning stolen property. So the choice seems to be between a noble who condescends to peasants who need their superior to take care of them versus a soldier screwed by his government and fights back by defending the rights of his fellow Englishman. I know which I prefer. Suffice it to say that this movie does not suck. I highly recommend it to anyone who has a passing interest in the character. Or Russell Crowe.