User Score
6.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 312 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 53 out of 312
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. Jan 3, 2014
    4
    A Adaptação de Ridley Scott de um dos heróis mais interessante da história fraca, sem rumo e desgastante, não vale muito a pena ver uma droga enorme...
  2. Nov 16, 2013
    4
    As bland as can be. I really can't say too much about Robin Hood, it's just nothing.

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

    Don't waste your time, don't see it. I dunno what Ridley Scott is doing nowadays, but he's falling off, that's for sure.
  3. Jun 2, 2013
    6
    It was good, but completely disappointing for Robin Hood! This just leaves me asking, are they going to make a sequel? If not why even bother making this? It can work as Robin Hood Origin but needs a sequel.
  4. Nov 28, 2012
    6
    It's decidedly overlong and often boring, but thanks to some memorable performances it is pretty delightful.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Sep 25, 2011
    5
    Epic, but what's the point of it?
  8. May 12, 2011
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. From what I saw in the trailers for this film, I was expecting a fast-paced action flick. Sadly, the movie is far from it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    If you are a fan of the legend, this is going to disappoint you. If you are new to the legend, I would suggest the superior BBC television series that ended about a year before this movie came out, and all three seasons of that version would be a better addition to your Netflix queue or your personal DVD/Blu-Ray collection. The BBC series has more interesting depictions of the main cast of characters, and is more family-friendly.
    Expand
  9. Jan 12, 2011
    6
    A new breed of Robin Hood from The Father of ALIEN (1979), Ridley Scott. Robin Hood as we knew before was decorous outlaw and great archer with tight pants, to rob the rich and gave it to the poor. I know Scott wants his version of Robin Hood to be different. He was described with different haircut and beard. In fact, Russell Crowe performed the character precisely with his previousA new breed of Robin Hood from The Father of ALIEN (1979), Ridley Scott. Robin Hood as we knew before was decorous outlaw and great archer with tight pants, to rob the rich and gave it to the poor. I know Scott wants his version of Robin Hood to be different. He was described with different haircut and beard. In fact, Russell Crowe performed the character precisely with his previous character in GLADIATOR (2000), only different in outfit (pay attention on his attitude and body language). Cate Blanchett as Marion was not in bad performance. Blanchett, I monitored always gave extraordinary performances in almost all her films. I think for her to involve in thiz epic was a waste of talent. The famous eternal-villain of Robin Hood (as we knew), Sherrif of Nottingham (Matthew MacFayden) was not in focus by limiting his proportion on thiz film. In his stead was two-face traitor named Godfrey played by Mark Strong. In my opinion, he played the best performance in overall, along with William Hurt as King John chancellor. Mark Strong had been built a great villain image during these couple of years, a fine Gary Oldman substitute who also best known as convincing villain. The movie actually attached with unique and tremendous score. The final battle on thiz movie, I described it as Omaha Beach Attack in medieval version. It is like what we saw on opening battle in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998), only with arrows and swords. The last four movies directed by Scott brought Crowe as his main character (include thiz one). It is also the fifth since their successful collaboration in GLADIATOR. Crowe never shows a lame performance. But once again thiz is really a copy-paste from Scott GLADIATOR, same Crowe acting, it is also about a warrior comes home after patriotic battle and a rebellion toward greed king and same conflicts too. Last time we saw Kevin Costner ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THIEVES (1991), we brought home some memorable moments and its soundtrack still echoes until now. If public can accept thiz movie as a fair and fine movie, do not blame them (Scott and Crowe) if they back again to offer you another typical ones with same Scott directing and same Crowe acting either, maybe other time with their version of Batman or James bond or whatever. Should we let them do it easily?

    Visit My Blog on JONNY'S MOVEE on : http://jonnyfendi.blogspot.com
    Expand
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. Oct 13, 2010
    6
    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.
  13. Oct 4, 2010
    6
    The action sequences did not stun, the story was not very entertaining and overall, it really wasn't that impressive. Only when Cate Blanchett's character is introduced does this film take off, slightly, and the comedic chemistry between her Marion, and Robin Hood, make this film enjoyable. Definitely one of Ridly Scott's weaker films, but even that doesn't mean that it's a dud.
  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. PeterJ
    Jun 23, 2010
    6
    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.
  18. 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.
  19. kgm
    Jun 5, 2010
    6
    This would be more properly titled
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. NK
    May 17, 2010
    4
    Unbelievably boring.
  24. May
    May 16, 2010
    6
    The production is fine, the performance too, but there is something that makes you go out the cinema.
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
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.