User Reviews (878)

Add a Review

  • If anyone reads this, it's likely because you're either reading a bunch of reviews because you can't decide if a ticket is worth it, or you hated it and are reading all the 1 star reviews so you can say "thank you" multiple times when you read a criticism you agree with. If you're the latter, welcome, you're among friends. If you're the former, I'm not going to tell you that you shouldn't see or love this movie, clearly some people do, I'm just going to lay out why I can't.

    It's built on clichés and one-liners, and scenes seem to be written around setting that up, if they set it up at all. Even in the credits, next to the actors name and icon, the most dramatic quotes their character had is written next to them. Most of the lines are written to serve the drama as opposed to being substantive or sensible. There's even a scene with a mildly villainous character doing the maniacal laugher ended by angry scream with the dramatic music in the background, and it literally comes out of nowhere. There was no set up for that character doing that, and it made the whole thing feel silly. Imagine a play built only on the soliloquies of Shakespearean tragedies mixed with every cliché about love giving strength in despair, but lacking any real sense of plot or structure. That is this film.

    Also, the action sequences are filmed like an over the top modern war movie. There's literally a slo-mo scene where some of the characters are driving away from an explosion. I'm not saying there's no place for that in a period movie, but it was executed lazily and without much thought about how to do that and do justice to the combat of the time period.

    Basically this is just a standard subpar action movie with a Robin Hood skin. Splashy effects and dialogue with no effort given to make it cohesive or new or worthwhile. I'm usually the person in a group who's more forgiving of bad movies than others are, but I just can't with this one. I kept trying to enjoy it throughout the movie, and it felt like it was fighting me the whole time.
  • amazon-3949028 November 2018
    3/10
    Why?
    It takes a lot for me to leave the cinema but this film achieved it. From the over the top bow and arrow fights that feel like something out of black hawk down to the bizarre mix of costumes it's just all wrong. I'm really not sure who thought 100 million budget was well spent making this steaming heap of a film.
  • Went to see this today... and it was really bad. A real stinker. They have just 5 sets. The town, the church, a kind of bow and arrow Iraq war, the mine with random flares (what are they mining?) and a place for doing speeches to the peasants. The costume department clearly raided primark and you keep thinking how did a man with one hand get handcuffed twice in this film? And when are Blake's 7 going to turn up to ask for their footwear back. There is a scene with dialogue from most English speaking accents... Irish, Cockney, American, Australian but none of this is meant to be funny. The best bits are the super unrealistic close combat bow and arrow shooting... and then end after the excruciatingly bad "false ending". Help.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Just watched this with my son. He liked the archery scenes. My brief recommendation is to wait until this hits RedBox if you must. In short, this is junk food's action movie equivalent. Plot set up and dialog are like a cheap suit. I still can't believe they used the phrase "redistribution of wealth." Also, the are "stealing from the rich to give to the poor." Except, that they are steeling from the "evil" Catholic Church who controlled the "sheriff of Nottingham" who stole all the money from the common people who just took it lying down until they sort of reluctantly joined "Rob". You have to love when the hero never gets hurt. Shot in the leg, no prob. Fall from 60 feet, no prob. Arrow to the heart, no prob, just pull it out. I'd rather have a well written story than cheap CGI action scenes but your 13 y/o may disagree.
  • I had gone to see this film in the hopes that at worst it would be so bad it's good. Unfortunately, it careened past that point about 15 minutes in to it's so bad it's obnoxious. I managed to suffer through about 2/3rds of it before throwing in the towel. I saw nothing in that time that made me want to ever finish the movie.

    I think the problem is the film couldn't decide what it wanted to be. A lot of it is super dumb action movie stuff, i.e. MTV style training montage, which can be fun but then the film injects political commentary to make it socially relevant., i.e. Robin is a Crusader and Little Jon is a Muslim. It all ended up being a mismash of tone, style and seriousness that grated on my nerves.

    I also must say that the film had some of the laziest plotting in recent memory. At one point a character, and this is why I left, directly stated his nefarious intentions and plan in detail to Robin because one just vouched for Robin.

    This film was a waste of time. I am not even made about the 7 bucks in light of the time sink.
  • bagaran26 November 2018
    The amount of political correctness is nauseating. If I could give this a negative review I would. What kind of drugs is the director using that he thought this would be a good idea?
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I love Robin Hood and was really excited about this cast. To the point, besides all the pointed political dialogue, the characters lacked development and connection. I never felt that Robin Hood genuinely wanted to help others. It seemed he only cared that Marianne was sleeping with a different guy. The training scenes were only missing the Rocky theme music. Just very poorly written!
  • eeluksw21 November 2018
    Reminds me of last year's re-imagining of King Arthur except a heist film this is not. Robin Hood gets his umpteenth retelling yet the film insists it's telling a new version of the story while also basically covering all you already know about the man himself. Steal from the rich, give to the poor; it's not complicated, and open to a million different interpretations of that core loop, yet here we are.

    For a movie to tease some promising themes at the start (if you ignore the awful opening bit of narrative catch-up that mismatches the film's tone with twee voice over and the weakest relationship setup imaginable) only to glance over them for flat characters is a little mean, because it makes you think it might not be half bad for at least a half an hour. It could have opened with the first major action sequence, which may be the best part of the film, as it is a far cry from where the action goes from there. Robin, of course, is a man of great character, even before his transformation into a thief proper. Where the film immediately goes wrong is establishing a context to the conflict he is drafted into fighting, which clearly includes rampant racism, imperialism, and intolerance of ideology. Like I said, promising themes at first, but Ben Mendelsohn as the Sheriff of Nottingham is not a person you'll come to understand. He could hardly get more cartoonish, and during his growly monologues I wondered if this movie was actually intended for children.

    I think it is and it isn't as it's suitably violent but without blood which in some instances appears to have been intended. Robin himself racks up quite the body count in his efforts to steal from the absurdly rich Sheriff, dragging presumably innocent lives into his own personal vendetta (which is fueled by Jamie Foxx, who goes back and forth between playing Jamie Foxx and Jamie Foxx's vague interpretation of an "Arab", quotes included). But because he gets results, the community rallies around him. Off screen, mostly, so that when it comes time to rally the town against the Sheriff (though one wonders why they never left if they were forced to give everything they owe to the war) they all get behind him.

    There is a lot of conflicting or lazy character choices in the film, too many to get into great detail, but they keep resetting any feelings you may develop naturally when a movie is--how you say--consistent. On top of that, accents are a complete afterthought. The lead actress, an Irish actor, can't even keep an accent in her native tongue for more than a sentence every other scene she's in. The rest of the time she's speaking plain American English like everyone's afraid to remind her of her character's betrothal to another Irishman, Jamie Dornan. Oh yeah, he's in this, and his character's arc is, in order: nonexistent, then confusing and script-serving, then literally Two-Face from The Dark Knight in a categorically stupid franchise setup that promises to tell the exact same story again next time.

    Any sort of personality or wit the film has is lost in the incompetent action scenes that are a complete joke. Its costuming is interesting, but feels weird and ultimately ephemeral. At times it was like a cross between Game Of Thrones and The Matrix. I also thought the film was going to end after a particularly large set piece (which includes a horse-drawn cart being driven through a wall) because the inane plotting felt sweetly dumb enough to be mercifully short, but it kept slogging on for maybe 45 more minutes. I wouldn't give this one its franchise money, if only so that Taron Edgerton can put his alright charisma towards something else.
  • There are loads of Robin hood series and movies. This is the nr 1 for being the worst. When historical movies got political correct elements I always get a little bit cynical. I hoped that a great actor like Jamie fox could take that feeling away. This movie was really really bad. It 's Not only the political correctness the rest of the movie is even worse.
  • Terrible terrible story, overloaded with 'politically correct' clichés. The Trump-like speech. The 'strong empowered woman' but still with lots of cleavage. A 'representative' mix of black and white actors... in medieval England?? School play storylines are way better. Apart from that, the action scenes were not half bad. Although just as non-sensical as the story :)
  • Quite possibly the greatest rendition of the classic "Robin Hood" story is the 1938 "Adventures of Robin Hood," starring Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland. The film begins with an initiative, and uses its protagonists to advance the plot methodically. Perhaps most importantly lies the film's self awareness; its delight in relishing a sense of refreshing fun and delight. The classic tale of Robin Hood has always been one best told briskly and with a sense of humor.

    If only this film had followed the 1938 template. It starts out with an obvious purpose; to retell the Robin Hood legend in a modern form. This is reinforced through the bizzare steampunk costuming and one out of place scene in which Marion (played by the adequate, but not particularly noticeable Eve Hewson) wears a bedazzaled mermaid gown. Also, the film establishes the romance between Marion and Robin Hood as a key element, and presents her as, essentially, Robin's only motivation for almost the whole of the film. This is not inherently a bad decision, but the movie fails to present their relationship in a compelling or interesting way. There is no reason, no foundation, for us to feel invested in Robin's motivation, and thereby, his origin story.

    The effects are borderline amateur. This film does right by incorporating a lot of detailed set pieces, that create a believable environment. On the occassion that green screen is used, however, it reminds you of a 2000's era Star Wars prequel. While the choreography regarding Taron Egerton's Robin Hood and Jamie Foxx's Little John is somewhat competent, the battle sequences are shot nonsensically with no direction or focus.

    One thing this film struggles immensely with is character building. As mentioned above, there is no depth to the romance between Robin Hood and Marion. Little John and Robin Hood, despite all the scenes they have together, have no real conversation. I felt that Little John was the only character I even slightly felt for, because he was the only person with a semblance of a backstory.

    It was incredibly stupid, convuluted, and cheap. I'm not saying there weren't compelling elements, but ultimately, those were bogged down by the film's idiocy.

    2/10

    20% (Rotten)

    D
  • It's not funny, it's not witty, just another rehash of a film done over and over with updated special effects (although some moments are questionable). Don't waste your time unless you want to have your ticket money stolen from you!
  • gavinmochan26 November 2018
    There is nothing good that can be said about this movie. Nobody involved could be remotely proud of the work here. The plot, the acting, the costumes, the cgi, just absolutely no positive I could take from it.

    Money we will never get back. It looks like the common man has been stole from again - £20 I'll never see again.

    I'm no longer a Merry man
  • Andywa25 November 2018
    I tried to avoid the negative press about this film and went to see it today. Great cast just a really poorly written and directed film. I felt it tried to hard to be a cult film but failed miserably. This should have been an ITV movie!
  • This turkey came early for Christmas. From start to finish it was a total disaster, I think possibly the worst movie of the year I have seen except for The Hate U Give.

    The story was derivative, we had the mines of Mordor, the staging of Game of Thrones. The acting was forced and the script banal.

    Now some specifics

    Themes- we had austerity, we had child abuse, we had powerful women resisting oppressive men, we had food and clothes being handed out, we had political action, all this is was so contrived.

    Styling-all the clothes came from Primark and Friar Tuck had been to Specsavers, and denim was worn thoughtout, a modern setting destroyed this story and it all far to clean.

    Music- it was like Gladiator and just as intrusive

    Casting- the Lord had an east end accent, Little John was inserted as a token black person. Anyone who was wealthy was a raper of the poor, it just goes on and on.

    Please avoid this drivel, why was it made and why did I sit through it, who knows!
  • Does anyone remember the Simpson's episode where Homer gets the chance to design a car? Its like every other car, wheels, engine. Dashboard. But it turns out to be a ghastly mess. Well, imagine if he was asked to produce a film. No point going on about its faults as they are numerous. The biggest scandal is that people can throw millions at a film and no one says hang on, this is rubbish. I can't believe anyone would give it over 5.
  • The main problems are the following The actors who played maid Marion, fryer tuck and will Scarlett just can't act. The set's look like the Roman Empire and not 10th century England, and the clothing looks like it's just come off a Prada rack. I was expecting someone to pull out an iPhone at one point. It would have been ok if it was filmed as a comedy, but it wasn't.
  • admcdonough25 November 2018
    I try to see every new film that comes out in the theaters. I have a theater only about a mile from my house so I go to see many films there to the point where the theater staff knows me (they don't get everything and sometimes I want to go elsewhere just for an IMAX version of a film, but I see over half of the films I go to there). They asked me what I was seeing and I could tell by their reaction they didn't think I was going to have a good experience. One of them said "I saw it last night and it wasn't that great" (they have free screenings for the staff). I knew this meant it had been horrid. I said "well I like most everything at least a bit" (I do) and went in. The film was worse than I imagined it could be and it indeed turned out to be one of those rare films I didn't like at all. What was wrong? Basically everything. The plot was just unbelievably bad, the costumes were bizarre, and the acting was, well I don't even think calling it acting was appropriate. What in the world was going on and why was Jamie Foxx's character even in it (I'm sure his reason for being in the film was along the line's of Michael Caine's for being in Jaws: The Revenge, the house he bought with the paycheck was really nice). Taron Egerton has to do a better job of selecting his roles. As bad as Billionaire Boys Club was, this makes that seem like Citizen Kane. As for the positives (to show I'm fair), Eve Hewson is very pretty and there were a lot of action scenes even if they were shot so poorly as to remind me of chickens running around with their heads cut off. Really wretched.
  • pokedom21 November 2018
    I'm in a weird situation here. It is currently the night before this movie's release, 11/20. However, I was lucky enough to watch this yesterday night, 11/19. The reviewing embargo was still up when I got home, and was up this afternoon as well. This is the earliest I can alert the public about what I saw.

    What I watched was an absolute train-wreck. I'm confident in my position as declaring this the worst movie of 2018.

    I can't really structure this review like my others, because it's been 24 hours and I've already forgotten half the movie. So allow me to just run through some bullet points so you can see my stance, and not fall into the same trap as me. I had free popcorn, optimal seating, and a seat warmer. I had a terrible time.

    * No character goes through any arc. Everyone feels the same by the end of the movie as they do at the start, which might seem crazy as they set up Robin Hood as some rich guy. But his "heart of gold", his attitude, his outlook on life, barely changes throughout the runtime. He never really flaunted his wealth, heck he inherited his castle, and he got drafted into the army regardless. He didn't even fight back against that.

    * Quick cutting action scenes! Oh do I love action sequences where I can't tell what's going on. Man I love it when they show the same thing in 3 quick cuts that give you a headache.

    * Bland sound design. People getting shot with arrows doesn't sound like people getting shot with arrows. It sounds like I thwacked my countertop.

    * Failure to capture the setting. For a movie set around the middle ages, people are talking very... not middle age-y. As well as the clothing and sets themselves really not feeling like that either. It felt more like I was watching a Dungeons and Dragons campaign.

    * The villain is hilariously bad. In his first scene he does an anime cape swish. Ben Mendelsohn got a lucky break with Rogue One, and I like him in that mainly because it's so bad it's funny. I thought it was a joke performance, like he was having fun with the dialogue. WE STAND HERE AMIDST MY ACHIEVEMENT, NOT YOURS! And unfortunately he hasn't had a good role since, and this one further cements that. "I'm going to boil you in your own piss" in a hissing voice and not his shouting voice. Hissing Ben is much much much worse than shouting Ben.

    * Speaking of the acting, all of it is bad. You can blame both the script and the actors on this one, as the dialogue sucks and everyone loves to speak soft and fast in hisses and slurs.

    * Technically speaking, this movie is a farce. Sometimes effects aren't even rendered properly. On one occasion the camera wasn't even the right lens, it was like a grainy security camera. That shot is used twice, in case you miss it the first time. Sometimes shots last longer than needed at times and you can tell the actors are trying to signal for a cut. There was one time where a shot with Jamie Foxx lasted a little too long and he fell out of character.

    * Too fast. This movie is about three paces ahead of a good pacing for a movie like this. I realized I had been there for 20 minutes and it felt more like 2 minutes. At least the torture was over quickly.

    * Forgettable. This movie reminds me too much of Ben Hur 2016, and that isn't a good thing. No good comedy to keep it light, no tension filled scenes, no good action, no good stakes, no good characters, no good drama... no good. As such large chunks of the movie are missing in my mind.

    TL;DR, don't waste your time. A lot can be accomplished in 2 hours that isn't sitting in the dark watching this.
  • Truly awful. Everything that is wrong with modern film making.
  • These over bloated budget films are tragic. This is an awful film. Awful.

    Throwing money at cinema rarely makes it worthwhile. And here we go again. Awful.

    It's a failure. Do not go and see if you are thinking about it. I sadly went.

    Regret.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I had modest expectations. I was still disappointed. The movie "borrows" from V For Vendetta, Lord Of The Rings ans I don't know what else. And even worse, it appears that they intend on a sequel. If they had called the movie anything other than Robin Hood, it would be more honest. It takes little more that character names. In this movie Robin steals from the Sheriff of Nottingham in most instances to give the money back to the sheriff. Not sure what this business of the mines is. Looks like LOTR, but with only humans. The acting is pretty good with maybe the exception of the Sheriff. F. Murray Abraham isn't given much to do. The premise is nonsense.
  • girvsjoint22 November 2018
    I don't know why they continually try to remake/ reimagine Robin Hood? Try as they might, they never have, and never will top the 1938 classic Errol Flynn, Basil Rathbone version. Arguably the most perfectly cast , and executed film in history. There have been many attempts over the decades on both the large and small screen, but none have come close to recapturing the magic and charm of the original sound version 'The Adventures of Robin Hood' .
  • laincolin25 November 2018
    Warning: Spoilers
    I'm tired of cash grab trash flooding the theatres.

    *COSTUME DESIGN: the sheriffs coat was clearly senthetic leather, and the color was unrealistic for the time. if you look at the strap on his undercoat... it is the same fabric as the straps that dangle off of a backpack. It's ungodly how lazy they were. They could have tried on robins costume as well. EVERYTHING IS SYNTHETIC. hair cuts seem iffy as well

    *COMBAT: The combat was pretty good and gritty in the beginning but it was filled down by the end of the movie. the bow fighting was something out of a modern gun fight. nobody peaks corners with a bow.

    *DUMB STUFF: why did they put riot shields in the movie??? SEVERELY MISSDATED. and how did they part the fire like moses did with the red sea???

    *POSITIVES: some shots were good. That's about it...
  • I'm halfway through the movie and don't have a clue what's going on. Should have checked the reviews before I decided to go see it.
An error has occured. Please try again.