Robin Hood (2010)

Featured Audience Ratings

• 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.

• Brad W

  
  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.

• Chris W

  
  Before I start my review, some disclaimers: this review is based on a viewing of the theatrical cut. I may watch the director's cut at some point, but I'm not sure yet. Also, let me just say that I went back and forth on how I would rate this during the entire running time… More
  Before I start my review, some disclaimers: this review is based on a viewing of the theatrical cut. I may watch the director's cut at some point, but I'm not sure yet. Also, let me just say that I went back and forth on how I would rate this during the entire running time of the film. The star rating isn't very accurate here, so take my letter grade of B- as a better way to judge it instead. With this film, Ridley Scott presents an interesting take on a story that removes any sense of joy, whimsy, or merriment that has been offered by previous variations. This is a dark, gritty, and gloomy tale that, while not very much fun, still remains somewhat enjoyable and entertaining. Not only that, but this is actually a prequel to the classic story. It's also sort of trying to place things within a historical context of sorts. I liked that this film did something different, even though it will probably alienate a lot of people. I liked that the story tried to be quasi-historical, too. What I didn't like was that any attempt at historicalness was undercut by fantasty elements (the weird ships during the final battle are pure invention...I'm pretty sure), and the two don't blend well, at least not given the film's tone. I also didn't like the film's rating, which I think was compromised. There's nothing wrong with PG-13 action/adventure films, but the way it was cut and toned down seemed forced and obvious at times. A couple of others issues I had were some choppy editing during some action scenes and the film's pacing. The running time was fine, but the pacing was not. It was uneven. Also, the intro to the film could have been redone. They could have resequenced the grain theft part into another part of the film, and reworded the narration. Hell, they could have just redone the first twenty minutes and either told it all in narration or just showed it all, but not taken too much time to do so. I did like the casting and performances though. Those were okay. Crowe and Blanchett have been better, but they're not bad either. Mark Strong kick ass, but as much as I like seeing him play villains (since he's good at it), I wanna see him change it up and get cast against type. The music is decent if unmemorable, and the camera work is also pretty good. I'm not sure how much green screen was used, but I have a feeling that it was employed. That's not a real big problem, but I think shooting it all practically would have been cool, too. That's just me though. The action scenes, as expected, were pretty damn good. Scott has done better work in the past, but these don't disappoint. I actually liked the story too. It was a little hard to follow, but it's not completely confusing. This is a mixed bag, but it merits at least one watch. I ripped into a lot of things, but most of them are just nitpicky. Very few are really serious flaws. However, since one can tell that the film is compromised, that does hurt the overall score. As I said above though, this film is fairly well made (for the most part), and Scott's take is welcome, so a B- is a reasonable rating.

• Coxxie M

  
  ill try to explain how fucking long this movie went on for. after the 29 previews, it started, kinda. before it started it had stupid bagpipe symphony music and these old scroll-looking title sequences, like "And so the length of time of the greatness of the legend of the robin… More
  ill try to explain how fucking long this movie went on for. after the 29 previews, it started, kinda. before it started it had stupid bagpipe symphony music and these old scroll-looking title sequences, like "And so the length of time of the greatness of the legend of the robin of the hood begins" and shit like that. then theres this slo-mo arrow shooting toward the screen, and now we know the opening credits are gonna roll, after it finishes with all the scroll legend bullshit. NOW THE FILM HAS BEGUN. so theres all this sword-fighting, and horse fighting, and arrow fighting, and horse/arrow fighting. and the usual guy who tells Robin Hood that he is stupid Robin Hood now while hes like, impaled on a 9-foot arrow covered in pig-shit and he has just enough time to talk before he dies and goes "blech!". and this is about where i fall asleep. and it feels like ive slept through the entire Obama presidency and i wake up full of glee and my hopes are raped and killed, just like Robin Hood's parents, i think. and its only been like 12 minutes. i am reminded of watching Alien and wondering why it took 3 hours to show the alien rip someones head off. this is made by the same guy. after that, i just kinda stared at my slushee and concentrated on slushees for the next 5 hours. OVERALL IT WAS PURTY GUD THO!

• 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.

• ♥˩ƳИИ &

  
  Cast: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Max von Sydow, William Hurt, Mark Strong, Oscar Isaac, Danny Huston, Eileen Atkins, Mark Addy, Matthew Macfadyen Director: Ridley Scott Summary: Russell Crowe stars as Robin Longstride in director Ridley Scott's big-budget twist on the… More
  Cast: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Max von Sydow, William Hurt, Mark Strong, Oscar Isaac, Danny Huston, Eileen Atkins, Mark Addy, Matthew Macfadyen Director: Ridley Scott Summary: Russell Crowe stars as Robin Longstride in director Ridley Scott's big-budget twist on the celebrated legend. When soldier Robin happens upon the dying Robert of Loxley, he promises to return the man's sword to his family in Nottingham. There, he assumes Robert's identity; romances his widow, Marion (Cate Blanchett); and draws the ire of the town's sheriff (Matthew Macfadyen) and King John's henchman, Godfrey (Mark Strong). My Thoughts: "This is the first 'Robin Hood' film I've seen, and I enjoyed it. It was a great heroic action film. The story focuses on how Robin Longstride becomes 'Robin Hood'. The 'Merry Men', were fun. I loved Cate Blanchett in this. Her and Russell Crowe do great jobs in the film. The supporting cast is just as amazing in this film as the leads, which is always a plus. Would love it if they made a sequel."

• Clintus M

  
  About the only thing I didn't like about this film is its title. Calling it "Robin Hood" is misleading from the start.It's not what the moviegoer expects: it is the story of how Robin Longstride became the infamous outlaw/champion, an excellent action tale and… More
  About the only thing I didn't like about this film is its title. Calling it "Robin Hood" is misleading from the start.It's not what the moviegoer expects: it is the story of how Robin Longstride became the infamous outlaw/champion, an excellent action tale and historical drama, but it bears little resemblence to previous tales of merry men (often clad in tights) and humor-laden archery contests. This movie stands on its own. It is a Ridley Scott-Russell Crowe picture, and in the opinions of some critics, suffers in comparison to Errol Flynn-style mirth and adventure. There is some humor here: "I am proportionate!" but not much. The emphasis here is instead on Robin's and Marian's ethical, justice-seeking characters response to England's changing monarchs and political intrigue. The characters are rich, and the action and violence are skillfully executed. This film is meant for fans of Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, and Master and Commander, not necessarily those steeped in Sherwood Forest folklore. Its an action adventure, not a whimsical swashbuckler.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings