Decided to treat myself to the movies!

I saw that "Robin Hood" with Russell Crowe was playing over to the Arizona Center, so needing the walk, I made my way over there to see whether Ridley Scott, the director of "Gladiator" came anywhere close to that accomplishment in this one. I have to say it was very expensively made. The bow and arrow work was good. I was convinced they can kill. Russell Crowe looks very good on a horse. And Max von Sydow continues to be an amazing actor even when playing a guy blind and near dead. Now Kate Blanchett although she continued to be her sensible intelligent self as Maid Marion I am not sure something more was not needed in her part just to jazz things up somehow, touch the soul, bring some deeper excitement into this obviously very expensive film. The simple touch. These guys spend millions on these huge panoramas of action and then the movie doesn't really come alive even after all that. I am still puzzled as to why it didn't with so much going for it.
You know they just have to hope that after they have filmed all the parts well they will somehow add up to a satisfying whole but I was just left a little cold. Can't quite figure out what was missing. Oh, it held my interest. Wasn't even boring. It just didn't come up to my idea of a great movie.
I guess it was the approach to the love story that seemed off, needlessly complicated. I have never heard anything about another guy coming to play Maid Marion's husband who had really died eventually becoming Robin Hood. Where did that come from? I guess I am just not up on my Robin Hood myth. I thought did they just make that up or did they get it from the story. Was there really a Robin Hood? Every movie Robin Hood I have seen has been so vastly different from the other ones you do tend to think these script writers get carried away inventing stuff that never happened and very likely could never have happened. I idly looked at the names of the three script writers who crafted this rather disjointed story. Same thing with "Alice in Wonderland" in which the script writers seemed to take a lot of liberties with the original story, with the idea of improving on it I suppose, making it more acceptable to some mythical movie goers who like that sort of thing.
We are taken along for the ride and after it is over we are scratching our heads and wondering just what happened here? It was that sort of story. I wonder when a Ridley Scott is making this sort of movie if he knows at any given time where he is going with this story and whether he has gotten there. Maybe he is just hoping.
Which is why I don't go to the movies very often! I am not changed by them as I once thought I was. Ridley Scott has kind of disappointed me before. Oh well, Russell Crowe is a good actor to have in your movie if it does not quite end up with true greatness. He is an actor who can always convince if he has anything at all to work with.