User Score
6.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 300 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 53 out of 300

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. 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. 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.
  2. Sep 25, 2010
    3
    "This movie i was expecting more , It was morally disappointing i expected way more from the Genius's behind Gladiator , Its way to long , It drags on more than it should and in the end your leaving with a Headache .. i actuall fell asleep at one point" .. D+
  3. Sep 22, 2010
    0
    This movie is plain torture. One of... if not the worst movie of 2010 so far. Russell Crowe is in basically every Ridley Scott, and I've disliked only 1 or possibly 2 movies that they've collaborated on. This movie is plain awful. I'd rather watch The Bounty Hunter 3 times straight than watch a portion of this movie worthy enough to be crapped on. Just garbage.
  4. Aug 21, 2010
    2
    such a bad movie, i would have to say it is the director, cuz u know the cast is good. well i was relly disapointed and i definitly don´t recomend it
  5. Nov 2, 2010
    4
    a prequel that just doesnt do much . doesnt feel as fun or as intresting as the old robin hood films we've seen . little in the way of any charicter devolpment not alot of action eather. the acting is good but not much about this film really does any thing . i felt like scott was making cate blanchet more like rippley from Aliens this tough take no crap bad ass which felt so off. i felt like this was just half a movie of the story of robin hood . the movie pretty much end when it starts gettin alittle intresting . id rather wach the old robin hood with erol flinn any day over this film . it was wachable and eh so so but from some one like ridley scott id hoped for much better then this. Expand
  6. Nov 30, 2010
    1
    And the barrage of bad movies for 2010 continues! It starts great, then tries to add every element of the typical movie - love story, one-liner humor, etc. And where did the stupid kids with masks come from? Give me the good ol' Disney one with Sir Hiss any old day over this junk.
  7. Jan 17, 2011
    1
    What a huge disappointment, Ridley is reminding me more of Ron Howard with every release, no imagination no flashes of originality which are vital to hold an audiences attention and maintain momentum over such a well known and much used storyline. Bought the blu-ray version which I just rented the DVD. Tv movie anyone!!!!
  8. May 12, 2011
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. From what I saw in the trailers for this film, I was expecting a fast-paced action flick. Sadly, the movie is far from it.

    Following the death of "King Richard the Lionhearted" (Danny Huston) during the Crusades, "Robin Longstride" (Russell Crowe) and four men come upon the aftermath of an ambush, and find a dying British knight who tells "Longstride" of a plot between France and a British collaborator -- a British knight.

    "Longstride" promises the dying knight that he will return the knight's sword to his father. But, when he returns to his homeland, he poses as the knight, and helps those in need.

    Based on centuries old legends from Great Britian, Robin Hood is far from the typical depictions we have seen over the years in popular media. In other depections, including a popular BBC television series in 2006, "Hood" is either arriving from his journey home from the Holy Land or he has been back for some time, and already declared an outlaw. This movie is focused more on the events leading to the title character becoming the legendary "Robin Hood". But, unlike other depictions I've seen, this one is not a strong representation of the legendary outlaw.

    The first 75% of the film is unbearably slow I thought, and I noticed I was paying more attention to my computer (I watched it on HBO this afternoon) than the television. To me, the scenes between any fight scenes just lagged and had poor development for the characters.

    It appears that those behind the scenes relied on the audience already knowing the characters, and gave them little to no development. They introduced some new twists with the characters, which worked fairly well, but they were just not presented in an interesting way I thought.

    I felt little to no chemistry between the characters, especially between "Marion" (Cate Blanchett) and "Longstride". All the main players are there, but they were one-dimensional in my opinion. None of them stood out.

    One thing I noticed is that non-British actors had a terrible time with the British accent. Sometimes they sounded British, while other times, their accents sounded Irish or even Scottish. It was very obvious that the dialect coach hired to help the non-British cast members failed in his or her job. It got quite confusing at times when I heard the wrong accent.

    Probably because they were working with a well known story, the movie is pretty predictable. The actors in this movie failed at attempting to make their lines believeable, which didn't get them out of the one-dimensional feel I was getting from them. The worse of the characters had to be "King John" (Oscar Isaac), who was absolutely horrible. Isaac's performance was uneven, and came off as trying to be comical when he most likely wasn't trying to be that way.

    Cinematorgraphy wasn't that great either, but was slightly better during wide angle scenes during battles. There were no bright colors in the scenery, nor wardrobe. It was a pretty bland looking movie, which went along with the bland performances.

    One thing you need to know is that this movie is fairly violent. I would not suggest this for a young audience that the Disney version of this story targets. You will see a lot of gruesome wounds like an arrow through a hand or chest. It looked as if they did a fair job at focusing at main cast members in close-up shots during large battles, but those close-ups were rushed and just did not work out if you ask me.

    If you are a fan of the legend, this is going to disappoint you. If you are new to the legend, I would suggest the superior BBC television series that ended about a year before this movie came out, and all three seasons of that version would be a better addition to your Netflix queue or your personal DVD/Blu-Ray collection. The BBC series has more interesting depictions of the main cast of characters, and is more family-friendly.
    Expand
  9. Oct 25, 2011
    0
    this is the most boring film in history, it does not tell the real story of robin hood, i got sleep 4 times watching this in a cinema, terrible
  10. Oct 7, 2011
    2
    The idea of this film was good, BUT. a lot of actors just seem to be reprising their roles eg Russell Crowe playing his Gladiator role in a Robin Hood outfit. It takes a lot for a film to make me want to walk out of the cinema in disgust, I did not walk out, but by the time I got to the last 20minutes I was saying to myself "please please just end" there was hardly any plot line to fall in love with and it just seemed a VERY empty film.

    I will say this though. Fans of the Robin Hood : Prince Of Thieves in my opinion will HATE this

    and

    Fans of Gladiator that have NOT seen Robin Hood : Prince Of Thieves will probably find this entertaining.

    Sorry Ridley Scott but for me this is probably one of your worst films
    Expand
  11. Feb 14, 2012
    0
    Wrong in every way: a protracted, predictable and cliched story, a seriously clunky script, appalling acting by a cast that should know better. An utterly pointless waste of time.
  12. Apr 11, 2012
    3
    Miscasted to oblivion, predictable, terrible dialogue, one dimensional performances, the worst soundtrack I have ever encountered, simply boring, not one redeeming quality except for two action sequences, one of which which were unnecessarily unrealistic and exaggerated, Ridley Scott did the best he could with his camera setups, but proves he put his cast after visuals once again.
  13. Aug 7, 2012
    0
    I watched this film quite a while ago, and for the life of me, I can barely remember any scenes of it, all I can remember is that the actor did not make a convincing main character at all. That, and the fact that it dragged on so long that I was actually bored watching it.
  14. Jan 3, 2014
    4
    A Adaptação de Ridley Scott de um dos heróis mais interessante da história fraca, sem rumo e desgastante, não vale muito a pena ver uma droga enorme...
  15. Nov 16, 2013
    4
    As bland as can be. I really can't say too much about Robin Hood, it's just nothing.

    I couldn't believe how little meaningful story and they could stuff into a well over two hour movie.

    Don't waste your time, don't see it. I dunno what Ridley Scott is doing nowadays, but he's falling off, that's for sure.
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. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.