In the interest of full disclosure, I immediately admit that I am a Ridley Scott apologist. He’s one of only two directors from whom I eagerly anticipate a new film (the other being the brilliant Paul Thomas Anderson). Additionally, this review is certain to contain numerous spoilers, so read at your peril.

When I first heard Scott was attacking the Robin Hood legend, I was apprehensive. Then I heard his plan was to shift focus from the philanthropic felon to the beleaguered Sheriff of Nottingham, whom it has been reported was merely a tired cop doing a thankless job. This was not only a different spin on the legend itself but perfect material for someone of Scott’s caliber to tackle.

Then reports surfaced of a proverbial troubled production. Outlaw Russell Crowe was to be joined by throaty Batman Christian Bale as the Sheriff, and the title was changed from Nottingham to the terribly original Robin Hood. Still, a Robin Hood in Scott’s hands could be fascinating if, as was reported then, the narrative would follow Kingdom of Heaven as a crusades-era story of unrest in England.

Then the rumors got truly weird. Russell Crowe (or Christian Bale, it was unclear at this point) would be playing a dual role as both the titular hero/outlaw and the sheriff. Finally, word came around that Bale was out completely and Robin Hood was back on track as yet another conventional retelling of the already belabored Robin Hood legend. Needless to say, things were not sounding good at Scott Free Productions.

Regardless, any Ridley Scott movie, even a potentially bad one, is cause for eager anticipation. After all, even his inferior movies are generally better than most other films, good or bad.

This latest Robin Hood is nothing you might have expected. A quasi-sequel to Kingdom of Heaven and quasi-prequel to Robin Hood movies of old, this disjointed version is as much at war with itself as the England it portrays.

Unlike the far superior Kingdom of Heaven, there is no hoping that this nearly three-hour journey has a surpassing director’s cut waiting to be unleashed. I fear that what we see is what we get and what we get is all over the place.

On the positive end, this Robin Hood story is almost completely unfamiliar. At least two characters have been promoted: Maid Marian is now Lady Marian who has been married for a decade; and Prince John quickly becomes King John, a spoiled brat who seeks to replenish the empty coffers his brother, Richard, has depleted in the crusades. Robin is not a nobleman, but an archer in King Richard’s military who makes the mistake of telling his king the truth. Not so much protecting the poor as he is hiding out while AWOL, Robin takes refuge on Marian’s estate with her blind father-in-law (finely played by Max Von Sydow), posing as the old man’s dead son.

The story doesn’t concern the tax-opression of the poor as much as it does France’s King Phillip trying to divide and conquer England under what is perceived to be a weak King John. The villain of this piece is not so much the English king or even the Sheriff of Nottingham (who barely has a role here) but the baffling treason of one Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong), who stands to gain… something… from French conquest. Along the way, King John vacillates from spoiled, reckless youth to a true leader who unites England against the invading French.

Are you following this? The sad thing about this Robin Hood is that there is an incredibly good movie within struggling desperately to get free. But it’s mired in a labyrinthine screenplay, uneven direction and some truly wretched cinematography and editing. The performances, at least, are quite good, if not excellent.

As with Scott’s previous period pieces, Robin Hood suffers from what my friend, Mark, calls “the villain problem.” Not quite the moustache-twirling baddie Martin Csokas was in Kingdom of Heaven, nor quite the sniveling brat that was Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator, Oscar Isaac flips back and forth between both, never fully materializing into any one character.

The shame of the story is that after two-and-a-half-hours of unexpected alliances and disloyalties, wherein King John is actually an ally of Robin who promises liberty to his subjects in return for their loyalty in repelling the invading French, he quite suddenly and drastically does a complete turnaround, reneging on every promise at the risk of turning his subjects back against him, and inexplicably brands his comrade-in-arms Robin, who has suddenly decided to live in the forest with his fellow subjects from Notthingham, an outlaw… the end. It’s an ungainly way to shoehorn in the beginning of the familiar Robin Hood legend, and a dreadful way for a drector of Scott’s quality to wrap up a movie.

Disagree? That’s fine by me. Tell me your thoughts below.