- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Take everything you know about Robin Hood “robbing the rich to give to the poor” – and all the socialist redistribution programs that might bring to mind – and throw it out the window. That’s not the hero of this tale.
Indeed, this reimagining of “Robin Hood” is an origins story that starts long before the robber roams Sherwood Forest (the film actually ends with Robin being declared an outlaw), in a time when Sir Robin Loxley joins the chorus of citizens waving a Medieval Gadsden flag at King John, demanding “liberty by law.”
That’s right, Robin Hood, the original tea partier.
Historically, King John was the British monarch forced by his barons to relinquish absolute authority and codify the rights and freedoms of the citizenry in the revolutionary document that foreshadowed the U.S. Constitution, a little ol’ thing called the Magna Carta.
In “Robin Hood,” Sir Robin joins the cause of the Magna Carta conspirators, even arguing before the king that every man deserves the right to support himself and his family by the sweat of his brow.
Harrumph! Bloody capitalist.
When told the deer of the forest belong to the king alone, while sheep and hog and cattle were gone from the land, Robin wonders, “If it is illegal for a man to fend for himself, then how can he be a man in his own right?”
Personal responsibility? Poppycock! Doesn’t he know we have entitlements to fix that ailment?
When King John scoffs at the idea that British citizens should hold rights the king is bound to honor, the monarch laughs, “Would every Englishman have a castle?”
Robin’s response is fitting even for today: “To every Englishman, his home is his castle!”
What’s that? Personal property rights? Not government-owned? Did Hollywood suddenly forget its unwavering support of King Obama and the socialist state revolution?
Apparently so, because “Robin Hood” dwells on the seeds of freedom that, planted in England, gave birth to liberty in America. And it does so in inspiring fashion.
Of course, one CBS reporter missed the main point of the film altogether and likened Robin Hood to communist revolutionary Che Guevara – the same man who stole the property of 6.5 million people and forbade owning private homes or businesses.
Apparently the reporter forgot that Robin Hood was the one with the bow and King John the one with the crown.
For just as actor Mel Gibson screamed, “Freedom!” in the similar historical epic adventure “Braveheart,” so does Russell Crowe cry, “Liberty!” in “Robin Hood.”
Unlike much of Hollywood, there is no one in the film crying, “Socialism!”
And while “Robin Hood” doesn’t give audiences a picture as inspiring as “Braveheart” or as heart-poundingly masculine as director Ridley Scott and actor Russell Crowe’s previous collaboration “Gladiator,” it is an enjoyable swords-and-arrows summer action flick with plenty of testosterone-laden battles and solid performances, particularly from actress Cate Blanchett.
Some words of caution are merited, however, for the film’s portrayal of religion.
Set in the Dark Ages, the film depicts a corrupted state church, where religious leaders are but political pawns as contemptible as modern-day congressmen and where characters rightly sneer, “‘Twixt sheriff and bishop, I don’t know which is the greater curse on England.”
In bitter disillusionment, some characters utter disdain toward God or the church, but, frankly, the attitude seems fitting for the time period and doesn’t necessarily make any comment on religion today.
The Crusades, furthermore, are depicted in cliché fashion as evils wreaked upon the world by so-called Christians, even pushing the point a bit too PC-far by condemning King Richard as “godless” for slaughtering 2,500 Muslim “women and children” at Acre. While the story lines up with history, the portrayal is shamelessly one-sided.
Overall, however, “Robin Hood” portrays a man of honesty, integrity and the warrior spirit fighting for freedom and liberty from government tyranny – in other words, a tea partier in chain mail.
- “Robin Hood” contains no profanity, save for a few violations of the Third Commandment.
- Sexuality in the film includes some partial nudity in a pair of scenes, bare-chested men, ladies dancing seductively in low-cut necklines with a slathering of olive oil about their shoulders, a few brazen comments and allusions to wanton carousing and a scene in which a man attempts to rape Marion, but is interrupted while all parties are still clothed. Two characters giggle and toss about under the covers and in several cases, and a heavily veiled sexual joke is in the script, but it isn’t lewd or distasteful. One character does, however, make disgusting gestures in a joke about bestiality. Notably, Marion is shown as a woman of virtue, waiting faithfully for her husband for 10 years, though the film does show her fending off men’s crude advances and threatening to “sever” one character’s “manhood.”
- The film contains a heavy amount of violence, sword-fighting and battle scenes. Some blood and gore is present, but it’s not particularly abundant or gruesome, especially for scenes of war.
- In addition to comments made above about religion, the film contains dozens of references to faith and the church, including a graveside prayer, a couple of references to “fate” and “grace” and praying for miracles. There is no overt occult content.