User Score
6.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 310 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 53 out of 310
Watch On

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. LaurenceI
    Jun 19, 2010
    10
    Empire gave it 4 stars and I totally agree with them. Scotts version of the hood makes much more sense than any before it. All in all I enjoyed it.
  2. Drew
    May 15, 2010
    6
    Pros -Special Effects -Battle Scenes -Scenery -giant horse drawing on countryside -Russell Crowe growling about capitalism -Explosions -Depiction of French people Cons -Soundtrack doesn't seem to fit -Scary hooligans wearing bags on their heads -King John's poor acting and characterization -King John's facial hair -History mixed with fiction doesn't work as well as it Pros -Special Effects -Battle Scenes -Scenery -giant horse drawing on countryside -Russell Crowe growling about capitalism -Explosions -Depiction of French people Cons -Soundtrack doesn't seem to fit -Scary hooligans wearing bags on their heads -King John's poor acting and characterization -King John's facial hair -History mixed with fiction doesn't work as well as it could -No evil emperor for Russell Crowe to slay. Expand
  3. ChadS
    May 19, 2010
    7
    It's just like D-day in Normandy on Omaha Beach, but with bows and arrows, chainmail, and horses, lots and lots of horses. Told through the film language of Steven Spielberg, whose "Saving Private Ryan" deglamourized WWII so that it would reflect the same unspeakable horrors depicted in the canon of Vietnam films, this latest mounting of "Robin Hood" also effectuates the expulsion of It's just like D-day in Normandy on Omaha Beach, but with bows and arrows, chainmail, and horses, lots and lots of horses. Told through the film language of Steven Spielberg, whose "Saving Private Ryan" deglamourized WWII so that it would reflect the same unspeakable horrors depicted in the canon of Vietnam films, this latest mounting of "Robin Hood" also effectuates the expulsion of any preconceived notions regarding war as romantic, an adventure in the making. Made for people who like their Batman dark as night, Russell Crowe's brooding take on the role made famous by Errol Flynn(Michael Curtiz's "The Adventures of Robin Hood") will not disappoint, but for the rest of us, seeing the tempestuous Aussie portray this iconic swashbuckler as a haunted mercenary tormented by unanswered questions about his absentee father, will no doubt be off-putting to fable purists familiar with the legendary English outlaw, champion of the penniless(especially Kevin Costner's "surfer dude" interpretation of the Nottingham stalwart in Kevin Reynolds' "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves") as a congenial sort with pacifist leanings. Unlike past Robin Hoods, this latest model derives some modicum of satisfaction from killing. Essentially, an origin story, the filmmaker places Robin in a historical context(the waged war between the French and English over Plantagenet lands which Phillip II had seized from Richard the Lionheart while England's king was imprisoned), which in turn corrupts the literature(starting with the 1378 long poem "Visions of Piers Plowman") by transforming the subject of innumerable ballads and stories into a 12th century approximation of a combat soldier, who proves to be exceedingly violent on the English coastline during the climactic battle with the encroaching French mauraders. Although this final confrontation is exceedingly well-staged and exciting, it does have the effect of trivializing Spielberg's intention to honor WWII veterans by stripping the emulative spectacle of its predecessor's "raison d'etre", which entailed more than death for mere entertainment's sake. Expand
  4. jc
    May 20, 2010
    8
    I think the critics and the voters on this site were confused...this is not your daddy's Robin Hood all over again. This is the backstory. Much more interesting than seeing another childish rehash of the same old story. Well-made film. VERY enjoyable. I certainly was not bored!
  5. FUall
    May 23, 2010
    10
    Great story, logical, people who gave it a bad review are morons.
  6. matts
    May 28, 2010
    9
    Almost perfect. This movie uses the Robin Hood story as a backdrop to talk about a lot of big-picture historical themes, but it isn't boring or heavy-handed. It's visually rich, and all the main characters are three-dimensional. Russel Crowe is good, and Cate Blanchett is great. This movie is one or two silly anachronisms away from being a ten, that's how well-done and Almost perfect. This movie uses the Robin Hood story as a backdrop to talk about a lot of big-picture historical themes, but it isn't boring or heavy-handed. It's visually rich, and all the main characters are three-dimensional. Russel Crowe is good, and Cate Blanchett is great. This movie is one or two silly anachronisms away from being a ten, that's how well-done and balanced it was. Expand
  7. LD
    Jun 1, 2010
    8
    Wonderfully acted with some amazing actions scenes. I thoroughly enjoyed it and Russell Crowe is a great Robin Hood. Cate Blanchett was great fun as Maid Marion.
  8. kgm
    Jun 5, 2010
    6
    This would be more properly titled
  9. JakeM
    May 14, 2010
    8
    Great overall cinematography,a few holes in plot but not much to complain about. Beautiful violence.
  10. MeStillMe
    May 14, 2010
    8
    Ridley Scott once again doing what he does best, this film is a great reboot to the franchise and I hope to see plenty of sequels. Great action, nice story and viable explanation as to how a man like Robin Hood could exist, not historically accurate but this is not supposed to be a history lesson. Crowe does what he does and blanchett plays her role well, there is much criticism for this Ridley Scott once again doing what he does best, this film is a great reboot to the franchise and I hope to see plenty of sequels. Great action, nice story and viable explanation as to how a man like Robin Hood could exist, not historically accurate but this is not supposed to be a history lesson. Crowe does what he does and blanchett plays her role well, there is much criticism for this film and it is largely unfounded. People should watch a film for what it is and not what they wanted it to be. Expand
  11. VictorM
    May 15, 2010
    9
    Great new take on the classic, it just needed one more hour of deep dialogues to be one of the great movies of all times... next time Mr.Scott.
  12. IvanC.
    May 15, 2010
    10
    This Robin Hood (Begins) returned me to childhood. I really loved the way Ridley wrapped up historic balads, poems, and legends. I encourage everyone to watch documentary "The real Robin Hood" to find out why Ridley made this kind of Robin Hood. Great movie!
  13. CalebK.
    May 15, 2010
    9
    Pretty darn good. Definitely not what I expected at all but awesome anyway. If you are looking for a rehash of Gladiator you will be disappointed but then again you could always just watch Gladiator again. The Story sets up Robin Hoods legend kind of like how Batman Begins did for Batman. I really hope there is a sequel and have never wanted to go visit England and drink a pint of ale Pretty darn good. Definitely not what I expected at all but awesome anyway. If you are looking for a rehash of Gladiator you will be disappointed but then again you could always just watch Gladiator again. The Story sets up Robin Hoods legend kind of like how Batman Begins did for Batman. I really hope there is a sequel and have never wanted to go visit England and drink a pint of ale more badly in my life. Expand
  14. PamB.
    May 15, 2010
    8
    The film has a fantastic imagery and is a visual feast. Meanwhile, it is such a mess from historic point of view that it makes me shudder to think what sort of ideas would young people be left with. This charm offence on history is a good entertainment though.
  15. AnnT.
    May 15, 2010
    10
    A Good adventure. Cate and Sydow are amazing!
  16. KonradT.
    May 16, 2010
    6
    The acting was good, but I feel like they did the wrong Robin Hood. I would much rather watch Robin Hood be Robin Hood for two hours than watch Robin be a soldier, a knight, a husband, a knight, and THEN an outlaw. A 10-15 minute flashback would have sufficed. Russell Crowe did a great job, but I felt like they could have gotten someone with a bit more personality for the role. Cate The acting was good, but I feel like they did the wrong Robin Hood. I would much rather watch Robin Hood be Robin Hood for two hours than watch Robin be a soldier, a knight, a husband, a knight, and THEN an outlaw. A 10-15 minute flashback would have sufficed. Russell Crowe did a great job, but I felt like they could have gotten someone with a bit more personality for the role. Cate Blanchett was marvelous, but when she joins Crowe for the final battle, I honestly rolled my eyes and thought "Hey, look, it's Lord of the Rings.", of which Blanchett also starred in. All in all, I would give it a 6.5. Expand
  17. RandyH.
    May 16, 2010
    10
    Generally speaking, if one was to evaluate the movie on its merits alone and not according to any outrageous personal expectations, one would find that this movie has invested just enough into story, character development, plot twists, acting, and action. This movie is not about Sherwood Forest, nor does it intend to be. Like many Ridley Scott movies, the main character goes through a Generally speaking, if one was to evaluate the movie on its merits alone and not according to any outrageous personal expectations, one would find that this movie has invested just enough into story, character development, plot twists, acting, and action. This movie is not about Sherwood Forest, nor does it intend to be. Like many Ridley Scott movies, the main character goes through a transformation to become the person fit to put an end to the movie's main conflict. This movie has everything done correctly through a delicate balance. Just enough time is spent with flashbacks and back-story to reveal the main character's relevance to the main conflict. The acting is well done. The action sequences are entertaining and artistic enough to stand out from other Ridley Scott movies, though not quite up to par with his previous titles. All the characters seem almost inhumanly diligent in their duties, being rather too idyllic in nature; such a thing is not a problem in a mythic story about heroes and villains. While being very dark, the movie stays consistent with itself. It would simply be ludicrous to expect a mob of happy-go-lucky villagers to be prancing around when under conditions of famine and poverty. If you enjoyed Gladiator, this movie will please you greatly. If you were looking for a "fun-loving" story filled with adventures in a world of characters unaffected by their circumstances, don't watch any Ridley Scott movie. Expand
  18. andyK
    May 17, 2010
    8
    Definitely not what I expected from a movie called Robin Hood, but if you can get passed that, it is a very entertaining movie. Beautiful cinematography. Russell Crowe does an exceptional job.
  19. HelenM
    May 19, 2010
    7
    The cast perfect. It was fun and enjoyable and took my mind off of current events. Good wins overall in the movies.
  20. JohnS
    May 20, 2010
    9
    Great acting from a perfect cast. Cate Blanchett shines as a strong willed maiden Marion and Russell Crowe is the most badass Robin Hood you've ever watched or ever going to watch.The supporting cast is also very strong.The battle scenes are excellerating and very well done this is Ridley Scott movie ''of couse there good'' .The soundtrack sets the atmosphere from Great acting from a perfect cast. Cate Blanchett shines as a strong willed maiden Marion and Russell Crowe is the most badass Robin Hood you've ever watched or ever going to watch.The supporting cast is also very strong.The battle scenes are excellerating and very well done this is Ridley Scott movie ''of couse there good'' .The soundtrack sets the atmosphere from sorow to battle enthralled .There is a little humor thrown in but at its core this film is driven by strong charactors whether they be righteous heroes ,a strong willed maiden,a ruthless king,an old knight, merry men and evil Fench villains.Its amazing how the French make such good villians(go figure). Don't listen to the cynics.This film well worth the watch.The only noticeable problem with the acting is Crowes broken accent but it certainly would not have been better if had had a strong goofy scotish accent .The story told in the film isint your traditional Robin Hood story but who wants to see the same old and tired story play out again anyways.The biggest complaint about th film is that its not merry enough,which is true but Im glad someone finally took making a Robin Hood movie seriously. Forget the the traditional story line.Its a prequel anyways.9/10 BULLSEYE. Expand
  21. JalexD
    May 24, 2010
    9
    Not quite focused enough (in the plot and character development department) for a 10, but a most entertaining film that still delivers what it promises: A fresh take on the Robin Hood legend.
  22. KevinG
    Jun 25, 2010
    9
    Surprisingly good film epic.
  23. 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 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,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 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. Expand
  24. Sep 25, 2011
    5
    Epic, but what's the point of it?
  25. 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.
  26. 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+
  27. Sep 28, 2010
    10
    I was both shocked and excited when we found out that Robin Hood was going to be rated PG-13. From the previews it looked like a Robin Hood version of Gladiator because both were directed by Ridley Scott and the main star of both is Russel Crow. It wasn't exactly what I was expecting. It's more of an origin story of Robin Hood, whereas the previews make it look like the typical robbingI was both shocked and excited when we found out that Robin Hood was going to be rated PG-13. From the previews it looked like a Robin Hood version of Gladiator because both were directed by Ridley Scott and the main star of both is Russel Crow. It wasn't exactly what I was expecting. It's more of an origin story of Robin Hood, whereas the previews make it look like the typical robbing from the rich to give to the poor. There were so many good things about this movie. The score is spectacular. I already bought the soundtrack. The acting is fantastic. The action is phenomenal, and it's a really good story. It did get a lot of negative reviews from critics, but I think that was mostly because the story wasn't what they were expecting and it's not as gay and marry as previous versions of Robin Hood. It is fairly violent, but if you can take that then I highly recommend it. I saw it twice in the 1st 2 weeks, and now I own it on Blu-ray. This new Robin Hood movie is serious and dark and gritty and awesome. The following is a comparison of the different Robin Hood movies to the various Batman incarnations:

    The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938 ) is as to The 60s Adam West Batman as Robin Hood (Disney 1973) is as The Batman Animated Series as Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) is as Tim Burton's Batman as Robin Hood (2010) is as Batman Begins as The sequel to Robin Hood (2010) will be as The Dark Knight.
    Expand
  28. ConnieC
    May 15, 2010
    10
    It may be a rip-off of Gladiator, but one of those good rip-offs.
  29. JeffB.
    May 16, 2010
    7
    Stunningly beautiful, lots of money of the screen, nice love story, but some very lame dialogue.
  30. JamesH.
    May 16, 2010
    7
    I liked this version of Robin Hood. The cinematography is outstanding and the costumes seem very authentic. This is a darker and more violent version than I was used to and felt it could have used some more humor but still enjoyed it.
  31. JoshE
    May 18, 2010
    10
    Fantastic film! Great story and action!
  32. alano
    Jun 17, 2010
    8
    With all of the mixed reviews about this film speculating, I saw Robin Hood and thought that the critics were wrong about this film, this IS better than the last Robin Hood we were given but this isn't better than Gladiator.
  33. Sep 5, 2011
    7
    In the 13th century of England, following the death of King Richard in France, Robin Hood and his friends travel back to Nottingham to bring the sword to Walter. As he makes a love relationship with Maid Marian, Robin learns that a man named Godfrey killed his father and must navigate the politics of France in order to avenge his father's death.

    Robin Hood's plot was a little bit lacking
    In the 13th century of England, following the death of King Richard in France, Robin Hood and his friends travel back to Nottingham to bring the sword to Walter. As he makes a love relationship with Maid Marian, Robin learns that a man named Godfrey killed his father and must navigate the politics of France in order to avenge his father's death.

    Robin Hood's plot was a little bit lacking and the dialog was underdeveloped, but the action scenes were great, Ridley's Scott's directing was brilliant, and the acting was a lot of fun. This movie isn't the best, but got me entertained as a worthy stand alone to the Robin Hood legend.

    There was good news that Ridley Scott is gonna work on a sequel and will someday reveal the release date since this is a flawed, but really good movie.

    7/10
    Expand
  34. 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.
  35. Sep 13, 2010
    8
    Albeit, not the greatest of Ridley Scott's works, this action drama certainly falls well above the majority of the genre. The strong cast harmonizes to bring to life a clever, though somewhat cliche, portrayal of the beginnings of the Robin Hood legend. Well worth the time spent watching, I thoroughly enjoyed this film and would recommend to anyone looking for a nice cockle-stirring evening.
  36. Sep 26, 2010
    10
    The most definitive Robin Hood made to date. The original classic, around 1939, was accessible to all age groups (though oriented toward the youth group), and was very entertaining, but this modern version is an example of great movie making. Keep in mind that all that is known about Robin Hood is that he may have been a robber known to help out poor people, but no one knows for sure whoThe most definitive Robin Hood made to date. The original classic, around 1939, was accessible to all age groups (though oriented toward the youth group), and was very entertaining, but this modern version is an example of great movie making. Keep in mind that all that is known about Robin Hood is that he may have been a robber known to help out poor people, but no one knows for sure who he was. The elaborate details in a movie are completely contrived. So, this version is totally different from others, and this likely upsets some viewers. This version is superb in all departments, in epic proportions. It is obviously a part I, and I look forward to the sequel. Expand
  37. Sep 22, 2010
    5
    The story was good, being different from the usual Robin Hood stories, but that's about the only positive aspect of this movie. The actors played average, the lines were far to simple, the action and fight scenes were unrealistic and uninteresting. I expected much more from this movie.
  38. CT
    May 17, 2010
    8
    This is a different take on the Robin Hood story that explores what happens before he was an outlaw, not the done to death version we all know. This allows for awesome action, and some touches of history mixed in. The script could use a little work, but the film was a fun film that has some nice side humor in it as well.
  39. AlbertP.
    May 17, 2010
    1
    Awful...from beginning to end.
  40. JohnD.
    Jul 6, 2010
    10
    Great movie.
  41. MikeH
    May 14, 2010
    0
    One of the worst movies I have ever seen. Very boring acting, Fighting scenes dont compare to other films. Anyone else think its Gladiator meets A Forrest?
  42. JoV.
    May 20, 2010
    0
    Big money , big names , big brand and in the end ? a scam , its isnt about Robin Hood , its about something else and nobody is sure of what it is(magna carta , robin hood , crowe/scott ego ,killing some french which is always good) The hero seems to do what he does because he s paid for ( like me when i dont wanna go to office but still go) To finish , i find its a bit rude to french , Big money , big names , big brand and in the end ? a scam , its isnt about Robin Hood , its about something else and nobody is sure of what it is(magna carta , robin hood , crowe/scott ego ,killing some french which is always good) The hero seems to do what he does because he s paid for ( like me when i dont wanna go to office but still go) To finish , i find its a bit rude to french , and it hides the fact that , at this era of time , french won (in france since the english invaded them and they were reuniting the kingdom), which is something that english-speacking people cannot allow, so they rewrite the history.ahhh good old english racism against france that america embraces with joy.......it makes sell more , thats all that is important finally:p i would be ashamed to have my name in the credits. Expand
  43. MikeL
    Jun 20, 2010
    0
    If you want to sit through 2 hours of boring dialogue, with boring characters, boring action, not funny jokes, cliched storyline and Russel Crowe, then this movie is for you.
  44. OlegM.
    May 15, 2010
    1
    I gave it a 1 just for compassion's sake. Cate Blanchettte and Russel Crow acting - reluctantly - in this movie saved it from Zero. What a JOKE. History is faked. Psychology is faked. PR is kept intact. If you loath spending money on bullshit - don't go and spend your money on this crap. (i did just because i was in Vienna and had 2 hours to kill before the plane to Paris). I gave it a 1 just for compassion's sake. Cate Blanchettte and Russel Crow acting - reluctantly - in this movie saved it from Zero. What a JOKE. History is faked. Psychology is faked. PR is kept intact. If you loath spending money on bullshit - don't go and spend your money on this crap. (i did just because i was in Vienna and had 2 hours to kill before the plane to Paris). Cheers, my Children, Oleg Expand
  45. NK
    May 17, 2010
    4
    Unbelievably boring.
  46. Paul
    May 17, 2010
    0
    Perhaps the worst film of the year. Blanchet and Crowe are a awful couple. I want my money and two hours of my life back!
  47. DaleC.
    May 17, 2010
    3
    Not every movie / story / TV show needs a "reboot". And that word in its current sense needs to be rebooted out of our lexicon. Rather than worrying about a reboot of a story that's been done to death, how about just telling a good story in an interesting way. Period.
  48. Trevorj
    May 19, 2010
    3
    BOOOORING. I kept sitting in my seat praying it got better, only to be disappointed at the credits. Action is messy and sparse. They tried to make it darker, but the combat scenes just aren't brutal enough to convey that message. Recommend a skip.
  49. NeilB
    May 20, 2010
    2
    The more and more I think about this movie the more I think it is a rip off. The movie was so bad, I can't even explain how bad it really was. There was little for the actors to work with in the way of lines and story. They butchered one of my faviorite stories worse then Kevin Cosnter did.
  50. killdarren
    May 14, 2010
    0
    Hollywood has officially run out of ideas. There is truly nothing original left. Here we go another King Arthur or Robin Hood movie. They release one every five or six years, dirty it down and all claim it's the "authentic story." Russel Crow is his usual neanderthal self, Blanchett overacts like always, and Ridley Scott phones it in more than ever before. Here's a legend for Hollywood has officially run out of ideas. There is truly nothing original left. Here we go another King Arthur or Robin Hood movie. They release one every five or six years, dirty it down and all claim it's the "authentic story." Russel Crow is his usual neanderthal self, Blanchett overacts like always, and Ridley Scott phones it in more than ever before. Here's a legend for you "Film producers so clueless they try to make a Robin Hood movie seem like a new, original and fresh idea." Expand
  51. JohnH
    May 14, 2010
    1
    It gets a 1 because it claims to be a movie, and actually is. This movie is awful. The story in this movie get more and more ridiculous. A little piece of me died while I watched this. Save your money and watch it on WGN in about 10 years.
  52. DuaneH.
    May 16, 2010
    7
    Great? No. Good? Yes. Formulaic? Definitely. But it is nowhere near as bad as the critics would have you believe. Its a fun throwaway.
  53. RajR
    May 16, 2010
    3
    For anything of value that this film had to offer, you're better off watching Gladiator again and pretending that you haven't seen it before..... An hour into this movie, I felt like I had been in the theater for 3 and a half hours.
  54. SculpPen
    May 16, 2010
    5
    The first 3/4 of the move was decent, a little slow going (esp. if you don't know the movie is just setting you up for a sequel) but the acting was good enough and there were only a handful of odd/distracting events. The last half hour was just horrible, everything seemed to happen all at once, and often for no appartent reason. I don't mind a little artistic liberty, but I The first 3/4 of the move was decent, a little slow going (esp. if you don't know the movie is just setting you up for a sequel) but the acting was good enough and there were only a handful of odd/distracting events. The last half hour was just horrible, everything seemed to happen all at once, and often for no appartent reason. I don't mind a little artistic liberty, but I couldn't understand why (1) after becoming a knight, Robin hardly uses his character defining bow (2) why were the French made out to be the villains... has anti French sentiment grown so strong that movies are trying to capitalize on this? and (3) why was Marion in full armor, leading a band of kids into battle?!? I Expand
  55. DavidD
    May 17, 2010
    0
    Within the first ten minutes i could tell it was gonna suck...and it did for another two hours. Absolutely awful movie and story. Don't waste your money, see something else.
  56. judithp
    May 17, 2010
    10
    I really enjoyed this version of Robin Hood ,especially the performances of Crowe and Blanchett. The film is lovely to look at . This Robin is a real yeoman, a man of honor and boy can this guy shoot a bow!
  57. aliciar
    May 18, 2010
    0
    I was bored, literally, from start to finish. really predictable. acting is intolerably bad. and i couldn't stop thinking about robin hood men in tights and the scene in shrek with the merry men. i would've walked out of the movie if my boyfriend wasn't with me.
  58. Greg
    May 18, 2010
    5
    It's not as bad as certain other abominable efforts (take a bow Mr Costner) but as an Englishman, the elephant in its' room is Crowe's accent, which is laughable. He has spent the last fortnight arguing with English journalists that what he is muttering is a Yorkshire accent, when it sounds like one part Geordie to three parts Oirish. It might be a piddling thing to our It's not as bad as certain other abominable efforts (take a bow Mr Costner) but as an Englishman, the elephant in its' room is Crowe's accent, which is laughable. He has spent the last fortnight arguing with English journalists that what he is muttering is a Yorkshire accent, when it sounds like one part Geordie to three parts Oirish. It might be a piddling thing to our tranatlantic bretheren, but in England we just cannot get past it. Why on earth cast two non-British actors with roles in one of England's longest running and most endearing fairy tale? Scott's re-imagining is ruined by his selection of principle characters. Expand
  59. JamieC
    May 26, 2010
    5
    Inane story with ridiculous plot details. Some scenes do display Ridley Scott's masterful touch including the stirring lead up to the final battle, but those moments are few and too fleeting. This feels very forced, Crowe is too old to be in the prequel, Blanchett is too grave to play Marian, and the story offers nothing new while taking all the fun out of the mythi.
  60. LJH
    May 27, 2010
    4
    There are some impressive special effects in this film, and some terrific performances from the supporting cast. Unfortunately that is where the good points end. They are all brought together in a very boring, incoherent story line and a terrible leading man. I really struggled to even pay attention to this film mostly because it was so loosely held together with a lot of completely There are some impressive special effects in this film, and some terrific performances from the supporting cast. Unfortunately that is where the good points end. They are all brought together in a very boring, incoherent story line and a terrible leading man. I really struggled to even pay attention to this film mostly because it was so loosely held together with a lot of completely irrelevant additions to the story. Who is Robins dad and why does it matter? Who are all the kids running about in the woods and why do we care? The light-hearted moments in the film that made everyone chuckle were the high points, since the parts that were supposed to be serious were just boring. The one thing that kept me watching was that I was trying to figure out what kind of accent Russell Crowe was supposed to have. English? Irish? Scottish? Welsh? Your guess is as good as mine. His performance in this film gives new meaning to the phrase 'doing it wrong.' Basic point I'm making: stay away. Expand
  61. EggyG
    Jun 11, 2010
    5
    With such great cast and director this movie is surprisingly lame....weakest Riddley Scott movie. The fx wasn't polished enough and felt like small budget movie. Too bad.
  62. KenB
    Jun 12, 2010
    3
    Just a mess that fools around with the legend for no good reason. No laughs, no charm, no romance, no sexual vibes. And when everyone showed up at the D-Day landing it was laughable.
  63. westh
    Jun 3, 2010
    2
    Like a mash-up of every unconvincing battle scene created in the last 10 years, peopled by characters you really don't give s*** about. Offensively audacious in its early promotion of a sequel (at the end you see, "the story has just begun" or some such nonsense). It was a truly awful flick -- either Ridley Scott let his PA do all the work, or the man has just completely lost his mind.
  64. AndrewW
    May 16, 2010
    4
    Not very exciting. Of course, the action scenes are quite good (it's Ridley Scott, after all), but in between the story is actually fairly boring. A lot of professional critic reviews complain about how serious it is -- and really, that's pretty much true. The movie just weighs on you; this definitely isn't Robin Hood and his merry men. That's not to say you can't Not very exciting. Of course, the action scenes are quite good (it's Ridley Scott, after all), but in between the story is actually fairly boring. A lot of professional critic reviews complain about how serious it is -- and really, that's pretty much true. The movie just weighs on you; this definitely isn't Robin Hood and his merry men. That's not to say you can't make a serious, "realistic" movie about Robin Hood. I suspect that like the theatrical version of "Kingdom of Heaven," the studio messed with Scott's picture too much. Wait for the director's cut. Also, where are all the reviews, Metacritic? Some sort of agreement with Universal? Check out the NYT, LA Times, Roger Ebert, etc. If you listen to critics anyway. Expand
  65. TomB
    May 17, 2010
    1
    Very dull and had me looking at my watch after 25 minutes. Couldn't wait for it to end and would have walked out, but my wife had high hopes for it improving (which she also said it failed to deliver). The script was overdone and tried to sound artsy-Shakespearean and instead just contributed to this mess of a film. Very relieved when it ended. Skip it.
  66. FrancescoM.
    May 18, 2010
    2
    A really awful movie... We were all expecting something more or less as good as Gladiator, unfortunately it fell very, very short of this...! Historicaly, it´s all wrong, the plot is confused, the main enemies are now the French which is ridiculous... I give it 2 out of 10 for depicting well the english villages of the end of the XIIIth Century but that´s all... Kevin A really awful movie... We were all expecting something more or less as good as Gladiator, unfortunately it fell very, very short of this...! Historicaly, it´s all wrong, the plot is confused, the main enemies are now the French which is ridiculous... I give it 2 out of 10 for depicting well the english villages of the end of the XIIIth Century but that´s all... Kevin Cosner´s Robin Hood was, in many ways, much better... Some critics here are so outrageously positive (look at Randy H´s comment for exemple) that I suppose they were made by people working with the Film... It could only be. Expand
  67. DChommer
    May 18, 2010
    3
    Dreadful film that I could not wait to be over. Long, dull, and simply incomprehensible mess of a film. Must have suffered from a ton of cuts from the director's original version because there are plenty of odd and out of place shots. Don't bother.
  68. JeffZ
    May 23, 2010
    2
    Fell asleep about 20 minutes into the movie, and my friend had to wake me up. Though.. I give the movie props for the last 15 minutes or so, when there were some amazing panaromic shots and some decent action going on. But, other than those 15 rare minutes, the film was terrible. Just terrible.
  69. SteveM
    May 25, 2010
    1
    Absolutely brutal. This is coming from someone who liked Prince of Thieves just so people know how easy I am to please. There was nothing Robin Hood about this movie. It tried to do way to many things at once and none of it was good. Bad action scenes, lame dialogue, unlikeable characters and a brutal plot all came together to make a great big mess. Please give me my $10 back.
  70. JamesP
    May 27, 2010
    2
    Marginally entertaining in a Robin Hood through the lens of 'Saving Private Ryan' sort of way. Generally slow and booring though, with (almost) nothing to do with the generally understood legend. It felt like 'Gladiator' with none of the style and less of the interest in the characters. Like one of the other user reviewers, one of the few movies that has had me Marginally entertaining in a Robin Hood through the lens of 'Saving Private Ryan' sort of way. Generally slow and booring though, with (almost) nothing to do with the generally understood legend. It felt like 'Gladiator' with none of the style and less of the interest in the characters. Like one of the other user reviewers, one of the few movies that has had me checking my watch within 30 minutes. Expand
  71. 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
  72. 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 felta 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
  73. Sep 21, 2010
    5
    Robin Hood is okay movie,but it wasn't as good as the other Robin Hood films that expect it. The only problem is that why does Russel Crowe has a short haircut,just like him in Gladiator that is just the same character? Why does the characters are so over the top being so serious,it doesn't seem as possible like other Robin Hood characters? The action scenes are pretty good,but the missRobin Hood is okay movie,but it wasn't as good as the other Robin Hood films that expect it. The only problem is that why does Russel Crowe has a short haircut,just like him in Gladiator that is just the same character? Why does the characters are so over the top being so serious,it doesn't seem as possible like other Robin Hood characters? The action scenes are pretty good,but the miss part is that the action scenes are way too violence,slow motion that i wasn't so cool,and has too much edge scenes like the other Ridley Scott films. Only the original Robin Hood from the 30's more better than this,so just stick it to the original. It's almost short like the other 90's Robin Hood with Kevin Costner. But this movie wasn't much too special for me. Expand
  74. Aug 18, 2010
    10
    What a let down. Russell Crowe just seems to get worse in every film he's in. He peaked in LA Confidential and Gladiator but since then its been all down hill. THis film was jsut another reminder of that. The story line was mediocre, the acting, wooden and the dialogue, boring.

    A generous 6/10
  75. Oct 13, 2010
    10
    A great movie from beginning to end. I am guessing that the majority of people that didn't like it probably just didn't understand it, because it is deeper and more complex than previous goofy versions of robin hood. Definably watch this movie, but really pay attention to it, otherwise you probably wont get it.
  76. Nov 10, 2010
    5
    I didn't really care for it, was quite a long movie and it just never seemed to peak, it was just kinda flat the whole way through. I was really expecting more.
  77. 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.
  78. Dec 4, 2010
    10
    Tied for best movie of 2010 for me with Inception.

    Director Ridley Scott does a masterful job of bringing the legend of Robin Hood to relief life. Much like Christopher Nolan does with Batman in Batman Begins, this prequel to the Robin Hood legend is wonderful in setting the stage for future movies. Well done. Also the director's cut fills in the gaps for a LOT of the question marks I had
    Tied for best movie of 2010 for me with Inception.

    Director Ridley Scott does a masterful job of bringing the legend of Robin Hood to relief life. Much like Christopher Nolan does with Batman in Batman Begins, this prequel to the Robin Hood legend is wonderful in setting the stage for future movies. Well done. Also the director's cut fills in the gaps for a LOT of the question marks I had in the theater. It's a MUCH WATCH!
    Expand
  79. 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!!!!
  80. 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
  81. 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
  82. Sep 29, 2012
    5
    Mediocre, tepid, clichéd, trite. Despite having some actors whose work I usually enjoy (William Hurt, Max von Sydow), the film is littered with historical inaccuracy to the point of ridiculousness, characterization is very poor to non-existent but has some nice cinematography. Above all, for what it is, it drags on far too long. Good to riff over in a MST3000K style though.
  83. 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 inThe 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
  84. 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.
  85. 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.
  86. 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.
  87. Nov 7, 2012
    5
    Robin Hood is visually brilliant and professionally acted. Ridley Scott is an expert of his craft and I look forward to each of his films; however, I do have one issue with Robin Hood. It's a bore.
  88. RobertG.
    May 16, 2010
    8
    Definitely entertaining prequel to this legend best known for robbing the "evil" rich and giving to the "good" poor. Scott chronicles a plausable story about man's search for effective governance which embraces a more fair judicial system, introducing Robin as the son of one of the persecuted authors of what eventally became the Magna Carta. Hey, it's a little twisted, but I Definitely entertaining prequel to this legend best known for robbing the "evil" rich and giving to the "good" poor. Scott chronicles a plausable story about man's search for effective governance which embraces a more fair judicial system, introducing Robin as the son of one of the persecuted authors of what eventally became the Magna Carta. Hey, it's a little twisted, but I found myself thoroghly entertained by the cast and film making. I was motivated to look into the history of that time. Expand
  89. MaxA
    May 17, 2010
    8
    It's definitely not one of my favorite Scott movies, but its better than quite a few. It takes a certain kind of person to enjoy the movie for what it is, and clearly, most of the critics reviewing the movie don't know anything about the historical background of the era, and just want to see a fun Robin Hood like they did back in the 90's. If you know you're stuff, see It's definitely not one of my favorite Scott movies, but its better than quite a few. It takes a certain kind of person to enjoy the movie for what it is, and clearly, most of the critics reviewing the movie don't know anything about the historical background of the era, and just want to see a fun Robin Hood like they did back in the 90's. If you know you're stuff, see it, you will enjoy it. Expand
  90. BenC
    May 18, 2010
    8
    Far from Ridley Scott's best films, but still an excellent watch. Great balance of humor, action and story telling, definitely worth an Orange Wednesday at least.
  91. CS.
    Jun 7, 2010
    7
    An original idea, sprinkled with grit and historical research as Scott likes to do so often. I genuinely liked how it was a prequel, making it an unexpected experience that I found enjoyable. Battle scenes should have been bloodier, as this was clearly not a family film, and would have helped realism. The performances are quite good, and Crowe suits his role as the archer well, although An original idea, sprinkled with grit and historical research as Scott likes to do so often. I genuinely liked how it was a prequel, making it an unexpected experience that I found enjoyable. Battle scenes should have been bloodier, as this was clearly not a family film, and would have helped realism. The performances are quite good, and Crowe suits his role as the archer well, although some critics see his take on the character as 'wrong'. How can a personal interpretation be wrong? Anyway, quite enjoyable I thought. Marian's appearance in the end battle completely ruins a film that would otherwise be enjoyable and realistic from start to end. Not bad, Mr Scott, but we all preferred Gladiator. Expand
  92. AshishK
    May 14, 2010
    7
    Good movie, decent cast and script. Not as serious as Gladiator from which comparisons may be drawn. Last 5 minutes blatent Hollywood money-spinning though.
  93. RyanC
    May 14, 2010
    7
    Blanchet and Crowe re very good. The story line is interesting. It lacks somewhat in script but definitely worth seeing.
  94. LisaC
    May 14, 2010
    9
    The movie was fantastic, and well-received by the audience I was with. Great casting, dialogue, snide remarks about the French. I loved it.
  95. J.Brew
    May 15, 2010
    9
    This story tells the tale of how RobinHood became an outlaw. It is not telling the same ole story we've all seen before. Russel C. and Cate B. are great actors and this movie is worth the price of admission.
  96. JohnR
    May 16, 2010
    7
    Nice scenery. Good acting and character development. Exciting battle scenes. Somehow seemed to slow.
  97. JimG
    May 16, 2010
    9
    I liked it - I think the message reflects current US public sentiment towards their "leaders".
  98. May
    May 16, 2010
    6
    The production is fine, the performance too, but there is something that makes you go out the cinema.
  99. NateB.
    May 17, 2010
    7
    Certainly not perfect nor one of Scott and Crowe's best works, "Robin Hood" is still very entertaining and stunningly well made. This is a darker take on the Robin Hood folk story, but it still has its witty moments and goofy parts that stop it from being completely serious and gloomy. It has its lengthy parts that'll make you check your watch, corny if not laughable dialogue, Certainly not perfect nor one of Scott and Crowe's best works, "Robin Hood" is still very entertaining and stunningly well made. This is a darker take on the Robin Hood folk story, but it still has its witty moments and goofy parts that stop it from being completely serious and gloomy. It has its lengthy parts that'll make you check your watch, corny if not laughable dialogue, and convolution within the story, but for the most part, I enjoyed this new "Robin Hood". Three stars out of four. Expand
  100. JakeB
    May 18, 2010
    10
    Thought it was great.
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.