David recommends . . . that you go and see ROBIN HOOD

OK, so it's time for regime change.

The long-term, pugnacious, bullying leader is out. In comes the younger, smarmy posh boy. Who immediately finds the coffers are empty. Railing against the previous regime's fiscal imprudence, public spending is immediately reduced (no more foreign wars) and a savage round of tax increases instigated. Which of course fall overwhelmingly on the poor.

That's right, it's England in the 12th Century, The Lionheart is dead and in comes John. Even more presciently, cracks appear over, yes, Europe. We discover that John's evil coalition partner, Godfrey, is in league with Brussels, sorry the French King, who wants to invade and impose a single currency.

Luckily for the struggling English, two Ozzie heros are on the way to save us in the shape of Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett as Robin and Marion.

For the new Robin Hood is a thoroughly enjoyable, well-filmed romp with a good blend of gags, romance and fighting.  Making it as good as any in it's lineage and better than most. Certainly better than Kevin Costner's crime against cinema that was RH Prince of Thieves.

But before we list the good points, the downside. 99% of you won't care, but this film sets new record levels of historical, cultural and even geographical inaccuracy. You won't care, but the pre-release propaganda has so emphasised the film's claimed greater accuracy than past versions that you are required to sit through the following.

Big combined cock up in the production design and music departments.  Wherever we find ourselves around Nottingham the landscape is studded with celtic stone crosses and standing stones inscribed with celtic designs. Surely part of Britain's heritage and thus present at the time? But every time the English peasants fancy a knees up it's basically Ceilidh night, with traditional Irish music and instruments. Presumably Ridley Scott thinks Nottingham is in the West of Ireland.

Now onto Cate. There is a Law of Hollywood that all modern movies must feature a Strong Independent Woman character.  And traditionally (Maid) Marion has usually been that. But Cate's performance and the script combine to take this to unheard of levels of anachronism. Wasn't sure whether to laugh or cringe in the final battle scene when Marion suddenly appears on a horse in full knight gear.

Medieval female aristos were often, indeed, strong women. Eleanor of Aquitaine for one. But patriarchal social mores restricted such women to behind the scenes influence on sons and husbands. Not kitting up in armour and swinging into sword-flailing action.  Any such inclination would have been ruthlessly repressed.  Maybe we need a law revision limiting SIW's to films with contemporary settings?

But then Cate has other problems over her social role. In scenes where the audience must grasp that she is a posh lady and Russell her smelly ("You stink!") social inferior she makes Joanna Lumley sound like Eliza Doolittle. But when she is hobnobbing among the peasant hordes she suddenly goes all ee-by-gum Emmerdale trooble at mill. What's going on? Were you not listening to her, Ridley? 

And Robin Hood may not play too well in France, for our cross-channel neighbours are The Baddies. Their invasion-minded King is a bizarre Gollum-like creature who clearly does not shave, probably eats raw garlic, and permanently looks as if he just woke up after a late night of continental-style debauchery.  

President Sarkozy may complain that France did not, in fact, invade England at the time. Or he may not bother, being too occupied laughing at the French invasion fleet. For the Gallic army arrive in what appear to be balsa wood versions of World War 2 landing craft. Except that, get this, they are being rowed, ancient Greek trireme-like. Which does not prevent them hitting the beach at a fair old lick.  And the CGI on the wide shot reveals hundreds of them. It is Troy meets Saving Private Ryan. Ridley, Ridley! Did you learn nothing from the disaster that was Kingdom of Heaven?  Time for the remedial class with Terry Gilliam on Less Is More.

Finally the geography. News reaches Robin and the English Army when they are in Nottingham. 5 minutes later they are on a beach to meet the invaders. What? Have they made it all the way down to the South Coast by plane? Or have they nipped to the nearest bit of beach - on the East coast -  and the French have rowed all the way up the North Sea?

OK, I forgot. This is made for a US audience who do not know their own history or geography let alone that of medieval Yoorp. So time to shut up and tell you the good bits.

Russell Crowe is excellent, in a suitably low key, understated performance befitting a character who starts as a humble peasant archer kowtowing to the nobility. Which sets him up for his epiphany in the obligatory Braveheart-type speech about freedom and liberty.  After which the entire army and nobles and even King John silently accept him as their new leader. Instead of stringing him up on the nearest tree as would really have happened to any 12th century advocate of democracy and equality.

The whole thing looks great, much of it having been shot on location. So lots of rolling green hills, long beaches and imposing cliffs. And the music, even with it's incongruous celtic themes, is great. All combining to make for stirring stuff, plenty of derring do. Strong performances from the obligatory gang of Little John, Friar Tuck et al.

But finally a word on demographics. Russell is excellent, and Cate, despite the accent fluctuations, is good. But are they not both a little, um, old at 46 and 41? Don't get me wrong, I am 54 and as opposed to ageism as the next wrinkly. (Glad that B and Q have that job waiting for me.) But romantic leads in an action picture with combined ages of 87? Surely not.  

Raises two questions about Hollywood thinking.

First, where are the new, young, male leads? Is there a next generation of hunky male stars coming through? I cannot think of any. Contemporary youthful male leads tend to the girly, with Zac High School Musical Efron and Robert Twilight Pattinson. Neither could make it as Robin Hood, unless there is a gay version.  So Hollywood has a real problem here.

All the more surprising that this movie is going down very well with the female under 30 crowd. It was a representative of that demographic who recommended I go ("It's really exciting!").  I saw it in a packed Camden Odeon Screen 1. With lots and lots of young women. Not just couples, but small groups of 3 or 4 young women as well. Is this their return to the action movie? Surely not queuing up to see middle-aged Russell with his top off?  Just coincidence and nothing else worth seeing on at the time?

Or are we back to the Strong Independent Woman thing? For the obligatory SIW is not there because of any Hollywood commitment to radical feminism. It is all about female bums on seats and money money money. The previous generation was happy with Bridget Jones and her giant underpants, accidently tumbling into happiness despite being, um, fat.

The current under-30 generation is maybe no longer satisfied with trad chick-flicks. Brought up on Angelina Jolie's Lara Croft and Uma Thurman's whateverhername is from Kill Bill.  And recently primed with 11-year-old assassin Hit Girl in Kick Ass.  For it's not enough for Cate / Marion to kick ass, she has to be lean and mean so no Bridget Jones cellulite on her, ta very much.

Blame it on Thatcher, or maybe the Spice Girls, but it looks as though testosterone is no longer a male preserve in contemporary Hollywood.