Metascore
53

Mixed or average reviews - based on 40 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 19 out of 40
  2. Negative: 6 out of 40
  1. 88
    Head and shoulders above the sort of lightheaded epics Hollywood typically offers during the summer season.
  2. Every era gets the Robin Hood it needs…Now director Ridley Scott and writer Brian Helgeland have given us an intelligent, layered story suited to our grim, patience-trying times.
  3. Scott has an eye -- and it's a very good one -- for sieges of castles, charging horsemen, hand-to-hand combat, glistening swords arcing through the air and deadly arrows whistling toward helpless targets.
  4. Reviewed by: Dan Jolin
    80
    Grown-up but not too serious; action-packed but not juvenile… Not only is this the mullet-free Robin Hood movie we’ve been waiting decades for, it’s also Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe at their most entertaining since Gladiator.
  5. The entire cast is superb. Crowe's an ideal Robin Hood-born to play the role-he's fully in command but human to the core. He owns it.
  6. 75
    What this Robin Hood lacks in fun it makes up for in epic sweep.
  7. What strikes me about the new Robin Hood, directed by Ridley Scott, is how its preoccupations and sensibilities lie almost precisely halfway between the derring-do of the 1938 film and the harsh revisionism of the '70s edition
  8. Scott's reimagining of the legend of Robin Hood has more heft than it does humor, more soulful brooding than snappy thrust-and-parry retorts.
  9. Scott removed the adventure aspect, and some of the movie's passion was lost, too, like a dolphin caught in a tuna net. Perhaps it's for that reason that a movie that starts out with the potential to be great somehow falls short, and what seems as if it's going to be a revelation ends up, instead, simply a worthwhile, reasonably interesting variation on an old theme.
  10. Reviewed by: Ty Burr
    75
    This Robin Hood is mostly a smart, muscular entertainment; it doesn’t breathe new life into a genre as did “Gladiator,’’ Scott’s first pairing with Russell Crowe, but it’s a brawny reimagining of a beloved old myth, a period popcorn movie turned out with professionalism and gusto.
  11. 75
    A dark and brawny version of the Robin Hood legend that anchors itself in English history and loses some of the merriment in the process.
  12. Still, it's not the iconic, be-all-end-all that Scott was certainly hoping for.
  13. Scott's epic - and it's hard to think of anything this big, this elaborate and, no doubt, this expensive as anything but - is very much an origination story, a prequel, if you will.
  14. 70
    Despite its abundant flaws and historical howlers and generally dimwitted tone, Robin Hood is a surprisingly enjoyable work of popcorn cinema, if you're willing to take it on its own terms.
  15. Reviewed by: Justin Chang
    70
    Impressively made and serious-minded to a fault, this physically imposing picture brings abundant political-historical dimensions to its epic canvas, yet often seems devoted to stifling whatever pleasure audiences may have derived from the popular legend.
  16. 70
    As in so many summer behemoths, the real stars are the projectiles--in this case, arrows with their own point-of-view shots, zipping through the air and finding their targets with pinpoint accuracy.
  17. Scott’s is the story of how Robin Longstride (and, no, that’s not a name made up by Mel Brooks), an archer in Richard the Lionheart's last Crusade, became Robin of the Hood, the wily defender of the overtaxed people of Nottingham.
  18. 63
    If this truly is Ridley Scott's preferred cut, he has proven unable to justify the existence of yet another Robin Hood film.
  19. A lot of care went into crafting the handsome production but not enough into making the handsome hero come alive.
  20. The problem with Russell Crowe's new take on the legend is that it has one muddy boot in history and the other in fantasy. The middling result is far from a bull's-eye.
  21. Can they really be setting up a sequel at the end, with Robin as an outlaw? Let’s hope so--that’s the movie you actually wanted.
  22. Reviewed by: Dana Stevens
    60
    Pretty much ill-conceived from the ground up but saved by a couple of strong performances and a wealth of well-researched period detail.
  23. 58
    There’s quality throughout, but, visual verve aside, the enterprise is dull, heavy-handed and dispiriting.
  24. 58
    Image for image and shot for shot, Scott is still one of the most striking directors around, but in Robin Hood, the cohesive particles keeping those images together--frills like a compelling plot and sculpted characters--prove unstable.
  25. 50
    A high-tech and well made violent action picture using the name of Robin Hood for no better reason than that it’s an established brand not protected by copyright.
  26. Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    50
    Cate Blanchett brings little but an arch toughness to the role of Marion, and, in a highly improbably climactic scene, proves herself a veritable knight. Crowe and Blanchett share a perfunctory romance, with few sparks.
  27. Except for the last five minutes, Robin Hood is the story of the radicalization of some guy named Longstride. Who?
  28. Still, there are some things to savor. Blanchett is an actress who's always involving, and Crowe is very much in his element as an intrepid, laconic archer who lets his arrows do the talking.
  29. 50
    If only the story were leaner and more nimble -- but then again this is a Ridley Scott film, so you go in expecting bombast and bloat in the service of leaden themes.
  30. The battles are grainy and ''existential,'' but what they aren't is thrilling. They're surging crowd scenes with streams of arrows and flecks of blood, and Crowe, slashing his way through them, is a glorified extra. He's so grimly possessed with purpose that he's a bore, and so is the movie.
  31. 42
    A distinct lack of merriment marks each frame of this film, with Scott determined to erase all fond memories of past Robin Hoods.
  32. I much prefer Mel Brooks’s “Robin Hood: Men in Tights” to all this doomy somberness. Why take the legend so seriously?
  33. Reviewed by: Karina Longworth
    40
    The directorial choices are, for the most part, so lazy, the blockbuster engineering so blatant, that Robin Hood often falls into self-parody. All the more reason for Sarah Palin to love it.
  34. He's (Crowe) thwarted by the production's almost total, and truly absurd, absence of fun.
  35. 38
    Certainly a grand-looking picture. For a film that's filled with CGI effects, there wasn't a single shot that looked artificial, and the production design is tremendous. But it's a hollow, boring spectacle.
  36. Reviewed by: John DeVore
    38
    The movie suffers from convoluted plots, turgid pacing, and strange disrespect for its source material.
  37. 35
    A moneygrubbing extravaganza, ugly to look at and interminable to sit through. No movie about the evils of excessive taxation should be this taxing.
  38. 30
    All is dour and dun. We are a long way from Errol Flynn marching in with a deer slung over his shoulder, or from the Fairbanks who didn’t merely scamper and swing from one errand of justice to the next. He SKIPPED.
  39. Damned if those dual spoilsports, the gladiatorial director Ridley Scott reteamed with his portly star Russell Crowe, haven't drained every drop of merriment right out of the myth.
  40. Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood is a pompous, interminable hash.
User Score
6.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 302 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 79 out of 130
  2. Negative: 33 out of 130
  1. Sep 25, 2011
    5
    Epic, but what's the point of it?
  2. Oct 20, 2010
    1
    If it reinvents the legend at all, one has to wonder why the legend exists in the first place. The story and characters are painfully boring.If it reinvents the legend at all, one has to wonder why the legend exists in the first place. The story and characters are painfully boring. You've already seen all this action before, and the elements it borrows were selected from the bottom of the barrel. Watch Kevin Costner's again instead. Full Review »
  3. Oct 1, 2010
    5
    Felt a much longer than it should've; and no punchline. It tries to do too much and ends up playing like a pilot for 'Robin Hood' the TVFelt a much longer than it should've; and no punchline. It tries to do too much and ends up playing like a pilot for 'Robin Hood' the TV series - in which, hopefully, all of the many characters will be developed. Interesting that Ridley would create a film that looks like 'Gladiator' but fails to hit all the Gladiator,Brave Heart, etc, plot points i.e. : protaganist established as hero, family of hero is murdered by villain, hero is made outcast/outlaw by villain, hero finds love/faith/need-for revenge, etc, etc. While most of those things happen in the film, they don't flow coherently, in fact it's all very disjointed; and too many villains. And the end I was left with a feeling that Ridley was going through the motions on this one. Full Review »