The middling result is far from a bull's-eye."[53] David Roark of Relevant accused Scott of replacing depth with detail and manipulative themes, like vengeance and unjust war, and stated that Scott had sucked the life out of a cherished fable, writing that "Scott has turned a myth, a concept essentially, into a history which emerges as dry, insensible clutter."[54] Anthony Lane, writing for The New Yorker, found the film "dour and dun", and was critical of Crowe's performance, stating "His Robin, however, seems pathologically glum; even when leading a cavalry charge on a white steed, he cuts a lonesome figure, marooned in his own feuds and ruminations".[55] Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly was critical of the film not holding any traits of the Robin Hood myth, and said of Scott's direction and Crowe's performance "Scott and Crowe made a great movie out of Gladiator, tapping deep into the showbiz masculine bravura of ancient-world Hollywood spectaculars. In Robin Hood, Scott tries to go deep again, but in a misguided way — he thinks he’s making a pop-medieval Saving Private Robin.