Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 4 out of 5
Yeah, but: Sir Ridley doesn't make bad movies.
The Long Version: I hate the term 'prequel', so I won't call Ridely Scott's 'Robin Hood' one, even though it's the story that happens before his days as an communistic outlaw. Like the recent "Alice in Wonderland", I walked into the theatre with no expectations about what I was going to see, and in both cases they were exceeded. The latest take on the band of merry men is well thought out, well told, and as always with a Ridley Scott film, its execution is nearly flawless. The Australian Russell Crowe seems perfectly suited to play the soon-to-be-famous outlaw, and I found it far more convincing than his attempt to chase the Acheron around the Pacific ocean.
At no point in the movie is there an exchange to rival the classic "You speak Treason!" and comedic style of Errol Flynn. I can't see this new story being incorporated into the culture in the same way as that landmark interpretation; it will never match the societal impact of Scott's dystopian interpretations of Dick and technology. But I'm not an historical purist, especially where folk tales are concerned, so if there were any anachronisms or missteps – beyond the idea of soldiers being able to read, or the notion of 'rule of law' - they didn't detract from my enjoyment of the story. It was well worth the time and expense to see it in the theatre.