1) Is it because it does not contain any fighting robots?
2) Is it because the beautiful Kate Blanchett as Marion Loxley is still kind of middle-aged and neurotic as the film's love interest?
3) Is it because the movie is insufficiently high tech, obliging Scott to rely on lots of movement--people running, horses galloping, arrows flying--to keep his easily-bored audience engaged? Is it because Scott does not include obvious computer-generated special effects?
4) Is it because Russell Crowe is too Hemingwayesque, burly, quiet, and grizzled when we would prefer someone younger, lithe, and playful, like the fox in the 1973 Disney version of Robin Hood?
5) Is it because Monty Python and the Holy Grail has parodied much of this film in advance?
6) Is it because the climactic battle scene on the shores of the Cliffs of Dover carries odd echoes of Saving Private Ryan and Elizabeth: the Golden Age?
7) Is it because Robin Hood displays too much of an egalitarian liberal socialist bent as it indirectly critiques recent American Crusades in the Middle East? Or is it because we don't like to see collectivist proto-hippie organizations frolicking in the woods? Don't they have to worry about poison ivy?
8) Is it because we enjoy Luc Besson films and chocolate eclairs too much to imagine the French as villains? (That can't be it.)
9) Is it because Robin's glib Horatio Alger-esque ascension to the highest ranks of the English military is too easy, too unlikely? He mostly just gives a good speech when the nobility and King John is around.
10) Is it because there's something too excalibur about Robin's fascination with a sword that has "Rise and rise again until the lambs become lions" written on it? According to Robin, it means "Never give up."
11) Or is it simply because Ridley's large, old-fashioned, $237 million, possibly doomed, earnest, epic film is too easy a target?
the difficulties of making Robin Hood