Universal Pictures | Release Date: May 14, 2010
6.2
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 338 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
178
Mixed:
106
Negative:
54
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
10
JohnD.Jul 6, 2010
Great movie.
1 of 3 users found this helpful
10
ConnieCMay 15, 2010
It may be a rip-off of Gladiator, but one of those good rip-offs.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
10
JoshEMay 18, 2010
Fantastic film! Great story and action!
1 of 2 users found this helpful
10
FUallMay 23, 2010
Great story, logical, people who gave it a bad review are morons.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
10
IvanC.May 15, 2010
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 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! Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
10
AnnT.May 15, 2010
A Good adventure. Cate and Sydow are amazing!
1 of 1 users found this helpful
10
RandyH.May 16, 2010
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, 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful
10
judithpMay 17, 2010
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!
0 of 1 users found this helpful
10
LaurenceIJun 19, 2010
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.
3 of 3 users found this helpful
10
JakeBMay 18, 2010
Thought it was great.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
Pete2584Aug 18, 2010
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, theWhat 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
Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
10
drarthurwellsSep 26, 2010
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.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
4 of 12 users found this helpful48
All this user's reviews
10
GarrSep 28, 2010
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 RusselI 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
3 of 6 users found this helpful33
All this user's reviews
10
lilkillpappyOct 13, 2010
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 thisA 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. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
10
Smills91Dec 4, 2010
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
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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
10
PvtJacksonDec 24, 2013
it's such a wonderful heart-touching story that i can't take my eyes off. This movie is undoubtedly superb, extraordinary thanks to the talented cast and the decent plot by legendary director Sir Thomas Ridley Scott. This film, you mustn't miss
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
mattsMay 28, 2010
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. 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful
9
VictorMMay 15, 2010
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.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
9
CalebK.May 15, 2010
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 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful
9
JohnSMay 20, 2010
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 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful
9
JalexDMay 24, 2010
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.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
9
KevinGJun 25, 2010
Surprisingly good film epic.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
9
LisaCMay 14, 2010
The movie was fantastic, and well-received by the audience I was with. Great casting, dialogue, snide remarks about the French. I loved it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
J.BrewMay 15, 2010
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JimGMay 16, 2010
I liked it - I think the message reflects current US public sentiment towards their "leaders".
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
PatGMay 19, 2010
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
RockSMay 21, 2010
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
MattchewOct 1, 2010
I went in expecting little, and was easily entertained to the best Robin Hood to date. Don't be fooled by the critic's reviews, this is a well thought out and enjoyable historical epic. At times it can be a bit contrived, but overall theI went in expecting little, and was easily entertained to the best Robin Hood to date. Don't be fooled by the critic's reviews, this is a well thought out and enjoyable historical epic. At times it can be a bit contrived, but overall the plot, characters, and especially theme ring true. It is an origin story and a re imagining of Robin Hood. One that he deserves. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
TheQuietGamerFeb 20, 2011
This movie acts as a way to tell you how Robin Hood became Robin Hood, it has great action scenes, interesting plot, some humor, and surprisingly likable characters, this is one I would recommend seeing.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
lowkey42oJan 2, 2012
I was pretty happy with this movie. It was well paced and written. Needs part II to finish. I've seen five diffrent tellings of the story and this was my favorite. Ridley Scott has a excellent record.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
choomtabi31Apr 29, 2016
I've watched a lot of Robin Hoods in my lifetime and buddy let me tell you this is the best yet..Awesome scenery, acting, directing.

Watch it online for free: https://www.primewire.ag/watch-315281-Robin-Hood
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
CTMay 17, 2010
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 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. Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful
8
jcMay 20, 2010
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. 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! Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
8
alanoJun 17, 2010
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.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
8
LDJun 1, 2010
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.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
8
JakeMMay 14, 2010
Great overall cinematography,a few holes in plot but not much to complain about. Beautiful violence.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
8
MeStillMeMay 14, 2010
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 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful
8
PamB.May 15, 2010
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 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. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
8
RobertG.May 16, 2010
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
andyKMay 17, 2010
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.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
8
MaxAMay 17, 2010
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
BenCMay 18, 2010
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
SusanMay 18, 2010
Very enjoyable from start to finish.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
SusanMMay 19, 2010
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
JasonJ.May 23, 2010
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
WillMay 31, 2010
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
Lopez17Aug 11, 2010
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 heroesFor 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
KundKSep 2, 2010
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)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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
CunningLinguistSep 13, 2010
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 RobinAlbeit, 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. Expand
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
8
gm101Apr 9, 2011
While not quite as good as "Gladiator," this movie still felt very reminiscent to the classic from the year 2000. Great action scenes and a fun ride overall.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
TokyochuchuAug 29, 2012
Robin Hood is a fine origins story from Ridley Scott. The film is eminently watchable from start to finish and feels both epic and slight at the same time. Is it as good as the the old Kevin Costner 'Prince of Thieves' movie, though? Not a chance!
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
FilmQueenOct 22, 2015
A quite interesting version of Robin Hood's legend. It's quite different from the original in a good way,because it didn't become boring and I didn't feel like I am watching the same story again, while they didn't destroy the story either.A quite interesting version of Robin Hood's legend. It's quite different from the original in a good way,because it didn't become boring and I didn't feel like I am watching the same story again, while they didn't destroy the story either. There is a lot of fighting and action going on and I especially loved that they involved a female character in the battle, it didn't seem like she was useless like in most films. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
JeffB.May 16, 2010
Stunningly beautiful, lots of money of the screen, nice love story, but some very lame dialogue.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
7
JamesH.May 16, 2010
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.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
7
ChadSMay 19, 2010
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 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful
7
DuaneH.May 16, 2010
Great? No. Good? Yes. Formulaic? Definitely. But it is nowhere near as bad as the critics would have you believe. Its a fun throwaway.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
7
HelenMMay 19, 2010
The cast perfect. It was fun and enjoyable and took my mind off of current events. Good wins overall in the movies.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
7
CS.Jun 7, 2010
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
AshishKMay 14, 2010
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
RyanCMay 14, 2010
Blanchet and Crowe re very good. The story line is interesting. It lacks somewhat in script but definitely worth seeing.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
JohnRMay 16, 2010
Nice scenery. Good acting and character development. Exciting battle scenes. Somehow seemed to slow.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
NateB.May 17, 2010
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
HollyRMay 21, 2010
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
WilliamW.May 22, 2010
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
BitBurnMay 22, 2010
Great plot, great action film, good entertainment. Slightly all over the place but it was...great.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
ErikHMay 27, 2010
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
smijatovAug 13, 2010
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, havingWell, 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
nboley08Aug 16, 2010
Big, loud, and dumb, but it is entertaining in its own darkly humorous way. For anyone looking for the chummy magic of the old Rovin Hood, you may want to look somewhere else, but for a very well handsome and thrilling action film, "RobinBig, loud, and dumb, but it is entertaining in its own darkly humorous way. For anyone looking for the chummy magic of the old Rovin Hood, you may want to look somewhere else, but for a very well handsome and thrilling action film, "Robin Hood" is fine entertainment. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
MovieLonely94Sep 5, 2011
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 namedIn 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
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
7
A_NorthernerJun 21, 2013
If the plot described above sounds nothing like any Robin Hood film or TV show you have seen before you would be right. This is Ridley Scott's story behind the legend. It's certainly a fresh take on the well known character and I think ScottIf the plot described above sounds nothing like any Robin Hood film or TV show you have seen before you would be right. This is Ridley Scott's story behind the legend. It's certainly a fresh take on the well known character and I think Scott should be applauded for not repeating the same story of Robin Hood and his band of merry men running amok in Sherwood forest. The true story of Robin Hood is shrouded in doubt and conflicting myths but I think that Brian Helgeland's (L.A. Confidential) screenplay probably stretches historical accuracy to the maximum you may expect of an American-produced film of a British myth.

That leads me onto my next point, the cast. Casting Russell Crowe as Robin, hmmm. Crowe brings a fairly stoic grittiness to the role but I can't help but feel that there were better options. The fact that Crowe is one of the films producers suggests his role as Robin was paid for. As angry as this may make Crowe, there is no denying that his accent in the film was plain off and seems to cover almost all UK regions at some point in time. With the exception of Mark Strong and Mark Addy, the cast is largely American and I found that frustrating as there are scores of British actors that could have played the likes of Little John, Will Scarlett and King Richard I at least as well as Danny Huston. Shows like Game of Thrones have shown that a largely British cast can deliver the goods. Cate Blanchett can be excused as I thought she was excellent as Lady Marian.

Towards the film's end I thought that the film began to morph into Kingdom of Heaven as Robin lead the British defence en masse against the French invasion force on the beaches of the South Coast. At this stage the story seemed to have veered too far away from the Robin Hood we know and love.

An alternative take on the much told story of one of Britain's favourite characters and one that is worth a watch even if the gritty nature of Robin and his story take away some of the fun and adventure that always been associated with the character.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
MrThehammer171Jul 30, 2013
How is movie anything under I wasn't expecting anything at of this movie I thought it was a Robin Hood movie using russel crows name and I was wrong I loved this movie it felt like a instint classic and I want more all the character in thisHow is movie anything under I wasn't expecting anything at of this movie I thought it was a Robin Hood movie using russel crows name and I was wrong I loved this movie it felt like a instint classic and I want more all the character in this movie where likable this movie is so under scored in my opinion this will be one of my most favorite movies Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
FilmClubMar 27, 2016
Ridley Scott’s grimly revisionist take on England’s most famous outlaw. Impressively made and serious-minded to a fault, this physically imposing picture brings abundant political-historical dimensions to its epic canvas, yet often seemsRidley Scott’s grimly revisionist take on England’s most famous outlaw. Impressively made and serious-minded to a fault, this physically imposing picture brings abundant political-historical dimensions to its epic canvas, yet often seems devoted to stifling whatever pleasure audiences may have derived from the popular legend.

While the film will earn immediate comparisons with 2004’s gritty, unromantic “King Arthur,” what Scott and scribe Brian Helgeland have attempted here is not too dissimilar from what Christopher Nolan and his collaborators pulled off with “Batman Begins”: They’ve fashioned a fresh origin story for a well-known hero and excised all the material’s potentially campy aspects in favor of a downbeat, detail-oriented realist approach.

To that end, there are tricky political allegiances and family ties to be sorted out; characters are as likely to be assaulted by speeches as by arrows; the French, though clearly perceived here as the enemy, are at least allowed to speak their native tongue; and every castle and forest must be painstakingly identified, to the point that “Robin Hood” comes to resemble a medieval “Bourne” movie as it darts hither and yon from Nottingham to the northern coast of France.

It’s 1199 A.D., and Robin Longstride (Crowe, who produced with Scott and Brian Grazer) is an honorable Briton and skilled archer in the crusading army of King Richard (Danny Huston) — who, in contrast to most versions of the story, appears at the beginning rather than the end. Fed up with their lot as soldiers, Robin and his men — who include a slimmer-than-usual Little John (Kevin Durand), contributing a few moments of bawdy humor — flee a battle with French soldiers shortly after Richard himself is killed in action.

A few skirmishes later, Robin finds himself in possession of the late monarch’s crown, which he bears back to London disguised as a knight of the realm, Sir Robert Loxley. Along the way, the film introduces its principal villains, although Richard’s cruel successor, John (Oscar Isaac), turns out to be a mere tool for his suspiciously bilingual adviser, Godfrey (chrome-domed Mark Strong, once again typecast).

While Godfrey sets the stage for a Gallic invasion, sabotaging John’s relations with the local barons and their ruthlessly overtaxed citizens, Robin nobly seeks out the family of the fallen Sir Robert. The journey leads him to Nottingham, where he meets the knight’s aging father, Sir Walter (Max von Sydow), and his widow, Lady Marion — no damsel in distress, but a dagger-wielding spitfire played with relish by Cate Blanchett.

The pairing of two such estimable actors as Crowe and Blanchett alone signals the film’s serious intentions, and as a perhaps inevitable consequence, Robin and Marion’s courtship is in no hurry to catch fire. Something similar could be said of the film, whose leisurely buildup rarely translates into a sense of intellectual vigor and pays few emotional dividends. Essentially 139 minutes’ worth of backstory, “Robin Hood” feels too long yet incomplete, and the events it leaves offscreen (for what, the sequel?) are precisely those that make the tale worth retelling.

Clearly a long way from Douglas Fairbanks and Errol Flynn (and, to no one’s complaint, Kevin Costner), pic can’t help but play like a joyless corrective to Robin Hood’s prior screen adventures, with their buoyant mix of wit, romance, green tights and derring-do. (This film offers mainly derring-don’t.) A certain nagging political correctness is also apparent, not only in the recasting of Blanchett’s Marion as a 12th-century feminist, but in the way Robin rebukes Richard and the folly of the Crusades, a scene that brings Scott’s “Kingdom of Heaven” to mind.

Among supporting players, Isaac channels “Gladiator’s” Joaquin Phoenix as a fey yet ruthless tyrant; Eileen Atkins serves up a formidable Eleanor of Aquitaine; William Hurt brings subtle shadings to the role of a chancellor in whom Robin finds a shrewd ally; and Matthew Macfadyen sneers his way through a few scenes as the Sheriff of Nottingham. But it’s von Sydow who gives the film’s most heartrending turn as a man trying to smother his grief with a boisterous fighting spirit.

Though heavier on talk than action, pic does boast some robust setpieces, amplified by Marc Streitenfeld’s urgent score and d.p. John Mathieson’s vertiginous crane shots, somewhat marred by distracting camera effects in an otherwise stylistically old-fashioned film. One must be grateful that Universal avoided the current blockbuster trend toward 3D, especially considering the eye-popping possibilities afforded by archery.

Other craft contributions are generally superb, though some touches, such as the illuminated manuscripts that serve as expository visual aids, only compound the film’s self-seriousness.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
DrewMay 15, 2010
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 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful
6
kgmJun 5, 2010
This would be more properly titled
1 of 1 users found this helpful
6
KonradT.May 16, 2010
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 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful
6
MayMay 16, 2010
The production is fine, the performance too, but there is something that makes you go out the cinema.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
PeterJJun 23, 2010
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
dijavantewowOct 13, 2010
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 multipleA 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
JudddyOct 4, 2010
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 herThe 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
JonnyFendiJan 12, 2011
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 HoodA 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
oblique15Jun 2, 2013
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Compi24Nov 28, 2012
It's decidedly overlong and often boring, but thanks to some memorable performances it is pretty delightful.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
AliceofXJul 15, 2016
In many ways it's a good film, quite fun at times. It certainly looks gorgeous. But in the end there's just too much dragging it down to be anything but mediocre. For one thing, what does this really have to do with Robin Hood? If anything,In many ways it's a good film, quite fun at times. It certainly looks gorgeous. But in the end there's just too much dragging it down to be anything but mediocre. For one thing, what does this really have to do with Robin Hood? If anything, it just seems like a ten episode historical drama series that got cut down to two hours, and someone inserted Robin Hood in it for some reason. It's drowning in a sea of characters, none of whom get enough screen time to be fleshed out, or even give one the ability to tell them apart. Plus the historical illiteracy, and the obligatory Christianity is evil narrative, and you have a film that will be enjoyed once and then never seen again. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
SculpPenMay 16, 2010
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 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
0 of 2 users found this helpful
5
GregMay 18, 2010
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
JamieCMay 26, 2010
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 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. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful
5
EggyGJun 11, 2010
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.
0 of 2 users found this helpful
5
DarkCriticSep 21, 2010
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 theRobin 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
0 of 5 users found this helpful05
All this user's reviews
5
RazvSep 22, 2010
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 andThe 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. Expand
2 of 6 users found this helpful24
All this user's reviews
5
Karl2000Oct 1, 2010
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 wouldFelt 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
5 of 6 users found this helpful51
All this user's reviews
5
LondonTrueloveNov 10, 2010
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
AlienSpaceBatsSep 29, 2012
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 toMediocre, 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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
grandpajoe6191Sep 25, 2011
Epic, but what's the point of it?
8 of 10 users found this helpful82
All this user's reviews
5
cameronmorewoodNov 7, 2012
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
EpicLadySpongeApr 4, 2016
Robin Hood is my first time I went "What was that?" in front of a movie. Just watch the original adventures of Robin Hood as that's more adventurous than this movie and Ridley Scott made an adventurous movie look dull and disappointing.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
NKMay 17, 2010
Unbelievably boring.
0 of 2 users found this helpful
4
LJHMay 27, 2010
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 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
0 of 2 users found this helpful
4
AndrewWMay 16, 2010
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, 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
0 of 2 users found this helpful
4
ArkonBladeNov 2, 2010
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 reallya 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
4
The_MOWMay 12, 2011
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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews