Robin Hood (2010) User Reviews (685)

How a strong 9+ becomes a 6- in just 30minutes.

[logadof · 6/10 · 14 May 2010]

I had very high expectations and who wouldn't? Ridley Scott directing a great adventure with a very solid cast and a high budget.

The movie didn't really start the way I thought it would. The pace was quite slow but very interesting, and I was gripped. The interaction between Robin and his fellow soldiers was quite believable and entertaining, and the story about the English crown succession was also nicely done.

The entire chapter about Nottingham and its citizens is also at a nice and slow pace, but its never dull. Von sydow is a pleasure to see as usual, and both Crowe and Cate Blanchett delivers. You just sit and smile, when things suddenly goes very very wrong...

It starts when Walter Loxley explains Robins past to him. The scene is rushed and it seems a bit far-fetched. Also the following scene when robin goes to the meeting of the barons. Ridley must at this time peeked at his watch and noticed that he let most of the movie pass without telling much, and start to massacre the script.

The Nottingham action scene is where it's starting to go seriously wrong. You can't really get to understand how Robin suddenly is in command of an army, and speaking to lords as their equal. Especially when they call him by his common name in a scene later. The pace is really off here too... Action scene-Action scene-Short grief scene- Love scene- And on horseback against the French again in a 5min gap. Set in contrast to the feelgood mode you were in this is a very rude awakening.

After this you are handed a fighting scene that is absurd in every way. The landing craft is from WW2 (what possible use does the landing bridge have on these boats?). The battle is a slaughter, the French never stand a chance(not very interesting).

When suddenly Marion appears on the beach with the local teenage runaways on ponies I just shake my head... why?! It's just stupid?! Also they seem to be trained by ninjas and easily takes on trained French soldiers.

There is an ending after, but its thrown together in five minutes.

In one line.

This movie had a lot of potential, but it's thrown away on hasted parts and plain stupid scenes.

A Very Dark And Different Take On A Familiar Story

[sddavis63 · 8/10 · 30 August 2011]

This is not exactly Robin and his merry men, nor is this Errol Flynn swashbuckling and laughing his way through merry old England as he gets his jollies battling the sheriff of Nottingham. No, this particular take on the story of Robin Hood is very different - like none you've ever seen before. Even the historical setting is changed from what's usually offered. Here, rather than waiting out the evil regency of Prince John and his minions until King Richard returns from the Crusades, Richard is already dead. His death comes very early on in the movie in battle in France. John is the King of England in this movie, and rather than an unselfish "robbing the rich to give to the poor" type character, Robin (actually in this movie Robin Longstride, who finds himself impersonating Robert of Locksley and becomes known as "Robin of the Hood") is a more complex character. I wouldn't say exactly noble - especially in the beginning - and his battle is not so much for the poor as it's a battle for the "rights" of the English people, as he eventually takes on what seems to be the fight to get John to sign what I assume is Magna Carta, and at least temporarily has to ally himself with John to help lead the defence of England against a French invasion.

The different historical setting is a bit disorienting to be honest - especially at first - but it also gives a degree of unpredictability to what's going to happen, and once you get a sense of where you are, when you are and what the fight is about it's easy enough to understand what's going on. Russell Crowe did a commendable job, I thought, in this alternate portrayal of Robin, and Cate Blanchett was most certainly a different kind of Marion. She's not the Maid Marion of legend. She's tough, she's a fighter, she goes into battle with the French - although not leading the battle, there's almost a Joan of Arc quality to her (minus the voice of God.) I was quite taken with Oscar Isaac as King John. He took the part and made it real. John came across as I would expect him to from the historical record - shifty and conniving, untrustworthy, quite willing to make and break whatever alliances are necessary at any given moment to ensure his survival as King and sometimes quite befuddled by his responsibilities. Perhaps a weakness was the fact that there was no real focus on Robin's men. Really only Will Scarlett (played by Scott Grimes) and Friar Tuck (played by Mark Addy) were significant elements in the story, and even they weren't particularly important.

The sets and setting were good. This felt like I imagine England in the late 12th-early 13th centuries would have felt like. Rough, brutal, dirty. It worked for me. The battle scenes (and there are a lot of them) are very well done. Since the movie ends with the caption "And so the legend begins" one wonders if a sequel might be in the works, perhaps detailing the struggle leading up to the actually signing of Magna Carta? If so, I'd definitely watch it. This was quite good! (8/10)

Solid, but not great

[oephyx · 7/10 · 12 May 2010]

Solid is the keyword. From the screenplay, to the cinematography and the performance, the film is based on solid grounding. Indeed, we couldn't imagine less from the people assembled on the project. And the first signs are indeed good, starting as an origin story that traces Robin's steps returning from the Crusades and arriving in Nottingham. The plot is immediately both compelling and fresh with regards to the well known tale.

The first problem we run into is that the film never allows itself to linger. This creates two problems: the sense of purpose it reaches for through urgency has a tendency to be lost to aimlessness, and the characters never have the space to generate real depth of emotion.

Imagine only this: Russel Crowe, Cate Blanchett and William Hurt together have collected three Oscars, and an additional nine nominations. Yet it it's hard to lavish praise on their performances, because they never manage to inspire empathy as well as we might wish. The sense of urgency - of imminent physical danger to their person, of the crucial importance of their quest - never quite strikes home.

The screenplay doesn't always help them. It attempts to give the tale a strong moral foundation, by associating it with burgeoning democratic ideals in feudal Britain, unconvincingly: suspension of disbelief failed this reviewer.

For both these reasons, the epic sense of greatness that saturates Mr. Scott's similar works never works in this one. Indeed, in the anticipated climax of the battle, slow motion shots fall flat, and emotion never reaches an expected high, in spite of the film's competence in the action scenes.

This is a work that strangely echoes others, as well. People will be drawn to comparisons with Gladiator; these aren't particularly relevant beyond Russell Crow's similar (yet less engaging) performance. Rather, Robin's journey from the crusades and through England, in which he prospers on fateful luck and earned respect, copies Ridley Scott's own Kingdom of Heaven. In their themes and ambition these three films are alike, but Robin Hood doesn't thrive from the comparison. Where flaws are shared, what made the other two great is oddly lacking in this latest historical epic from the director.

Entertaining...

[under8 · 7/10 · 7 September 2010]

This is my first review for IMDb inspired by the long dissertation on how disappointing this Robin turned out to be.

I, on the other hand believe that all the buggers did a fine & entertaining job. It certainly is no Citizen Kaine & if this Robin Hood does become a trilogy, I do not think it will fair as well as The Lord of the Rings trilogy. One can hope that this Robin Hood will only improve as did TLOTR. Time will tell...

As stated, the movie was entertaining. As a prequel it set the story to come rather well. It did run a bit long but it is after all, a large tale. As anyone who has ever had a favorite book turned into a film knows, that film rendition is simply not going to have the nuance that one gets from reading a book at your on pace & with your own vision. So many are so disappointed by the lack of that nuance that they simply cant relax & enjoy the vision of a master director such as Ridley Scott.

It is your loss if you go into this movie with unreasonable expectations that will keep you from enjoying this film.

I give this movie a 7 of 10. There were, IMO a few CGI flaws & a few slow moments. If the tale continues I hope to see more development among the minor characters.

A last thought, if this is the only segment of any proposed trilogy, then this movie is able stand alone.

Too long in places doesn't hurt an otherwise enjoyable film

[lekgolah · 7/10 · 18 June 2010]

If you have seen Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut then you will undoubtedly enjoy Robin Hood. While it may not be as bloody as Kingdom of Heaven, the action still remains exciting and brutal. People who have not seen that film will be disappointed by the lack of action and scenes that are too long.

While I found the film to be exciting, I couldn't help but realise that this would have been great if it was a 15 (UK age certificate) rather than a 12a. The first action sequence is great as English soldiers attack a French castle but it felt restricted that you would never see any blood when someone is killed; a soldier is shot in the neck by an arrow but other than the arrow, they look completely fine. Early on a character dies but from the way it was edited, you would never have known. A film where the violence is as savage and as brutal as this, requires you to feel as if the characters are in great danger.

A lot has been said about Russell Crowe and his acting in the film but I found little to complain about. He suited his role well. The supporting cast including Mark Strong, Cate Blanchett, Max von Sydow, William Hurt, Kevin Durand and Oscar Isaac are fantastic. They are all completely immersed into their roles. I never felt that someone else could have been casted instead.

The cinematography is also really good but if only it was not let down by the editing. As a sword or axe is flung towards an enemies head, it cuts straight after the impact, loosing a sense of realism. The hurts the film much later on in the final action sequence.

The film maintained my interest and the final action sequence was exciting. This is a film worth watching but if you are expecting the next Gladiator, I suggest waiting for the director's cut on DVD/ Blu-ray.

Good, but the sequel can be great.

[jandcmcq · 7/10 · 14 May 2010]

I enjoyed this movie and was impressed by the amount of detail Ridley Scott puts into his productions.

Yes, it could have been better and I think some of the areas where it failed to meet the excellence of Gladiator were:

* Plot – too convoluted, better to keep it simple and the hate more intense between the goodies and the baddies. * Character development – there was virtually none for the Merry Men. If Little John, Will Scarlet and co are in the movie, please give them something meaningful to say. * Editing - I think the movie fell down in this area and the narrative seemed stunted and disjointed at times. Perhaps the material was not just there in the first place? * A lack of passion – Russell Crowe in particular was too low key in his role but was not the only one. And Russell, I did get confused at times as to what part of old England you came from.

But there were some that put much more into it such as Cate Blanchett and Max Von Sydow (good to see this great old actor can still perform) and the movie did have many good points. It was certainly a lot different to what I expected and some of the sets and scenes were outstanding. Watch for the dazzling credits. Looks from the ending there will be a sequel and with a few improvements, I think it can be great.

Promising Start To New Robin Hood Adventure

[changmoh · 7/10 · 9 May 2010]

Forget everything you know about Robin Hood and his Merry Men of Sherwood Forest. Wipe away images of those Men In Tights robbing the rich and helping the poor, the pretty damsel Maid Marion, Little John and the dastardly Sheriff of Nottingham. The legend of Robin the Hood gets an overhaul by Ridley Scott and writer Brian Helgeland - and you can hardly recognise the bones of the legend until you get to the end of the movie.

Like "The Dark Knight", "Iron Man" and others, this is another origin movie that sees director Scott teaming up again with Russell Crowe 10 years after Gladiator!

Helgeland's tale deals with the adventures of Robin Longstride (Crowe), an archer in the Crusading army of Richard the Lionheart, long before he is known to all and sundry as Robin Hood. During a battle against the French, Robin learns of the 'death' of King Richard and sees it as an opportunity to flee from the army. On his way back to England, he chances upon the critically injured Sir Robert of Loxley (Douglas Hodge) and promises the dying knight that he will take a sword back to his father, Sir Walter Loxley (Max Von Sydow).

At Sir Walter's home near Nottingham, Robin meets Robert's faithful widow Marion (Cate Blanchett) and accepts Sir Walter's proposal to masquerade as Robert, his 'prodigal son'. This means getting involved with the Loxleys' problems like over-taxation by the town's sheriff (Matthew Macfadyen) and helping to protect them from pillaging attacks by King John's emissary Godfrey (Mark Strong.

Early reports about the script suggested that Robin Hood was supposed to be a villain and the Sheriff of Nottingham the hero. This proved to be false because Scott seeks to be faithful to English history in this re-imagining of the folklore (mostly told in ballads). Indeed, Scott spends a lot of time on the political intrigues of King John's (Oscar Isaac) court involving Godfrey, William Marshall (William Hurt) and the Queen, painting a realistic and vibrant portrait of 12th Century England.

In fact some of the scenes remind me of the TV series, "The Tudors", which had a handful of the same co-stars and extras. And that beach landing sequence is definitely reminiscent of the World War Two landings at Normandy!

Anyway, with Crowe and Blanchett in the lead, we can always expect powerful performances and rousing scenes of battles and romance. Even though Blanchett's Marion is no maiden, it is easy to root for her because she is as feisty as she is attractive and very handy with a bow and arrow. As for Crowe, it is easy to dismiss his performance as Gladiator Maximus in tights but that may not be accurate. What I would have wished for was for more humour than those provided by Mark Addy's Frair Tuck and Scott Grimes' Will Scarlet. Still, we can look forward to more adventures of the famous archer in the sequels. - By LIM CHANG MOH (limchangmoh.blogspot.com)

Robin Hood Big Scale

[shenamere · 8/10 · 6 December 2021]

Many have complained that this version is like Gladiator Part 2. Could be, but maybe Robin Hood was more than just a flamboyant character first played by Errol Flynn. Whole armies fight, Robin leads the way and CGI takes over where the gaps appear. It works very well if you can get past the scale issue. There is nothing like an English long bow to even the score!

Shhh...you're so pretty, don't talk

[airguitar57 · 7/10 · 19 June 2010]

Ridley Scott returns to familiar territory with Robin Hood. Obviously comfortable in the period setting of the film, Scott looks to reignite the flame of good old Mr. Hood. The story, more a reimagining than a retelling, is a weak point in a film that succeeds in taking the audience on an entertaining ride.

Robin Hood takes a cue from Batman Begins and Casino Royale, and looks to provide an origin story. Starting on the field of battle, Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) is an archer in King Richard the Lionheart's (Danny Huston) English army. Following a successful day of battle, Robin unwinds with his compatriots Will Scarlet (Scott Grimes), Allan A'Dayle (Alan Doyle) and Little John (Kevin Durand). After Robin reveals his true thoughts concerning the Crusade to the King himself, Robin, Will, Allan and John land in the stocks and are forced to sit out the next day's battle. During the battle, the King catches an arrow in the throat and before dying entrusts the return of his crown to Sir Robert Loxley (Douglas Hodge). Robin and his men are freed from the stocks by a young boy and set out to return home. At the same time, the King of France plots to conquer England by enlisting the help of Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong). Godfrey, an Englishman with French allegiance, along with a horde of French soldiers ambush the Royal Guard. Robin and his men happen upon the ambush as it occurs and fight back, killing many while Godfrey escapes. Robin goes to Sir Robert Loxley whose last dying wish is for his sword to be returned to his father. The film then follows Robin as he returns to Loxley's home of Nottingham with the impending French onslaught looming over England's shoulder.

The story of Robin Hood can be complicated, and unnecessarily so. To rewrite such a classic story is a daunting task, one that should only be done with good reason, something the film fumbles in trying to present. The beginning of the film sets itself up to craft a different story, giving the audience hope, but becomes tired of the task and takes an easier and more predictable path. Characters are quickly introduced and rarely given depth. I imagined at one point that the writers had a Robin Hood checklist that they were going down during their process; Little John, check, Friar Tuck, check, Sheriff of Nottingham, check. In the way of story, the film brings nothing new to the table.

There are few who can do a period piece as well as Ridley Scott. Having already proved himself with Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven, Scott continues to show his cinematic eye for this genre. With the help of cinematographer, and frequent Scott collaborator, John Mathieson, the film is shot to make you feel the landscape. Each shot has such an authenticity that the audience can nearly smell the earthiness of old England. Then Scott stages action scenes amongst this terrain. If I could ask one thing of the film, it would be for more action scenes. Almost balletic in their presentation, both swords and arrows grab you by the throat and refuse to let go until the battle is over. This may not be your favorite Robin Hood, but it is without a doubt the most exciting.

Although it suffers from a lackluster story and nearly non-existent character development, Robin Hood is no waste. Shot in such a way that suggests a true love of the period, the film will consistently keep your eyes interested. Scott shows artistry in his composure of action, if only there were more of it. Robin Hood has its faults but never fails to entertain.

A disaster of a movie

[justin55839 · 3/10 · 15 May 2010]

I went to see Robin Hood with an open mind. I didn't read any of the reviews, I didn't watch any of the previews, and early on I thought that it was a pretty good film with a few loose ends that would surely be wrapped up by the ending. I was wrong. Nothing got wrapped up and there were so many plot holes and loose ends that left this movie a disaster of a film. Here are just a few examples:

1) Who are the kids in the forest with The Strangers masks on their faces?

2) What happened to Prince John's first wife? We see her looking through a keyhole at her husband in bed with another woman but that's it. John tells his mother that he has written to the pope seeking an annulment but his mother tells him that it will never be granted. So… happened to her?

3) Early on, the priest who is leaving Nottingham to deliver the grain tells Marion Loxley that she can't have the grain because "she reaps what she sows." What did Marion Loxley, other than conveniently leaving all her grain in a storage shed outside the main walls, do to deserve this "reap what you sow" punishment?

4) Robin comes to Nottingham and schemes with the Loxley's to pretend to be Robert Loxley who has been gone for 10 years. No one in the village catches on so we are to believe that EVERYONE in Nottingham either a) are new to Nottingham and didn't know Robert Loxley before he left or b) conveniently forgot what Robert Loxley looked like?

5) Robin tells us that his motivation for returning to England is to seek land and fortune. He's there to take advantage of the situation. Marion Loxley has him sleeping on the floor with dogs and they have no apparent relationship other than keeping up with the scheme that Robin is Robert Loxley. Why then does Robin go out of his way and risk life and fortune to help Marion get her grain back?

6) Robin gets the grain back and we see a small group of them casually tossing the grain around on the ground. When Marion Loxley wakes from her afternoon nap Robin tells her that her fields have been planted… all 5,000 acres??

7) If you want to remember forgotten things from your childhood all you have to do is close your eyes and vivid flashbacks will suddenly appear.

8) The French had landing craft Saving Private Ryan style in the 12th century?

9) We see an army of horsemen riding fast through the mountains to get to the beach to meet the French landing craft. Before they go down to the beach they decide the horsemen will ride to the beach and foot archers will fire from the cliff side. What archers? In the battle scene we see thousands of arrows striking down the French on the beach? Where did they come from because they obviously didn't ride in with the horsemen? Did they fly in on helicopters?

10) Before the battle on the beach against the French I thought, "This is going to be a slaughter." It was. That is supposed to be interesting how?

11) Where is England's standing army? You know… the tens of thousands of men in red uniforms with swords, bows and arrows, cavalry, pikes, and all that shiny equipment like we saw in the movie Braveheart?

12) We see Prince John an arrogant young man with a mistress in his bed early in the movie, then he confidently fires William Marshal and sets Godfrey off to the north with an army to collect taxes. Then when civil war "unexpectedly" sets off Godfrey is suddenly "not the friend that he thought he was" and John seeks to unify the angry mob because England conveniently doesn't have a standing army. Robin interrupts the meeting, gives a little speech, and they all ride off to war together. Then before the beach battle scene we see that John is useless because although he is suppose to be leading the army he doesn't know how to place the troops and instead relies on William Marshal to make a battle plan. In the battle we see that John is just a bumbling idiot, swinging his sword around randomly even after the battle is over. But in the VERY next scene we see that John is confident again, going against his word to sign the charter and declaring Robin to be an outlaw. Will the real King John please stand up?

13) Somehow on the battle on the beach, even though they were just fighting victoriously along side one another, we are supposed to believe that King John is jealous of Robin because the French surrendered to him? King John asks William Marshal, "Who did the French surrender to?" and William Marshal points to Robin. The thing is, it seemed to me that the French didn't surrender to anyone. The King of France ordered his boat to turn around so they could "fight another day". Was the whole "they surrendered to Robin" just thrown in to move the plot along?

14) How did King John determine that Robin was lying about his identity?

15) What is the motivation for the kids with The Strangers masks on their faces? Early on they are evil looking thieves who steal the grain from Marion Loxley but by the end of the movie they are little ninja warriors on ponies fighting not just alongside Marion, but being led by her.

This Is Not The Myth You're Looking For

[MikeNTxs · 10/10 · 15 September 2019]

If this is the first thing you read, take my advice: until you have watched the movie, don't read the reviews (except maybe this one) and don't read the trivia. That will only spoil the movie for you.

And there is a teeny tiny maybe-spoiler in the last sentence. I'll warn you.

I rarely give less than a 5 (Meh. They tried and it could've been worse) or more than a 9 (Nothing is perfect), but I'm giving this film a 10.

Why?

Viewing time is precious, and I'm always in a state of triage on my DVR. After putting off this film for literally weeks, being attracted only by bits I'd glimpsed while scanning movie channels, I found it to be surprisingly gripping and a surprisingly speedy 140 minutes.

It is a total re-imagining of the legend in which only characters may be familiar. I think this is the source of the most negative reviews. So, if you're looking for a traditional telling, gird your loins for something completely different.

For me this was not a bad thing. It meant that every predictable turn of the tale was actually not. I found myself enjoying that frequent surprise.

Many reviews talk about this actor's range being limited or that actor being under-utilized. I would ignore that.

I'm my opinion, this movie does what a movie should do. It engages the viewer from the start, because it starts in unexpected ways. It tells a familiar myth in ways that are unexpected but not off-putting. It ends in a small surprise. (This is why many reviewers ravage the last 20-30 minutes).

Is the movie flawed? Certainly. Some historical liberties taken? Sure.

Is it fun in startling ways and an overall i regretted way to spend that140 Minutes? Absolutely. And that's why I'm giving it a 10.

Suspend your disbelief and have a good time.

The spoiler? Next line.





It sets itself up for a potential sequel.

Decent movie but not Ridley Scotts finest hour

[chrichtonsworld · 6/10 · 7 September 2010]

When I read that this Robin Hood was less action orientated I was a bit worried. What on earth for story is there to be told that we haven't seen in the other movies about Robin Hood. The answer is nothing.This version wants us to believe that Robin Hood is so much different than the Robin Hood we know. And while it is indeed refreshing to see this take on it. For the overall story it hasn't the slightest effect. The story we are told is not new or even compelling. Luckily there are some great actors who compensate this mess of a story to give it some meat. Max van Sydow comes to mind as one of the highlights in the movie. Personally I enjoyed the movie but expected so much more especially when you compare this to Ridly's earlier work like Gladiator or Kingdom of Heaven. The action scenes were more than decent. Too bad there were so few of them. The lack of action has to be compensated with a better story otherwise what is the point.

Uninspired.

[lewiskendell · 5/10 · 5 March 2011]

"To be hunted all the days of his life, until his corpse unburied, is carrion for foxes and crows."

A few tips for getting the most enjoyment possible out of Robin Hood:

1. Forget that it's an adaptation of Robin Hood, entirely. Just pretend like it's a middling medieval drama/adventure movie starring Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett (who's spectacularly underused), with some very vague connections to the Robin Hood legend. Everything is changed about, added too, and embellished beyond recognition. There's nothing wrong with trying to put a fresh spin on an old tale (if it works), but you'll be greatly disappointed if you expect any more than loose connections to the well-known versions of the adventures of Robin Hood and his Merry Men. 

2. Don't expect Gladiator in England. Robin Hood desperately tries to be epic, sweeping, grandiose, and politically involving, but it doesn't come near the heights of the mega-popular, critically beloved Gladiator. It's not a bad movie, and you could enjoy it (if you keep your expectations at a reasonable level), but it's okay at best and deeply flawed at worst. Crowe doesn't put half the heart, passion, or effort into Robin Longstride that he did into Maximus. The characters are one-note and static, and the plot is overly-ambitious and needlessly complex. There is less than zero chemistry between Crowe and Blanchett. Robin's back-story was a contrived mess that added nothing to the movie except empty minutes to the running time. 

The main flaw with Robin Hood is that it's so preoccupied with being serious and deep, that it forgets to be fun. There's nothing wrong with trying to take a story like this in a more realistic direction, but there needs to be a rousing adventure at its heart. That's what's missing from this film. 

Robin Hood is a shadow of Gladiator. It's a shadow of Kingdom of Heaven, to be honest. But there are moments when the battles are raging and you forget that this is supposed to be Robin Hood, when it's an okay movie. My review seems horribly negative and that's not my intention - my expectations for this were just really high. It felt like Ridley Scott really didn't try all that hard, and the cast and crew followed his example.

Revisionist version based on the legendary character with breathtaking battles and great production values

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 16 August 2011]

Modern rendition with certain revisionism but with load of action and romance .In 13th century England, Robin and his band of marauders confront corruption in a local village and lead an uprising against the crown that will forever alter the balance of world power . Following King Richard (Danny Huston)'s death in France, archer Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) goes back to England. They find the dying Robert of Locksley (Douglas Hodge), whose party was attacked by a traitor who hopes to facilitate a French invasion of the British Islands by king Philip . Robin promises the dying knight he will go back his sword to his father Walter in Nottingham (Max Von Sidow) . Here Walter encourages him to impersonate the dead man to avoid his territory being confiscated by the crown, and he meets himself with Marian , a ready-made spouse. Meanwhile Sir Godfrey (Michael Strong) worms his way into the king's service as Earl Marshal of England and brutally invades villages under the pretext of collecting Royal taxes . The legendary Sherwood forest's hero Robin Locksly again and Lady Marian (Cate Blanchett) along with his Merrie men brought by Robin from the Crusades : Will Scarlett(Scott Grimes), Friar Tuck (Mark Addy)and Little John (Kevin Durand) facing off a wicked Sheriff of Nottingham (Matthew MacFadyen) . Story is based indirectly on historic events and is developed after third Crusade , Robin is serving in order of Richard Lion Heart(Danny Huston) later the conquering Acre . In route England Richard was captured by Leopold II of Austria and ransomed by his own subjects . Richard attempts to return England to put down a revolt against him but his brother John without Land takes over the kingdom with his underlings Sir Godfrey and Sheriff of Nottingham .

The movie has great action sequences well staged with stylish and vitality , adventure , romance and is pretty entertaining . Although is a little revisionist about characters , history and time when is developed the action in a dirty, gritty Middle Age , as spectators generally disapproved the changes of Robin Hood's classic canon . Years later of ¨Gladiator , Kingdom of heaven¨ films , director Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe re-teamed but with much bigger budget . The final product looked as although the actors learn the screenplay and decided the best issue was to take a good time and amuse themselves and both managed to stage some excellent action scenes . Great performances abound , as stalwart Russell Crowe is fine and Cate Blanchett is memorable and attractive , she comes up the film as a valiant and obstinate heroine . Special mention to treacherous Godfrey magnetically performed by Michael Strong and Oscar Isaac as evil and crazed king in a sensationalistic interpretation as Prince John .Despite the critics' complete and utter distaste for the film, I found it fun, well-acted, and fast-paced. There are great action sequences including the battle against an impressive fortress and the final confrontation at the climax of the film. Impeccable but dark cinematography by John Mathieson . Movie is shot on natural sets and English woods , beaches and interior scenarios with impressive production design. Magnificent and spectacular music by Mark Streintfeld.

The film is partially based on true events. Although Ivanhoe didn't exist, John Lackland was king of England from 1199 to 1216. Few monarchs have been subject to such appalling publicity as John . Although by no means lovable, he was an able administrator and spent more time in England than his predecessor and elder brother Richard I but he was jailed by Leopold of Austria, returning from Crusades. Being dead king Henry II , then Richard Lionheart was crowned until the third crusade (intervening along with Philip II and vanquished Acre) which was crowned John with no Land . The English domain over France will cause length conflict known the hundred years wars(1339-1453). Besides appears famous knight William Marshall well played by William Hurt . Robin Hood, also known Robin O'Locksley and the Earl of Huntingdom, is probably and sadly a creation of romantic imaginations . If Robin Hood did exist, it's almost certain that he was not a Saxon , though his enemies may well have been the Norman sheriff of Nottinghan and Prince and later king John Lackland.

Other versions about this famous personage are the following : ¨Robin Hood price of thieves (1991) ¨ by Kevin Reynolds with Kevin Costner , Alan Rickman and Morgan Freenan , the same year was exhibited ¨Robin Hood¨ by John Irvin with Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurman but was a flop though the critics considered best adaptation. The classic rendition is ¨The adventures of Robin Hood¨ by Michael Curtiz with Errol Flynn and Olivia De Havilland.

Pure Fantasy With Not Once Ounce Of Historical Fact

[galahad58-1 · 6/10 · 15 May 2010]

I really wish that I was writing a summary with a better outcome, but alas Robin Hood was a very mediocre film--at best. When one decides to make a picture about the past, they should at least familiarize themselves with the era to get some aspects correct about that time frame. While it is fantasy and a movie, it is nice to have some reality to the project. Saving Private Ryan and Titanic were historical fiction---they had fictitious characters in real situations and that appealed to audiences. Braveheart took a real character and added some Hollywood elements, but it kept the spirit of the character alive and thus made a nice film. Gladiator and Robin Hood did not bother to find anything remotely real about the time frame and made nothing spectacular.

Ridley Scott is so overrated. Scott's best days were his eye when he made Alien and Blade Runner---every film since then has been average to below average. Scott's best work was in his early years and it was in Science Fiction.

Russell Crowe just plays Russell Crowe. Cinderella Man was the one film where he dominated the screen and took the script to heart, but every other film he is just the same--himself---a violent, arrogant, self important person.

Robin Hood fails on many levels: -an arrow in those times was made with real feathers and could not fly when wet, yet Robin shoots a wet arrow through someone's neck who is hundreds of yards away -Robin is an archer. In those times the English archer was one of the most feared weapons and why England had so much power, but archers were not skilled swordsmen. So when Robin is charging the mounted knights it is absurd. Robin would have been on the ridge shooting his bow. Skilled knights and soldiers would have chopped him to bits in hand to hand combat.

-Royalty never ever ever were in the fields plowing the land. Thus Marion in the fields with a tan would be an outrage--since royalty covered themselves to maintain a white complexion. Tan complexions meant low born.

-There would be no way Marian would be able to lift a sword in battle. Swords were heavy and she would never have been able to go toe-to-toe with soldiers.

-It is impossible for Marian to be donning armor and riding into battle. She would not have had the strength to support the armor, yet alone move with all the weight.

Aside from all the Hollywood fantasies, the script was weak as can be--the acting was (Yawn) mediocre and the film was completely uninspiring.

It is sad that I would have to say that Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves had a better story, a better feel, and better performances. Alan Rickman was a marvel in Prince of Thieves and even Kevin Costner was a better Robin Hood than Russell Crowe---and that is sad.

Exciting and original take on Robin Hood

[provenelk · 7/10 · 12 May 2010]

First off, i want to say how refreshing it is for a big summer movie not to be on the band wagon of CGI or 3-D. At last a straight up movie not relying on any gimmicks!

Robin Hood delivers what it promises. Solid action, good narrative, and the inclusion of a bit of history with action between England and France gives the movie an added meat and almost realistic feel to it. The dialogue is a bit ropey at times, and Robin's "merry men" could have had a bit more screen time, but otherwise i see no major fault with this movie.

All in all a refreshing, exciting, fun, entertaining, nothing that you wouldn't expect from the pairing of Russel Crowe and Ridley Scott.

7/10

A;ll the "right" elements, but the result is disappointing

[pmalt · 19 June 2010]

I'm relieved to see that so many other reviewers felt as I did --- although I also feel for those who participated in this movie and gave their all. I write movies myself, and have been on the receiving end of a lousy review, both from viewers and critics, and it "hoits." Nevertheless, honesty is our best friend, and so I'll add my impressions as a viewer.

I'm an Anglophile (American but majored in English lit and have avidly read British authors and legends from earliest to present day.) I read a version of Robin Hood as a child, as did we all. And what I loved most about Robin and the Merry Men even then was the camaraderie, the rough humor and loyalty to larger ideals. I loved the intimacy and "smallness" of the story in its magnificent forest. It invited the reader in to live with Robin and his band. I believe that this is what has charmed through the ages: Robin was a rebel and a leader --- irreverent and good-humored and fearless; quick to fight and to forgive, a foe of hypocrisy and unfairness. A trustworthy comrade. A marksman par excellence. A risk taker for the fun and hell of it.

This movie delivered none of that. It left me unengaged. And yes, sadly, Russell is far too old to be the youthful rebel that Robin was. And Cate... well she might have been the mother of Maid Marian, but she too, sadly, was miscast in this and we lose her great talent in a role that's unsuitable and drawn with too-broad strokes. A middle-aged woman hurling threats of emasculation, that is such a turn-off and risible as well. Oy, made me cringe and flinch (and I'm female too).

Even as a prequel, I didn't buy the setting. Huge battlefields, castles, large farms... we lose the intimacy and the character. Robin was a forest dweller above all --- he knew forests that are long since sacrificed to the hunger for wood and war. That would have been a fascinating fantasy scenario for Ridley Scott to recreate; those ancient, almost unimaginable first-growth forests... but this movie was not about Robin the forest outlaw. I do understand but still take issue with that strategy.

The movie was structurally difficult to understand, if not downright incomprehensible. That smacks of a script that did not know where it was going and as a result got overworked. For me, creating a a script is like kneading bread dough. You have to stop at just the right moment. If you continue kneading, the dough gets tough, loses its flexibility, rises poorly and the loaf is tough and and heavy. So... throwing in huge battle scenes that the audience really has no investment in was a costly error.

I could not help but compare this to Gladiator, which many others have, apparently: why did that formula work and not this? You still have the misunderstood, heroic but unwilling warrior who would rather make love and plant his fields; the crafty and corrupt ruler and his minions, the betrayal, the battles and carnage; Russell Crowe showing prowess and perfect "fight faces" (that must strike terror into hotel employees worldwide); the love interest, smoldering sensuality plus a good heart...

Well, we all grew up with Robin Hood, whereas Gladiator was a completely fresh plot line. But in trying to make Robin Hood fresh, Scott sacrificed the essence of his hero.

Had I presumed to write this movie, I would have placed the band in the forest, their natural habitat, and told the story of how Robin got there only in brief, sharp and poignant flashbacks that gave insight into who he is now. I would have replaced those tiring battles with the intimate skirmishes that Robin was known for; tests of archery and cudgeling that we loved in the book. I would have beefed upthe roles of the Merry Men we all knew and loved, rather than creating new characters out of whole cloth --- like the blind patriarch whose son's identity "Robin" stole ...what was that about? All that face-feeling and havy-handed declaiming over a character nobody, including Robin or Marian even knew --- that original son... I'd rather have seen more of Friar Tuck or Little John...

Bold, well-done

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 7/10 · 14 May 2010]

This is a reinterpretation of the legend; I personally think we were due such. We've had plenty of reiterations of the widely accepted version(with that said, I haven't watched many of the movies; I can imagine the Flynn one to be one of the greatest), and, well, that's one of the two things we do with stories like that, we retell and we alter them, the latter usually leaving the mark(for better or worse) of the period in which it was changed. While I have not yet seen Gladiator, I can see a resemblance to what I've heard about it, and I agree that it does hurt the result; this does not feel as satisfying or self-contained as it could and should. Not all the plot lines and themes pay off. Other than that, I can think of relatively little to complain about; I do want to address what several have been saying, that there is not much action(especially early on). I disagree, I'd say there's a nice amount throughout, albeit it does not tend to last very long. The battle sequences are cool, with moments of awesomeness. This is exciting, and the camera-work sometimes puts you right in the middle of fights and the like. The editing and cinematography are marvelous, with grand, epic shots as well as the single most beautifully photographed firing of an arrow I've ever seen. At parts of this, I was reminded of Kingdom of Heaven. This has a lot of realism and is quite authentic, and they wrote in actual historic events(from the time this is set) that I haven't heard of being connected with Mr. Hood before. The sense of humor is largely good, with few jokes falling flat. I didn't think that this was excessively somber, although it could be clearer in what it wants to be. Russell could be argued as being too old, but he's certainly fit enough. I don't think the script was harmed by the rewrites. The cast is marvelous(Mark Strong being in this made me look forward to it all the more), and everyone delivers a stellar performance. Blanchett gives Marian a willpower and independence not seen before. The tone is gritty. This has a fairly solid pace; I was not bored at any point of it, if it's not all fast. One can tell Ridley's considerable cinematic talent, even if this is not his best. There is plenty of moderate(occasionally graphic and bloody) violence and disturbing content, brief sexual visual(no nudity) references and infrequent mild language in this. I recommend this to fans of those who made it and/or the source material(provided you don't mind it not being like you remember it). 7/10

The re-invention of a legend

[freemantle_uk · 8/10 · 12 May 2010]

Robin Hood, Robin Hood riding through the glen, Robin Hood with his band of Merry Men: you will get none of that in this new verison of the legend. With Ridley Scott Russell Crowe have created new type of Robin Hood for these an audience who want to gritty verison the legend who has been constantly re-invented.

1199, England has been suffering from the heavy burden of taxation to fund Richard I's (Danny Huston) wars and the countryside was suffering from social problems with war orphans running wild. Richard I's army was marching through France to get back to England after the Crusades and looting and the raiding the French as much as possible whilst on the way. Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) and his friends are archers within the army. When Richard I died in battle they fled and Robin assumes the identity of a English lord who has been murdered in an ambush. Godfrey (Mark Strong), an English knight and an adviser to King John (Oscar Issac) secretly meets with the French with a plot to make the new king unpopular and force the nation into civil war, thereby weakening England and making the kingdom easy to invade. Robin goes to Nottingham and gives the news to Sir Walter Loxley (Max von Sydow) and Lady Maiden (Cate Blanchett) that their son and husband has died. They suggest that Robin continues to pretend that he was really Sir Robert Loxley and as the man Robin becomes a leading figure to unite the kingdom to stop the impending invasion.

Scott is one of the best directors around for historical film: he has shown a great skill for taking people back to another time and show what the period would have been like (even if he has to take a few liberties to the historical facts). With Robin Hood he shows that the Medieval period was dark and dirty, even for members of the gentry. Battles are hard and brutal, though they is a lot less blood then there was in Gladiator, which is a shame. Scott, with his screenwriter Brain Helgeland, set out a more complex, balance picture. Richard I was not made out to be the great king people think he is because of his heavy taxation and ruthless nature. John was made out to be someone who was dogmatic and naïve, but not someone wanting to be a tyrant just for the fun of it. He was portrayed in a more sympathetic light to what has been shown in the past. It was Godfrey who was the main villain and in the Medieval period national loyalty was not such a big issue as it is today. This is all refreshing to see when most films just show a black and white world.

Scott delivers some excellent battle scenes in this film during. But he slows the film down long enough to allow the plot to develop and adds a little bit of humour. This is however a less bloody epic to allow a slightly younger audience to see it. There is the theme of the idea of a king's right to govern, but this is mostly an action, not a historical film about Medieval government.

Crowe and Scott reunite again and Crowe gives a solid performance as a rougher and tougher Robin. Blanchett too is solid as an older Maiden, showing she is a tough woman who also willing to fight: a woman that properly would not have existed in this period. Strong shows once again that he is a excellent villain, having stared in Sherlock Holmes and Kick-Ass, a man who thinks about his own self interest. Strong has been making a good career as villain for hire and he was the strongest actor in the film. The American in this English set film did well, William Hurt was very strong as the wronged advice in the King's court, whilst Huston seemed to be having a blast as Richard I and obviously shows he is not as noble he seems.

Helgeland wrote a clever script, showing Medieval ideology and a complex political situation. His previous Medieval film was A Knight's Tale, which he wrote and directed. But with Robin Hood he seems to have grown up as a writer and gives this film a little more of a complex plot and shows a bigger picture. He also cleverly mixes different aspects about how the legend has changed, like how Robin starting as a commoner and pretends to be a higher ranked man. The film also covers its bases by showing the two sites places that claim to be Robin's home, Nottingham and Barnsdale. However this film felt like an origins story, a start to a new film series. This is Robin Hood that has not been seen on screen like this before. Hopefully if there is a sequel then Matthew MacFadyen as the Sheriff of Nottingham would get a bigger role. Robin Hood is also historically suspect, with events and dates being changed and made up, some ideas and culture also seems to be the victim of artistic license. But Scott knows that storytelling requires character development and show a more balanced picture, particularly with historically set films. At least this film does accept that it is a piece of historical fiction.

An enjoyable summer flick.

Rather disappointing.

[JeffersonCody · 6/10 · 17 May 2010]

"Robin Hood" (2010): (Rating: An extremely generous 6 out of 10).

"Robin Hood" plays like a supposedly commercially cunning stylistic cross between "Gladiator", "Saving Private Ryan" and "Batman Begins". Okay, so it's a prequel, an origin story and Sir Ridley and Russell obviously hope it will be the first part of a trilogy. Shame on them. Do they need the money so badly? Ignoring the heart and soul of an enduring and inspiring romantic legend, these buggers have aimed their arrows squarely at the wallets of the mass market and gone for the lowest common denominator. One film pleases all, so to speak. And sadly, a lot of undiscriminating modern cinema-goers will enjoy what they have served up.

The new "Robin Hood" was, for me, a bitterly disappointing film and, with a running length of nearly 150-minutes, a sometimes boring one too. It's big and sprawling, and, with Sir Ridley at the helm, it is certainly well made on a technical level. But does it have heart and soul and emotion and a stirring story? No ways. After about 120 long minutes we get the French invading Britain in an expensive, GGI-laden action sequence which seems to have been inspired by the Normandy landing scenes in "Saving Private Ryan". What it is this? Sir Ridley's homage to the Spielberg flick. Only, instead of machine gun bullets tracing through the water as soldiers stumble across the sand at the bottom of the sea trying to avoid a rain of death, it is arrows.

Then, five minutes before the picture ends, the story I wanted to see finally arrives on the screen. But shorty after this, the words "And so the legend begins" appear, and the movie ends.

I'm a fan of Russell Crowe and I thoroughly his performances in films such as "Romper Stomper", "LA Confidential", "Gladiator", "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World", "Cinderella Man", "The Insider" and "The Sum of Us". Hell, i even enjoyed his work in "State of Play" and the remake of "3.10 to Yuma".

But his surly Robin Longstride, the man who will perhaps - if this picture makes enough money to allow the sequel to be made - become the Robin Hood we know and love, is not one of his finest screen moments. The character is merely another figure in a sprawling cinematic landscape created by Sir Ridley. He never registers on an emotional level, and Crowe,IMO, despite looking fairly buff, is too old for the part. What a waste of a good actor.

Blanchett, who I also enjoy, fares slightly better, but she is miscast in an underwritten role. Her Maid Marion is an interesting creation, but we never get to now her well enough. Even the Sheriff of Nottingham (an ineffectual Matthew Macfadyen - looking like a chubby version of Dermot Mulroney) is a minor character in the picture.

In the supporting cast, Mark Strong - as the wicked Godfrey, and Max Von Sydow as the blind Sir Walter Loxley, have their moments, and Eileen Atkins is good in her few scenes. Then there are Mark Addey (Friar Tuck) and Kevin Durand ( Little John) who are, I presume, supposed to be the comic relief. Not that I laughed much. Danny Huston doesn't exactly shine as King Richard the Lionheart either. And William Hurt is wasted as William Marshal.

I saw "Robin Hood" in South Africa. The cinema was surprisingly full and the multiplex mob seemed to enjoy the film. But I found it an utter disappointment, It didn't stir me, it didn't amuse me and it didn't thrill me. And I'm usually quite easily to please. "Robin Hood" is nothing more than an expensive attempt to steal from the poor and desperate (cinemagoers), who will go looking for spectacle and excitement in all the wrong places. Isn't a film like this supposed to bring joy to the poor and downtrodden.

It seems as if they wanted to pull in the "Gladiator" crowd. But that was silly because this film suffers hugely by comparison, as does Crowe's performance.

Watching this version of the tale, only made me ache for Errol Flynn and Olivia De Havilland in "The Adventures of Robin Hood", now that was a Robin Hood picture. "Robin and Marion", the Lester flick, was also more romantic than this current version. Hell, even the Costner version was more fun. Boo.

While I didn't enjoy "Robin Hood", it still looks likely to pull in about $300 worldwide, so sequels could still be on the cards. In my heart of hearts, however - and it pains me to say this, I hope it does not do sufficient numbers to generate sequels.

I saw "Robin Hood" a day after watching Miley Cyrus in "The Last Song". So I thought, how bad can it be?" Sir Ridley, Cate, Russell in warrior mode. it can only be an improvement on The Last Song". Sadly, it wasn't. At least "The Last Song" was shorter.

If anybody with a passion for cinema lusts to see this film, I would suggest they wait for the DVD release, and then approach it with low expectations. Very low expectations! I suppose the upside is that I didn't have to pay to watch the film. But even that brings me little cheer.

The Legend rewritten to fit Star's Ego

[deedeevolpe · 1/10 · 18 May 2010]

Robin Hood was an Outlaw in England. The idea that Robin Hood followed King Richard in the Crusades is from the Sean Connery movie "Robin and Marion". Robin and Marion was made in the cynical 1970's. Robin and Marion is not a movie that gets watched a lot (I wouldn't sit through it again) and it's theme didn't need to get expanded in to a two hour epic. The traditional Robin Hood takes place in England for it is the story of the British People Saxon's vs the Norman occupiers. Green is the symbolic color of the native people of Briton (e.g. Gawain and the Green Knight). The traditional Robin Hood of legend wore green for he is part of the pagan history of Briton, not some cynical inner city trendy who wears black. There is this idea that people in the past wore depressing clothing and were dirty all the time. Yet if you look at the paintings from the time of King Richard the first you will find that people wore bright colors. Only bums dress badly in any age.

If Christian Bale, Cary Elwes, Jeremy Irons, Johnny Depp, Robert Downey Jr. or Kevin Kline had played the part of Robin Hood we could have expected a more extensive range of emotions and with a better English accent. But Crowe has a limited range of emotions. Emotionally Crowe only does the self-serving stuff very well, you know; angry, self pity, prolonged contempt etc. Crowe is also very good at being "intense" which accounts for his screen presents and is often mistaken for acting ability. But the emotions required to do "The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood" are way, way beyond him. Being jovial, generous, good natured, romantic or even nice are outside his ability.

In the Errol Flynn version, Robin Hood is bested by Little John and comes up laughing at himself at having been beaten by another man. This sort of self-demeaning humor and good will are way off the chart for Crowe. Crowe doesn't do humble. The character of Robin Hood had to be retooled to be more like the Gladiator so that Crowe could play the part. So Robin Hood the cunning fox had to be changed to become Robin Longstrides the bossy grumpy bear.

Crowe can't do love or Romance very well. In Gladiator they had to cut love scenes out of the script. Crowe can only really do 'intense needy love' or 'self-pity mercy love' but not Romantic Love. To make matters worse Crowe hasn't held onto his youthful good looks in the ten years he's been a star he's really aged badly. Tom Cruse has been a star for almost 30 years still has his looks. As does Brad Pitt. Kevin Beacon who has been in the business for almost 35 years still has his looks. But because Crowe has let himself go so badly the part of Maid Marion had to be drastically retooled as well. The first Maid Marion Sienna Miller was fired from the movie because she looked too young and thin next to the aging and hefty Crowe.

The movie was shut down for two months and the part of Maid Marion was changed and rewritten to that of an older woman. Maid Marion became the Widow Marion (Cate Blanchett) and the romance became a marriage of convenience. Crowe can't do romance. Gone are the scenes where Errol Flynn and Olivia De Havillandand flirted playfully on screen. The unromantic Crowe doesn't flirt well and can't woo. His on screen romances have always been rewritten around this so that the woman does most of the work while he looks angry, confused and full of self-pity. In this case Crowe's Robin Hood doesn't really like Marion (anger) he's just doing a friend a favor by sharing her bed. It's hard to believe that Robin Hood spent 10 years in the army with surrounded by men and isn't attacked to Marion. But Crowe can't play "attracted" there's no self pity in it.

Vastly Underrated

[jbaummma · 8/10 · 10 February 2021]

Two dollars worth of advice for free - Give this film a chance!

It's not your typical Robin Hood, but that doesn't matter. Who wants the same old story we've all seen 100 times? This is a much more enjoyable, star-studded, action packed, historical fiction.

Fantastic acting. Absolutely top tier. Sit back, and enjoy a medieval thrill ride!

OMG..............7!! ........Really

[sumitcena2001 · 6/10 · 2 August 2010]

Let me just start off by saying "this is the stupidest movie of year". There is no point of the movie. The whole movie is full of crap, which shows us how men in tights originated (which I find absurd). Robin hood was just a thief , a legendary thief. They could have made tyranny of the king as the theme rather than invasion of France. How can common man become commander of archers in the later part of the movie when the king even does not know him.

At the end of movie the king convicts robin hood as an outlaw, I don't know why ...cuz robin hood helped king to win the war.

There are a lot of flaws in the movie.

This movie could have been made like the gladiator, but fails completely due to poor plot, script and screenplay. The movie fails to attach the characters with the audience. I am pretty sure even if robin hood had died at the start of movie it would have made very little difference to the plot.

To sum up they just wanted to make prequel of Robin Hood .... so here it is .

Definitely not worth watching....

(2/10)

What is the point of this movie?

[saintorr · 1/10 · 16 May 2010]

I really resent having to pay money to watch a second rate prequel.

Didn't anyone from the studio see the final cut before release? What were they thinking about? Come on guys, a little historical research (even for a fantasy film like this) wouldn't have done any harm.

This movie was a collection of nonsense from start to finish. OK, Robin Hood is a character from fiction and story tellers are at liberty to use this character as they wish but surely some historical context or realism are necessary to allow the suspension of belief?

The French landing did not happen.

Magna Carta is an important part of our history and should not be messed around like this.

Don't get me started on the geographical screw-ups. Do the film makers have any idea how far it is from Nottingham to the South Coast? Or where the White Horse is? Idiots.

But it is only a movie and I have been happy to sit through other films that have mangled history to a worse extent than this, so what was wrong?

EVERYTHING!

The script, the absence of plot, ludicrous casting, bizarre accents, poor lighting and cinematography, inaudible dialogue (thanks), unexplained background characters and hours and hours and hours of nothing happening all add up to a momentous car crash of a movie.

Did I mention it was derivative? It stole the best parts of the Robin Hood legend, Saving Private Ryan, the Disney animated classic and Braveheart and wasted them.

Do not waste your time on this or the inevitable sequel.

This was... incredibly... boring

[Agnelin · 19 March 2011]

Technically and aesthetically accomplished, but empty of substance, and full of pretentiousness, this "Robin Hood" is, in my opinion, one absolutely unnecessary revision of the mythical English archer's story.

As it has repeatedly been pointed out, you should not go into this expecting to find one more version of the "prince of thieves" theme. This is rather the (embellished) narration of how Robin Longstride came to be Robin Hood. It presents all the known characters, though many of them are vastly underused, and it describes how they came to know each other and become involved in each other's lives. It is by all practical means a "prequel" to the classic legend of Robin Hood.

So Ridley Scott tried to take a new approach on a well-known story, but the results are not impressive. I was surprised at how boring this movie turned out to be. It is a failed epic, devoid of passion, adventure, or feeling. It is almost inevitable to compare this to "Gladiator", because the latter excels at all the points that "Robin Hood" fails at. Even the battle scenes feel boring, predictable, and not spectacular at all. The heart of the director and of the main actor are just not there, and it shows.

What I liked most about the movie was the revision of Lady Marian's character, well portrayed by Cate Blanchett, but that's about that. I would rather have watched "The adventures of Robin Hood" (1938) or "Robin Hood, prince of thieves" (1991) than waste two and a half hours on this disappointment.

My rating is 3/10.