Why is it that filmmakers have a need to invent prequels, sequels, or completely redo perfectly good classics? As I mentioned in an earlier review on this site, the recent version of Sherlock Holmes could have been much better off without the misleading Holmes name attached to it. The film, which was perfectly good as a piece of entertainment, did injustice to the classic. Then there was Burton’s Alice in Wonderland sequel. Not bad, but why? I can go on and on but back to Robin Hood, or better said, Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood, the prequel… Aside of altering “history” (killing King Richard), which is another sign of filmmaking arrogance (e.g. Tarantino’s version of the Holocaust in Inglorious Bastards), Scott’s version of Robin Hood would have gained 3 stars from this critic if it was called any other original name but Robin Hood. But the injustice to the classic reduces it to 2 star, despite an excellent line of actors and high production value.
If you still decide to watch this flick, rest assured you will be entertained. Scott is a skilled filmmaker who knows how to move a plot and keep the audience engaged. Yet, when it is all said and done, you may ask yourself, why? Why Robin Hood? Why deform a perfectly good classic? At least I did.