SO MANY movies have been made about Robin Hood that yet another new one seems to be one too many. So, whatever prompted ace director, Ridley Scott, one of our best action megmen, to trot out his take on the legendary rebel-hero of Sherwood Forest?

After watching the film on its opening day, we think we have the answer to that key question: Scott?s film, starring Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett, seeks to provide what its makers obviously think is a necessary historical context to what used to be a cute, little legend about the medieval world?s first rebel with a curve.

Greatly aided and abetted by the vaulting imagination of his writing team, Scott places Robin?s tale within a panoramic, pseudo-historical back story that shows what happened to transform a heretofore unheralded man into a hero for all ages ? and rages.

Scott?s rambling and rambunctious retelling begins with the Crusades, with Robin a mere foot soldier in an obscure lord?s army.
When Richard the Lion-hearted and Robin?s lord are both killed in battle, Robin leads a ragtag group of survivors who take the King?s crown back to London. It?s a small but essential step in assuring the continuation of the regime, now handed down from the slain Richard to his bratty brother, John, who turns out to be a far from competent and leonine ruler.

It?s impressive to see Scott tweaking facts this way and that, to accommodate his fictively revisionist view of history ? and Robin Hood?s suddenly ?major? role in it!

Slow, ponderous start

On the other hand, all that back story-tweaking makes for a very slow and ponderous start for Scott?s film. We enjoy his deft filmmaking maneuvers, but they impede his storytelling, and we?re so antsy to go beyond ?back story? to actual story.

This comes only when Robin meets his lord?s widow (Blanchett) and father (Max von Sydow), who convinces him to pretend to be his son, so that the King?s minions won?t take his lands away.

Soon enough, however, Robin is forced to oppose the rapacious royal minions. To complicate things further, he also has to oppose the French King?s plan to subvert King John?s realm.

This part of the movie?s re-imagined story is made less than exciting by the introduction of an insufficient villain and plotter. Crowe may be a dynamic actor, but he needs to act ?against? a stronger force so that his performance can build and peak.

Given such a weak opponent, his portrayal can?t gain weight and traction, so the movie?s ?explosive? confrontation is more theoretical than actually achieved.

Despite this downer, the film hurtles inexorably to its big conclusion, which is a truly ?major? scene that involves the invasion of England by an entire army and navy of Gallic foes from across the Channel.

This big finale is a huge departure from the denouements of past Robin Hood movies, which were generally content to involve only a few scores of combatants. This time around, the big battles look like a medieval version of the WW2 landing at Normandy ? in reverse.

The finale is loads of visual fun and spectacle, but fans of the original Robin Hood story will wonder whatever happened to the inspiring little tale they once loved. ?Blockbuster,? state-of-the-art filmmaking has given it a bad case of cinematic elephantiasis, that?s what ? and, while he enjoys the pumped-up and inflated proceedings, the sated viewer sometimes feels like gasping, ?Enough!?