Featured Audience Ratings

• Daniel P

  
  I wasn't interested at first, but this seems to be a truly polarizing film. I've got to see what all the fuss is about!

• Dean !

  
  A decent enough film, with good production value. However it's no Gladiator this time out, in truth it feels more like a prequel to what led up to the tale of Robin Hood. It can't top prince of Thieves though for me.

• Candy R

  
  The movie sets the background to the legend of Robin Hood. Russell has got a lot of stick over his accent but his character is endearing. He starts the movie as an expert archer in King Richard's army, who invaded France during the crusades. When the King dies, Robin and his men… More
  The movie sets the background to the legend of Robin Hood. Russell has got a lot of stick over his accent but his character is endearing. He starts the movie as an expert archer in King Richard's army, who invaded France during the crusades. When the King dies, Robin and his men return to England. The new King John is greedy and corrupt, oppressing his people with heavy taxes and killing people who won't pay. Robin goes to Nottingham where he meets and falls for Marion. Fryer Tuck and the sheriff of Nottingham are introduced to Robin. They join forces to defend England against the French invasion by King Philip. Great story and battle scenes. Cate Blanchett plays a great fiesty Marion. Russell is the perfect dashing hero. I loved this movie as there was fighting, betrayal and romance. Simply brilliant. I think it's my favourite Russell Crowe movie. I grew up with Kevin Costner's Robin Hood but this movie is much better. Ridley Scott at his best.

• Universal D

  
  Where Michael Curtiz' more famous version was long on the fable of the forest outlaw who shook up the reigning powers-that-were, Ridley Scott injects his version with Middle Age facts and realities making for a grimier fable, more muscular. A lot of the fun is here too, the… More
  Where Michael Curtiz' more famous version was long on the fable of the forest outlaw who shook up the reigning powers-that-were, Ridley Scott injects his version with Middle Age facts and realities making for a grimier fable, more muscular. A lot of the fun is here too, the Merrie Men bawdier, the women lustier, and the politics probably, more accurately, bloodier.

• Emil K

  
  Robin Hood is a huge miscalculation from director Ridley Scott. It is a pompous and loud film where every character feels like a caricature without any depth or emotion. One of Scott's biggest flaws in filmmaking has often been style over substance. His films usually look… More
  Robin Hood is a huge miscalculation from director Ridley Scott. It is a pompous and loud film where every character feels like a caricature without any depth or emotion. One of Scott's biggest flaws in filmmaking has often been style over substance. His films usually look glorious but they lack good screenplay. Only films like Blade Runner, Kingdom of Heaven or American Gangster has matched Scott's visuals in terms of screenplay. With Robin Hood Scott has made a film which is not only lacking a depth but also his visual eye. It feels like a film made by any average director. Gone are the stunning images or his ability to capture light and shadow. It actually makes you think if it were directed by Scott at all. It is like a film assembled from the leftovers of other epics like these. Even the climatic beach battle turns out to be cliched slow-motion stuff full of pointless quick editing and herky jerky camera. This is a film that makes me wonder that what the hell happened to that good old Ridley Scott who made films like Blade Runner, Legend and Kingdom of Heaven. Robin Hood is Scott's worst film among his own Matchstick Men and White Squall.

• xGary X

  
  An English archer returned from the crusades adopts the identity of a fallen nobleman and becomes embroiled in the prevention of a civil war to unite against a French invasion. Little did I know that Robin Hood was not in fact a fictional highwayman who lived in Sherwood forest, but… More
  An English archer returned from the crusades adopts the identity of a fallen nobleman and becomes embroiled in the prevention of a civil war to unite against a French invasion. Little did I know that Robin Hood was not in fact a fictional highwayman who lived in Sherwood forest, but actually the inventor of the Magna Carta who single-handedly repelled a French invasion. I feel positively educated. It's a shame the script of Robin Hood degenerated into theme park history absurdity because for the first half of the film it struck just the right balance of plausibility and adventure. Of course it takes Braveheart style liberties with history but it stayed just the right side of willing suspension and the likeable performances and gritty action sequences made for rousing medieval adventure. Unfortunately, as the plot gets more and more preposterous it overshadows everything that's good about the film. It's still a very well made film that is certainly a far better interpretation of the legend than has been attempted for decades but it falls well short of delivering on its early promise. not bad but it could've - and should've - been so much better.

• Melvin W

  
  Robin Longstride: We can't repay our good luck with bad grace, it invites darkness.  "The untold story behind the legend." I can see why Robin Hood devotees, if there are any, wouldn't like this movie. I'm sure many people scoffed at the Little John penis… More
  Robin Longstride: We can't repay our good luck with bad grace, it invites darkness.  "The untold story behind the legend." I can see why Robin Hood devotees, if there are any, wouldn't like this movie. I'm sure many people scoffed at the Little John penis joke and the liberties that were taken with the story. This is, for me, my new favorite take on the story. It is much more exciting then any other I've seen. It's big, epic and explosive. The battle sequences are amazing and exciting. I like that Ridley Scott took a cool story and made it cooler. The movie is wonderfully shot and everything from scenery to costumes are spot on perfect. You also can't go wrong with putting Russell Crowe in the lead role as Robin Hood; a re-teaming of the two people that brought us Gladiator. (Maybe that's why people were so disappointed with it, because it didn't live up to the hype that was caused by Gladiator). Crowe is also surrounded with a few great actors like William Hurt and Cate Blanchett. A few character actors seemed out of place, but they didn't destroy the movie for me. The movie is well paced for how long it is. I was never bored and I don't see how anyone could be. There are so many battle scenes that are sure to grab the viewers attention. They are violent and wonderfully put together. I said early that the movie was epic and it is. Everything about it screams epic and these battles scenes attest to that.  I really loved Robin Hood. I know it isn't what everybody expected or what everybody wanted, but it sure captivated me for its two-plus hours. I love Scott and Crowe, so I may be a little biased, but damn this movie was extremely impressive.

• Anthony L

  
  I seem to be the only person on Earth that didn't like Gladiator and although I feel a little smug right now, this will be the last I mention it. Ridley Scott's films are getting weaker and weaker and that's not just my opinion. For all the great films he has made… More
  I seem to be the only person on Earth that didn't like Gladiator and although I feel a little smug right now, this will be the last I mention it. Ridley Scott's films are getting weaker and weaker and that's not just my opinion. For all the great films he has made though, and he has made some great films, I can't help but look back at the first feature film he ever made, the brilliant The Duellists. I can't believe the same person made both films quite honestly. If he had directed Robin Hood with The Duellists in mind maybe it would have been another one of his best but unfortunately, Robin Hood is boring, has a cringe-worthy script and is, at times, laughable. The great Max von Sydow is probably the only reason you should watch but even then it's not worth it.

• Tim S

  
  While the rest of the world, for the most part anyway, seems to have a hate-on for Ridley Scott's intrepretation of Robin Hood, I beg to differ. Ok, so there's no Errol Flynn, or Alan Rickman, or Sean Connery, and the movie is basically a prequel, but none of that matters to… More
  While the rest of the world, for the most part anyway, seems to have a hate-on for Ridley Scott's intrepretation of Robin Hood, I beg to differ. Ok, so there's no Errol Flynn, or Alan Rickman, or Sean Connery, and the movie is basically a prequel, but none of that matters to me. Sure there are some things in the edit that could have been tightened up a little and that they should have stuck with the original title 'Nottingham,' but I found it to be terrific. It's not the finest incarnation of the story, but it's a great crowd-pleaser with more going for it than just another reiteration of a classic character.

• Ken S

  
  It's well made, but totally unnecessary

• Matt G

  
  I love Director Ridley Scott, his movies are always great. I honestly have no idea what happened with this! I was so excited to see this adaption of Robin Hood, I really regret seeing the nearly three hour directors cut. The movie had almost no action itself, the rest was boring as… More
  I love Director Ridley Scott, his movies are always great. I honestly have no idea what happened with this! I was so excited to see this adaption of Robin Hood, I really regret seeing the nearly three hour directors cut. The movie had almost no action itself, the rest was boring as hell. I don't think that critics were harsh enough on this movie, which is saying something! It seems like the director wants this film to be so realistic he feels the need to completely get away from the story of Robin Hood and create something completely different, and something pretty awful. The only reason I gave this movie one and a half stars is because the first ten minutes were outstanding. Reaching a conclusion, you should stay far away from this film.

• Gregory D

  
  There are several fundamental problems with this film. It would have benefited by another editing revision; the pace is ultra-slow and the film itself is very long. Crowe is a good actor, but I feel as if Ive seen him in this role one too many times. Durand is an an exceptional… More
  There are several fundamental problems with this film. It would have benefited by another editing revision; the pace is ultra-slow and the film itself is very long. Crowe is a good actor, but I feel as if Ive seen him in this role one too many times. Durand is an an exceptional upcoming actor, but he was utilized way to little for the amount of talent that he has. Positively, the movie pace picked up as it progressed and the plot was interesting.

• Jens S

  
  There was a lot of chaos as far as the creation of this movie was concerned over the last couple of years. First they said it would be from Nottingham's point of view, then that Crowe would play both the Sheriff and Robin. Did it turn into just another Robin Hood film with a… More
  There was a lot of chaos as far as the creation of this movie was concerned over the last couple of years. First they said it would be from Nottingham's point of view, then that Crowe would play both the Sheriff and Robin. Did it turn into just another Robin Hood film with a staff fight across a creek and playing pranks on the Sheriff? Not quite. Let's start with the cast. It's excellent. While Robin's accomplices do not exactly have big roles they are well picked, Cate Blanchett is outstanding as always, her Marian is much closer to LOTR's Eowyn than to the character's former incarnations. Matthew MacFadyen has the ungrateful job of being the Sheriff after Alan Rickman, but makes the best of the few scenes he has. Mark "Kick-Ass" Strong, villain of the hour as it seems, adds another diabolic badass to his list of characters. Newcomer Oscar Isaac is wonderfully slimy and untrustworthy as Prince John. Then there are also Max von Sydow, William Hurt, Danny Huston, fine names all around. Russel Crowe is just himself, but that works great. The film should actually be called "Robin of Loxley" or "Robin Hood Begins". People should not expect to see him going through Sherwood forest, giving Nottingham a hard time. This is the story before all that. There are many more levels to this, a lot of court intrigues, treason, great battle scenes at the beginning and end of the film, some dots of humor and, of course, romance. One of the most outstanding features of the film is that it actually feels medieval. There is hardly any CGI used and that shows. The atmosphere feels realistic, people spit while they talk and getting out of their armor (which is making a lot of noise while you are walking) can be quite challenging. Very few films of recent years grasped the dirt but also the romance connected with the medieval times like this one. The cinematography is gorgeous, sometimes even breathtaking, the soundtrack fitting and really nice. The film is two hours 30 minutes long but never feels like it, it flows pretty well. By the time the beautifully animated end credits are rolling you really wish to stay with Robin and his men for a little longer and get to see the parts of the story we all know from so many films. That's probably not the worst thing to say about a movie.

• Jim C

  
  Robin Hood wasn't bad, but there are so many problems that it was hard to say it was good. Russell Crowe was great, first of all, a very good performance. The plot, not so good, it was unhistorical and unethical, you'll get bored after a while. Cate Blanchett, she brings… More
  Robin Hood wasn't bad, but there are so many problems that it was hard to say it was good. Russell Crowe was great, first of all, a very good performance. The plot, not so good, it was unhistorical and unethical, you'll get bored after a while. Cate Blanchett, she brings nothing new to the table. The music was great, really catchy to me. The battle scenes were a little out of place and unrealistic, I expected better from Ridley Scott. It could've been great, but with so many problems its hard to give it a good rating. C+

• paul s

  
  I have great respect for Ridley Scott as a director, but this effort feels like it was mailed in - I don't know if it was the fault of a weak script, or a misguided obsession with historical context, but while there are some interesting moments, as a whole, this film fails in so… More
  I have great respect for Ridley Scott as a director, but this effort feels like it was mailed in - I don't know if it was the fault of a weak script, or a misguided obsession with historical context, but while there are some interesting moments, as a whole, this film fails in so many ways. Part of the problem, as I hinted at earlier, is that the film spends a great deal of time worrying about the time and place - with unfortunate bits of text telling us that we're in some long forgotten forest in France or whatever - I suppose this was necessary as the film's scope has it ping-ponging between the Richard the Lion Heart and his return from the Crusades, to various sites in England, trying to fill in the back story. Even if you were to forgive that bit of filming laziness, there are so many characters that Scott focuses on for a spell, and then seems to lose interest. Case in point is Friar Tuck, who comes off as a very secular monk with a taste for honey wine (mead) - much could have been done with this character, and Scott begins to explore him with a brief interlude between he and Robin, but then the film seems to shift direction and Tuck becomes more of the caricature we're all familiar with. Ditto with the Sheriff of Nottingham, who quite frankly has no role in the film (except that everyone knows his name and perhaps Scott was thinking ahead to a sequel). There are also some odd moments, like when Scott attempts to instill some sense of the times by having a hoedown with the small folk of Nottingham. Problem number one is that the plot recently revealed that Nottingham had no seed for crops (meaning it likely that the townspeople would soon be facing starvation - ah, what better time for a party then?). Problem #2 is that the song being played when Marian asks Robin to dance I recognized as the Bob James jazz piece Woman From Ireland (originally penned by Sean O'Reida) - a beautiful tune to be sure, but seemed jarringly out of place, even when played by fife and lute. At the heart of the film lies Robin Longstride (later to become Robin of the Hood, or some such rubbish) - an archer and man of principles who ends up as the charismatic figure we all know. Russell Crowe plays him straight up - an honorable man in a world where honor is becoming a rare commodity (as the rather lame text at the beginning of the film reminds us). Doing the honorable thing, Crowe fulfills a fellow crusaders' dying wish by returning a blade to the man's father, who resides in... Nottingham (who would have guessed). There he meets up with Cate Blanchett who portrays Marian as a no BS superwoman, running the household of her husband (the late lamented crusader) and his father (Max Von Sidow in the film's best performance). Von Sidow tells Crowe the story of Crowe's father (which includes some unfortunate flashbacks and a bit of quasi 12th century psychoanalysis with Crowe laughably struggling with the repressed memory of his father's murder). What follows is a rather stupid plot contrivance involving Crowe assuming the identity of the slain crusader (in effect becoming Marian's husband - which leads to some oddly off putting flirtations between the two). Far more interesting than this love tale, was the Machiavellian machinations of Sir Godfrey, who while playing up to Prince John, is secretly an agent for King Phillip of France. Unfortunately, what began with a great deal of promise, sunk to a tired villainous caricature, and Scott oddly decides to take almost all the emotional impact out of the fight scene between Robin and Godfrey, by absurdly adding Marian into the mix. I really got the feeling that Scott was unsure of what he was trying to say or accomplish with this film. Even the character of Prince John seemed to hover between good and evil, at times seeming almost heroic, while at others a petulant child (even though he was not that young). Once again the script wanted to shoehorn this entire bit of Robin before he was Robin into the later text - using a weak excuse of John's jealousy of Robin as his motivation for declaring him outlaw - what a bunch of hooey.

• E.J. B

  
  There's nothing glaringly wrong with Ridley Scott's "historically placed" tale of Robin Hood. But there's also nothing that stands out about it either. Call me crazy, but I loved the Kevin Costner turkey Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. It was not the best film… More
  There's nothing glaringly wrong with Ridley Scott's "historically placed" tale of Robin Hood. But there's also nothing that stands out about it either. Call me crazy, but I loved the Kevin Costner turkey Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. It was not the best film in the world by any means - Kevin Costner as a Brit speaking American English is evidence of this - but it had a sense of adventure. It was fun, and it lovingly told a story of a hero who Costner was able to create very well in my opinion. Even his supporting characters, played by Christian Slater and Morgan Freeman, were memorable. But Russell Crowe does not give the necessary performance to make his Robin Hood stand out as a hero. He tries too hard to recreate the character of Maximus from Gladiator. It doesn't work. The merry men aren't developed enough for us to care about them beyond Robin's sidekicks, none of them are reminiscent for very long. And perhaps Ridley's biggest mistake was to turn Robin Hood into a swashbuckling historical epic like Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven. Those were great films, the former because it told a powerful story of a hero, the other because it was the best September 11 parable ever made. I'm not sure what to make of his Robin Hood. The character may be a hero because the script says so, but he blurs into the background because the movie shifts focus so many times as to what else is going on. The needless politics and side characters betraying each other slow the film down, much like how political scenes killed the pacing of the Star Wars prequels. The fight scenes are well done, in spectacular Ridley Scott fashion. And I liked the re-interpretation of Marrion as a very strong, independent character; without her, the farm she lived at would have turned upside down. Overall, the pluses of this film just outweigh the minuses, but unfortunately, not by much.

• Shawn E

  
  Robin Hood is a prequel to the classic Robin Hood stories we all know. The film has good potential but with a loose plot and scenes that seem to drag on a little too long, it makes this film very hard to enjoy. On a positive note, the acting from the majority of the cast was well done… More
  Robin Hood is a prequel to the classic Robin Hood stories we all know. The film has good potential but with a loose plot and scenes that seem to drag on a little too long, it makes this film very hard to enjoy. On a positive note, the acting from the majority of the cast was well done and the camera work was quite good at times too.

• Lewis C

  
  "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… More
  "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.

• jay n

  
  Too long, too dark and too cluttered.

• Michael S

  
  Director Ridley Scott gives the timeless Robin Hood legend a gritty "reboot," and the result is a very strong and lavish period epic with great performances and the perfect blend of drama and sword-slashing spectacle. Completely underrated.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings