For a long time I’ve disliked the story of Robin Hood because I simply saw it as representing an economic fallacy and a rights violation.
Economic fallacy: Contrary to popular belief, the poor do not ultimately benefit from forced wealth redistribution.
Rights violation: Stealing from the rich or anyone, is a violation of their right to their property and therefore their life.
But there’s way more to it than that.
See John Ridpath’s “The Real Robin Hood Never Robbed the Rich”
And Mike Zemack’s post, “Russel Crowe vs the Real Robin Hood”
Update 28/5/10. Maybe the movie will be better than I thought judging by this NY Times review:
Although note that this review is quite nasty and sarcastic and not a positive evaluation of the film. Example:
“So is “Robin Hood” one big medieval tea party? Kind of, though that description makes the movie sound both more fun and more provocative than it actually is.”
“The idea that an ordinary, anonymous person can have a big impact on world events is an attractively democratic notion — one systematically undermined by the rest of the movie, which loads Robin with trappings of heroism that prove paralyzing to the narrative.”