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.

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

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.

"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+

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 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

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.

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 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

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.

Awful...from beginning to end.

Great movie.

It may be a rip-off of Gladiator, but one of those good rip-offs.

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

Stunningly beautiful, lots of money of the screen, nice love story, but some very lame dialogue.

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.

Fantastic film! Great story and action!

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

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!

Great story, logical, people who gave it a bad review are morons.

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

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.

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.

This would be more properly titled

Great overall cinematography,a few holes in plot but not much to complain about. Beautiful violence.

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

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.

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!

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

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.

A Good adventure. Cate and Sydow are amazing!

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

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

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.

The cast perfect. It was fun and enjoyable and took my mind off of current events. Good wins overall in the movies.

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

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.

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.

Surprisingly good film epic.

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.

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

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.

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

Unbelievably boring.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

Great? No. Good? Yes. Formulaic? Definitely. But it is nowhere near as bad as the critics would have you believe. Its a fun throwaway.

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.

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

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Blanchet and Crowe re very good. The story line is interesting. It lacks somewhat in script but definitely worth seeing.

The movie was fantastic, and well-received by the audience I was with. Great casting, dialogue, snide remarks about the French. I loved it.

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.

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

Nice scenery. Good acting and character development. Exciting battle scenes. Somehow seemed to slow.

I liked it - I think the message reflects current US public sentiment towards their "leaders".

The production is fine, the performance too, but there is something that makes you go out the cinema.

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.

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

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

Thought it was great.

Very enjoyable from start to finish.

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.

I thought Robin Hood was great and plan on seeing it again. Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe have great chemistry. Though I did get a few Gladiator flashbacks, I thought the movie was a visual feast with a different take on what an epic movie is supposed to be. If you liked Avatar, this is NOT the movie for you. In my opinion, Avatar had good intentions and great special effects, but it was just a poor futuristic re-telling of Pocohantas. Robin Hood on the otherhand, puts a new spin on an old story. Some might complain that the line between fact and fiction is too blurred, but its a great movie nonetheless. Hope they make part two!… Expand

I found Robin Hood to be very entertaining. Ridley Scott is definitely a visual artist. I'm not sure what people's expectations were entering the theater, but I think the trailer was a good indication of what the movie would be like. If they expected a jovial Robin in green tights then this wasn't the film for them. Although not necessarily historically accurate, this version of the story was a lot more realistic than others I've seen. At least they didn't have King Richard riding back into England as a hero. The battle scenes were impressive, especially considering what the cast and crew went through to bring them to life. I enjoyed the romance between Robin and Marion and would like to see more of the story where it leaves off in Sherwood Forest. I would also like to see more of the Sheriff of Nottingham. Hopefully they'll make the sequel even though it seems like the American critics and top audience of teen boys prefer comic book heroes and computer graphics. RH seems to be doing very well in the rest of the world.… Expand

The low reviews of this movie are a testament to our growing need for sex,blood,and explosions. This film was well done. without any of that. This movie was entertaining. I find it hard to believe that some would go as far as calling this the worst film of the year. Go watch your comic book movies, leave the engaging stories to us adults.

The movie got much better (i.e., gained my interest ) once Robin got to Nottingam. I felt disengaged from the story and it's characters up until that point. But once he got there I enjoyed the movie and especially Ms. Blanchette. (She is always such a great actress in every movie she's in!) Left a HUGE cliff hanger at the end, so will be looking forward to the sequel! Now the fun for Robin Hood will REALLY begin!… Expand

OK, so the history is a bit wonky and director Ridley Scott gives us those same super-fast edit sword fights without a decent wide shot to enjoy, but its good historical entertainment and a vast improvement on recent versions. Its not a swashbuckler, like the Flynn version, but a nice history lesson - the opening siege of a French castle being especially well done.

Great plot, great action film, good entertainment. Slightly all over the place but it was...great.

In what mostly deserves a 7 because of the quick and formulaic ending, I will give this movie an 8 just to place it in contrast with other recent movies. I rely on movie reviews to keep my movie watching efficient. I knew something was wrong when I saw that half the critics like this movie and half don't. It's the same with the user tally. As it turns out, those who don't like this movie are the same types that are accepting of the Ironmanation of our movies. Quick thrills and movies about nothing. Anyway, if you like the long, historical, and epic type movies like Gladiator, Braveheart or the Elizabeth movies, watch this movie. It isn't the best one made, but it's better than another comic book movie. For the rest of you, Ironman 3 will be out soon enough.… Expand

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.

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.

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

Warning! Review contains plot points from the film. With the recent release of Robin Hood starring Russell Crowe, the oft told story of the merry archer returns to the big screen. That being the case, this not the same Robin Hood story that we are used to hearing. As has been the case with other movie franchises (i.e. Batman), this is a more morally ambiguous, postmodern Robin Hood. Far from the days of a merry marauder prancing around in green tights, this Ridley Scott rendition is much grittier showing the darker side and the vigilante nature of this well known hero. The story starts in France as the English army is on its way back from the Crusades. Robin is called on by King Richard to give his opinion on the army… Expand

Very enjoyable take on the Robin Hood legend.The cast played their parts very well and Scott's usual thematic style looked great as always.Also love the more serious take on this as opposed to the other Robin Hood movies.Certainly hope that more is on the way for the franchise.

I thought it was an above average movie, but still disappointed overall. I was expecting Gladiator all over again, and this wasn't even close. Still, it was okay for the most part. I saw it in the theaters and will probably even rent it on Blu-ray just to check it out again in 1080p.

For the last 588 years, a legendary story has been passed from generation to generation about a man, a man who stole from the rich and gave to the poor wit not thought to his own actions. This man is the most legendary of all folklore heroes in fact the most legendary of all heroes he is the man who inspire comic book like Batman, The Spirit and most notable of them all The Green Arrow. This man is called Robin Hood a fabled hero, a legendary archer who gave up his position in the high life to help the less fortunate. However, we do not know that for sure. Many people do believe that an archer who went by the name of Robin Hood did exist while others deny the fact that the man ever did exist and believed him to be nothing more than a folklore tale meant to scare the king's soldiers and the sheriff of Nottingham. Ridley Scott (director of Black Hawk Down, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Thelma and Louise and Blade Runner) takes the oft-told tale of one man and his band of merry men and how they took on the system, how they became legends. How they took the country of England by storm and made a lasting impression on the history books and time itself this film is the story of that man this film is the origin of "Robin Hood.â… Expand

I half-expected to hate this gritty and mostly serious "Robin Hood - The Beginning", but the 156 minutes of director's cut were very entertaining. A great cast was hampered by a somewhat formulaic script (and some silly musical interludes) but this latest Scott-Crowe joint was the best thing they did together since "Gladiator". Kate Winslet commands the screen in all her scenes (as usual), Mark Strong is a strong and terrifying arch-villain (as usual), Matthew MacFadyen and Oscar Isaac are deliciously funny and demented as Sheriff and Prince John and even Russell Crowe isn't annoying and gives an earnest performance. There isn't much swashbucklery and standing on boulders in tights going "a-ha-ha-ha-ha" Errol Flynn-style, but who knows, maybe they are saving that for "Robin Hood, part deux - The Outlaw Years".… Expand

Well, it is a good film. Nothing special, nothing out of the ordinary, just plain good. And, well, the title is somewhat deceiving. It is not really about Robin Hood per se, it is more about how Robin Hood became who he was. So, having different expectations of the film might turn people down, but I thought that it was just a good adventure drama, with a rather good cast. Unfortunately, I felt that Russell Crowe was miscast and Cate Blanchett wasn't really on her usual level. I guess that comes from a thinly written character, but nevertheless, not very impressive.

Still, rather entertaining, but as I said, nothing special, sadly. The ending, though, definitely calls for a sequel so this might be just the first installation in a series of Robin Hood adventures. Or not?… Expand

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

A decent Robin Hood movie. Although it mostly serious, I enjoy the little parts of humor with his Merry Men. There wasn't as much action as I expected, and that was quite disappointing. The trailers made it seem like an film with multiple epic battle scenes, but there wasn't fighting at all considering how much there could have been.

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