Robin Hood was a tantalizingly visual film that appealed to the senses and ensnared the hearts of those who felt strongly about the story being told. The actors brought to life a tale of injustice being brought to light. That being said, this story was not the story of Robin Hood. Simply a tale of Lord Locksley and his crusade against the crusade. The Holy Crusade was a part of the dark ages for a reason. It was awful, terrible, and all things that war is, but it was headed by the King of the time, who longed to reclaim the Holy Land of Israel, and most importantly the city of Jerusalem, from Islamic occupation. This film would have you believe that the Cardinal of the church and other political figures were using the wars as a means to seize the throne of England and buy, what was at the time, unlimited power and control. It would seem that this version of the story feels like it was written by someone who has an agenda against the Christian churches.While a vague line was drawn between what was the Christian thing to do and the actions being taken by those in power of the church, that line was smashed when the only ties to a good Christian model were cut from the church and the writers saw fit to stake the scene as a "Freeing him of the Church."Even the man himself said that what the power-bound adversaries were doing the "devil's work, "and that it must be undone, "but they don't specify that in a scene where it matters, or has weight in conversation. A missed out opportunity and a butchering of a tale as old as most. I regret that the writers felt so much that violence and explosions were more important than having any truly moral purpose behind the film. If their intent was to make a story to critique the actions of dead men to make faith seem less appealing to others, job well done. If not. what the hll was that?
