Robin Hood (2010)

I have linked this to Anthony Lane's review in The New Yorker, which was lengthy and lukewarm, and seems to reflect the popular sentiment about this movie. And in the interest of full disclosure, I am not a fan of either action movies or Russell Crowe. Or Ridley Scott, for that matter. But I really enjoyed this film--which was admittedly much too long to see in a theatre, and with a fair amount of mumbling that required the English subtitles to be on even when they weren't speaking French. It is so much easier to be forgiving when you are watching the movie at home--I think it is one of the reasons why viewers routinely rate TV shows better than feature length films.
The setting is s little confusing if you don't have English history firmly in your mind--usually the Robin Hood story is set in the time when Richard the Lion Heart is out on a Crusade (1189-1194) and his younger brother John is wrecking havoc at home in his absense. This story is the prequel to the Robin Hood legend, and is set after Richard's death (1199), when John is now the King of England for real. No hope of Richard returning. But in reality, Richard was never coming back to England--he spoke only French and never lived any length of time during his life not spent on the battlefield in England (perhaps he was beloved because they really didn't know him).
Robin Hood is consistently depicted as a loyal supporter of King Richard. Richard's contemporaneous image was that of a king who was also a knight, and that was apparently not a common co-occurence. He was known as a valiant and competent military leader and individual fighter: courageous and generous. That reputation has come down through the ages and defines the popular image of Richard. In reality, he spent less than a year of his life in England, spoke no English, plotted to overthrow his father, and he spent lots of English money in France without apparent regard for the consequences of it. This is reflected in Steven Runciman's final verdict of Richard I: "he was a bad son, a bad husband and a bad king, but a gallant and splendid soldier."("History of the Crusades" Vol. III)
Ridley Scott's production depicts Robin Hood as a soldier's soldier, a man who is courageous and generous himself, and a bit at loose ends as he returns to his homeland. He is not so much gallant as stalwart. He is a man's man rather than a woman's man. He stumbles into a place to settle his loyalties early on, by returning a well made sword to the father of the man who carried it. There he is bestowed with the sword, a story about his own origins, an estate, and a wife (the lovely and lively Cate Blanchett). When he informs his travelling companions of his sudden change in circumstances the day after their arrival in Nottingham, one says, more or less, 'Nicely played, Robin--a bit rash, but well done.'
The movie goes on to show Robin off to his best advantage--so well, in fact, that John realizess that he must go. The thrown is his alone--Richard died childless, and named him his successor, but the mood is dark in England and Robin seems too much like Richard to be tolerated. So Robin is made a wanted man, a price is placed uppon his head, and hence, an outlaw is born.