I don't pretend to be an expert on current events, but if the crazies in the Tea Party movement have yet to compare themselves with Robin Hood and his merry men, they're really missing an opportunity.

The conflict in this new Robin Hood revolves around taxes. If I were more paranoid, I just might read the story of King John v. Robin of Loxley as an analog for Obama v. the Teabaggers - and I'd almost certainly see little plot points like the snidely King John blaming his inaction on problems left to him by the former king as adding legitimacy to the conspiracy.

Of course, I doubt this was director Ridley Scott's intent. He wanted to make a lively sword-and-horse action film, and he partly succeeded. Unfortunately, Scott's Robin Hood was approached with the conceit of portraying the REAL STORY of Robin Hood. This process involves dirtying up the action and deadening the plot. Instead of a swashbuckling adventure movie, we get the origin story of a bland archer who happens to dislike government.

Let's consider the decision to cast Russell Crowe as Robin Hood (or Robin Longstride, as we learn). It's a bad one. Crowe decided to go "method" on the role, and the result is a Robin Hood who barely speaks above a mumble. He's a morose, sad-sack action hero. We want so desperately to like him, but his wooden demeanor makes us constantly doubt his ability to eventually become a folk hero (as the film assures us he will).

Because Robin Hood a re-imagining that utilizes very little imagination, every character we recognize from the original story - like Little John or Will Scarlet - is lazily introduced, utilizing what feels like the film making equivalent of a knowing wink that says to the audience, "Hey, you know what this is all about." But I fear if the idea is to introduce the story of Robin Hood to a new audience, people wont know what this is all about. Robin Hood is so concerned with portraying a realistic account of the rogue that the first 15 minutes are nothing but jam-packed with facts and locations and names-it's an absolutely baffling sequence to endure. It's also confusing, even if it is more "accurate."

Another blemish on the film, if not an expected one - as it can often be the case with period pieces such as this - many of the actors in Robin Hood perform as if they are reciting their stultifying lines from a cue card -including, most glaringly, William Hurt. However, Oscar Isaac, playing King John, does manage to truly carve out a flesh-and-blood character, effectively making the villain the most appealing aspect of Robin Hood. Isaac's King John becomes an immature creep who happens to be a natural at politicking.

All of this is not to say the film is a complete waste of time. By now, we all know Ridley Scoot is a more-than-capable action director, and he has a way of beautifying blood that adds a certain intrigue to the more rote battle scenes.

But in the end, if the Prince of Thieves is lame, no fight scene is going to make up for it. - Two Stars