WARNING: Level of Sucktitude in Robin Hood Flick Could Ruin Your day

SHOOT: So the reviews of Russell's Robin are starting to hit home, and so far there's nothing to crow [e] about. Maybe it's intended as a sort've Lord of the Ringsy 3 part series. Maybe it's an action flick like Clash of the Titans that just needed a good title to market a movie about recreating the past romantically but with no basis in fact [or even in the original fiction].

The eye candy in Hood is good, but beyond that - sorry. I wish Hollywood would remember that a really great story is at the centre of anything worth the trouble that the average flick is, making or watching - so why not make sure that the stories are stronger? I mean, who approved Transformers? And Date Night? And Iron Man 2?

clipped from rogerebert.suntimes.com “Robin Hood” is a high-tech and well made violent action picture using the name of Robin Hood for no better reason than that it’s an established brand not protected by copyright. I cannot discover any sincere interest on the part of Scott, Crowe or the writer Brian Helgeland in any previous version of Robin Hood. Their Robin is another weary retread of the muscular macho slaughterers who with interchangeable names stand at the center of one overwrought bloodbath after another. The photography is, however, remarkable, and Crowe and the others are filled with fierce energy. Ridley Scott is a fine director for work like this, although in another world, Hollywood would let him make smarter films. God, he must be tired of enormous battle scenes.