So I saw Ridley Scott's adaptation of Robin Hood over the weekend, visiting my folks. I always thought of Mr. Scott as a top-notch director, and one of Hollywood's best.

Alien was, well, pretty awesome, Gladiator was awesome, I couldn't get too much into Blade Runner (as hard as I tried) but I thought the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven was epic. However, I could never see Scott actually directing a Robin Hood film. For one, the adventuress of the classic heroic outlaw and his band of merry men, robbing from the rich to feed the poor has been (I felt) one of fancy and grandeur, rather than a more gritty version that Scott has decided to present with us, trying a more realistic approach. Another film, King Arthur, has tried this method before, with less than likable results. While Scott directs the film, both in the action and drama, rather good (but don't expect Kingdom of Heaven levels), I could never shake the feeling that the story felt more like Kingdom of Heaven than what I would consider a Robin Hood film. Not to mention that the whole film is treated as a prequel of Robin Hood's legacy (which could really confuse folks) It is this lack of focus (and charm) that many would want of a Robin Hood film that Ridley Scott's version can easily be discarded as a big disappointment.

Personally, I found the movie pretty enjoyable for the most part, Scott's edge is not it's sharpest here. Also, the ending, if anything, was probably one of the most anti-climatic and worst thought out and rushed I've seen in a while. Hopefully, if an extended cut were to be released, that this could be easily remedied, as Scott's edits seem to be too long for theaters, apparently.