Robin Hood (2010) Poster

(2010)

User Reviews

Review this title
597 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
How a strong 9+ becomes a 6- in just 30minutes.
logadof14 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
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.
424 out of 508 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The Legend rewritten to fit Star's Ego
deedeevolpe18 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
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.
140 out of 192 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
A disaster of a movie
justin5583915 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
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.
317 out of 452 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Errol not Russell if you don't mind
excalibur10710 April 2017
God almighty! This Robin Hood is catastrophic, period. On top of that, the lack of humbleness reaches the unthinkable. I've heard Russell Crowe , the new Robin Hood, referring to Errol Flynn's version as crap. Crap? Can you imagine! Errol Flynn made that movie "The Adventures Of Robin Hood" in 1939 and people still watch it today, 77 years later, with utter delight. Russell Crowe's "Robin Hood" was made only 7 years ago and it's already forgotten. I was appalled by his comment and realized that Oscar winner or not, wisdom or knowledge is not part of the equation. I've heard Russell Crowe in a different interview saying he never trained as an actor. He claims he doesn't know anything about Stanislavski and more importantly, he doesn't care to know. What a message to send to the new generations.
87 out of 119 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Yikes! A merry ol' disaster
jmason72-14 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, here is he awful truth:

1. Apparently a Stone Mason wrote the Magna Carter (Robin's Father) 2. Although a humble archer, Robin within a matter of weeks becomes the King's right hand man in battle 3. Apparently in 13th century England, the French had 20th Century warefare technology 4. Apparently French soldiers can row their way across the channel in canoes and then jump out and fight(although earlier in the film the channel is so perilous that a big English boat barely makes it across and it took overnight to cross) 5. King John never signed the Magna Carter 6. Russell Crowe can do a number of English accents - unfortunately, he just couldn't choose one 7. Cate Blanchett is very good at channelling Katherine Hepburn 8. Apparently Marion is psychic because she recognises the man who killed her father-in-law in battle without having ever laid eyes on her 9. Marion although having worked on a farm in Nottingham for 10 years is a skilled soldier and killed wield an axe better than most of the French and British soldiers 10. Everyone in the town of Nottingham is so stupid that they don't realise that Robin is impersonating Robert of Loxley who is about 20 years his senior, blonde and looks nothing like Russell Crowe.

Don't see it - it's not worth your coin. I'm so disappointed because I love Cate Blanchett and Crowe is usually very good. But this is just bad story telling.
149 out of 210 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What is the point of this movie?
saintorr16 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
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.
210 out of 307 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Uninspired.
lewiskendell5 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. 
75 out of 109 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
It sucked
evan_harvey15 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
To begin with, it sucked. Now let me tell you why.

Once upon a time, an archer named Rusty was the most noble and educated archer in King Richard's army. So noble and educated, in fact, that when he pretends to be a knight, no one can even tell the difference. So this noble and educated Archer ends up gaining the trust of all the barons in England, and leads them (and the King, mind you) in an heroic assault upon the French. In fact, when the French surrender, they do not surrender to the King of England, but to the noble archer named Rusty. That is the sum total of the film's plot. It has only a passing reference to the well-known story of Robin Hood. Oh, right. And at the end, the King is so incensed that the French surrendered to Rusty instead of him so he outlaws Rusty, and names him 'Robin Hood', and thus begins the legend.

So what, I hear you ask, are the actual flaws in the film? Well, firstly, it is that Robin is clearly a noble and well-educated man, rather than a dirty Englishman who has been fighting for the last 10 years in Palestine. Given the storyline, it would have been so much better had Rusty been a common soldier, given that he then pretends to be a nobleman.

Secondly, everyone listens to Rusty, as if only he really knows what he is talking about. No one else has any idea how to fight, and even the King of England listens to him.

Thirdly, it appears that the main group who eventually become the merry men of Sherwood Forest are in fact a bunch of dirty English children who have run away from their mothers in Nottingham because all their fathers are away fighting in the Crusades, and now they pillage their own families and hide in the forest.

Fourth, the French are so inept that this bunch of dirty English children ride into battle against the French army and _aren't_ completely slaughtered. Heck, anyone can grab a sword and kill a bunch of seasoned warriors - it's only the French for goodness sake!

Fifth, anyone can pass for a knight, even an archer. After all, the only difference between a knight and a peasant is the clothes they wear.

Sixth, it is only when an old man tells him about his heretofore unknown father, that Rusty remembers everything from when he was six! Like he'd never tried before! And how his father, a stone mason and accomplished philosopher, got all the Barons to sign a revolutionary and genius charter that challenges the feudal system in England!

Now, the script wasn't poorly written, or the action scenes badly shot. It's just that there really wasn't much of a story, and certainly no theme at all. As such, there was nothing for the audience to connect with. I didn't care a whit that Robin Hood was banished as an outlaw. Russel Crowe can't act for spit, and he did a terrible, limp job. It seems that his default role is as a noble, yet betrayed quasi- aristocrat, allowing him to be heroic with almost no facial expression (except at the end when he's yelling). Cate Blanchett was unremarkable in every way. The other actors were passable.

I was quite disappointed with Brian Helgeland's script. He's done better work, such as LA Confidential, which had both characters and plot. Robin Hood had almost neither of both. There were never any stakes involved, and only one brief moment when everything looked bad (Marion's abduction scene). The French were coming, so Rusty whipped everyone up and they went and fought and won. That's it. That's the movie. Nothing to care about, no characters to like, no danger and no point to the movie.

A poor effort from all involved. 1 out of 10.

EDIT: I have since discovered that the script for this film was originally a bizarre CSI style film set in medieval England where the Sheriff of Nottingham tries to apprehend Robin Hood. Then Ridley Scott decided that he wanted to direct a Robin Hood story, and who knows how it went bonkers from that point on. Apparently the original script was a bit crap too, but completely different from the end product.
105 out of 157 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Solid, but not great
oephyx12 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.
275 out of 442 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
They could have made a decent movie
bpeacock-217 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
It's one of those films that was annoying me as I watched it but actually making me cringe the more i think about it. A few points - ignoring any historical inaccuracies (of which there are plenty).

1) There appeared to be only one character (Godfrey) who could speak English intelligibly, accents of Robin Hood and Little John were quite laughable (Crowe darted between North Yorkshire, Liverpool and Ireland) and I have no idea which part of the world Little John was supposed to come from. 2) Maid Marion – a very hammy performance and legend does not ever mention her super-human strength; have you ever tried to bend a modern longbow replica? Very hard even for a large bloke and they have about half the draw weight of the real thing, and I had no idea that Wendy and the lost boys were involved in the legend of Robin Hood. 3) The final battle scene was taken more or less directly from Saving Private Ryan and included replica landing craft, one of the daftest scenes in cinema for quite some time. 4) There is so much information about concerning archer's other weapons of that era there was no need to invent a long sledge hammer 5) Why call the film Robin Hood? Only the last few seconds are to do with 'Robin of the Hood' so this should have been clearly labelled as a prequel. 6) Could they not have found a beach with real cliffs?

All that money wasted – they could have made a decent film
100 out of 153 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Very Dark And Different Take On A Familiar Story
sddavis6330 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)
34 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Solid but a bit stupid
cjwillemse14 May 2010
Robin Hood is a very professionally made film. Great actors, great production design, great images. It is nice to watch because you feel you are in the capable hands of Ridley Scott. But do not expect to be amazed by the story or the acting. Apart from dame Marion, the characters are two dimensional and predictable. The film pretends to be historically correct, but is of course a well dressed fantasy. There are a few battle scenes, filmed in the Gladiator way. They are exciting, but not very convincing. In fact, they are completely ridiculous when you think you are watching a historically correct film. The worst for me were the boats in the final battle, apparently trying to induce a D-Day feeling.

Overall, the story is off balance. Some scenes have a very slow pace, while other scenes, often key elements that explain how Robin Hood came into existence, are reduced to a few shots and proclamations. The end of the film tells it all: it reminds us that we were supposed to see the story of how the legend of Robin Hood started. The makers just forgot to tell it.
338 out of 562 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Horrible
caesarjd29 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Robin Hood is apparently Russell Crowe's "Water World". The movie, by Ridley Scott, is designed to be a historical production of Robin Hood, or that's my understanding based on the cinematography. The movie is so poorly constructed however, and the tactics so ridiculous, the audience actually broke out in laughter at several, serious, parts. The culminating battle at the end was terrible. In fact, Maid Marrian storming the beach with the 'lost boys' of Sherwood Forest at the end had us almost rolling. Of course the landing craft and the D-Day re-enactment scenes captured by Mr. Scott only added to our mirth... Seriously don't pay to see this movie.
50 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Not as funny as Robin Hood Men in Tights
sxef2 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I just joined so I could comment on this movie and boy is it terrible. Just watch one of the many other Robin Hood related movies or TV shows instead of this trash.

I've been a fan of Robin Hood since I was a kid and I've seen most if not all of the movies and TV shows and been too many of the Robin Hood attractions such as Sherwood Forest etc, so you can probably say that I know a bit about R.H and I've never heard of Robin Longstride (Note: The name "Robin Longstride" appears to be unique to the 2010 Robin Hood film starring Russell Crowe. However, Robin Hood has been depicted as a former Crusader in several versions, perhaps most notably in the 1976 film Robin and Marian. *from the bold outlaw website*) it's pretty bad that they just made up some random family friendly R.H story for a movie when there are plenty of great ones already that are a million times better than this, go and check out Robin Hood Prince of Thieves before you rate this more than 5. It's so bad that it looks like they had a smaller budget than the BBC TV show of the same name.

The acting in this isn't really that convincing as none of the characters playing English folk came across as very English apart from Mark Addy who played Friar Tuck whom is British; plus some of the actors weren't very well cast, Russel Crow as Robin Hood is a joke. The music wasn't very accurate for the time period although I'm not sure when Celtic folk music began, but what I do know was 700 years ago here in England Robin Hood and his merry men weren't playing it. Did the research crew watch lord of the rings too see what life here in England was like in the days of Robin Hood.

Anyway to finish my insane review be weary of people who vote this more than 5.
45 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Entertaining...
under87 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.
55 out of 90 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
this is not Robin Hood
axexisinb17 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
1. This is not a movie about Robin Hood the legend, but about Robin Longstride. So instead of a green, lean rogue we get a dark, boring know-it all (Crowe).

2. This is not about compelling storytelling. It's a mish mash of muddled stories, none of them interesting.

3. This is not about believable fighting scenes. Kids on ponies (!!!!!) and old maid Marion (Blanchett) are equal to trained soldiers with shield, sword and chainmail.

4. This is not about believable archery. To master an English longbow one needed to train daily and develop lots of muscles to shoot it (670– 900 N (150–200 pounds)). But old maid superCate could draw and shoot the bow with no problem at all.

5. This movie seems to be about World war II. The bad French king wants to invade good old England, so he uses an evil agent (Isaac) to destabilize the country. King John, portrayed as a raving idiot, sends him out to forcibly collect taxes. Instead of just doing that his black-clad troops act like bloodthirsty Waffen SS, killing everyone indiscriminately.

Then more French troops land on a beach with WWII landing craft just to run around foolishly. Arrows are shot at them like machinegun-bullets causing the same kind of losses and despair as in Saving Private Ryan. After some really ridiculous fighting Crowe delivers a miracle shot with a wet bow, brings the drowned maid back to life and gets, as an after thought, banned.

6. This movie is not about bright colours. It's dark and depressing.
27 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
"Null point" for Ridley Scott's disastrous bore and mish mash of a film
cribyn4416 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
As an admirer of Ridley Scott's work - especially "Gladiator" but above all the totally outstanding "Kingdom of Heaven" - my wife and I went to see this in the cinema with some "good" expectations. Unfortunately, I couldn't wait for the whole farrago to come to a painful conclusion. The film is a total mess because its screenplay is simply horrendous. It has no proper "story" or structural narrative, the whole thing being like a quilt made up of different strands of so-called "story", which are then stitched together at odd times ["stiched-up" for the audience is a better description] in the forlorn hope that this will somehow make a "whole" thing emerge on the screen. The fault lies entirely with the scriptwriter, Brian Helgeland, for the most total rubbish screenplay I have ever seen - as well as with Ridley Scott for allowing himself to spend money and time filming this rubbish. Other commentators - especially "justin 55839": "A Disaster of a Movie" - have correctly picked up all the holes in the script and the film. This film really needs to be consigned to the rubbish bin. The only thing that kept me somehow half-interested was listening to the excellent soundtrack. Except there again, certain horrors of horror kept coming to the fore. I couldn't believe I was hearing 19th or 20th century Irish folk music as the background to the olde ye English folks people of the 12th century enjoying themselves around the village camp fires at night! Thank goodness the other two films of Scott's I mentioned above will help to keep his reputation intact.
69 out of 117 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The re-invention of a legend
freemantle_uk12 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.
209 out of 389 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good, but the sequel can be great.
jandcmcq14 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.
135 out of 249 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Shhh...you're so pretty, don't talk
airguitar5719 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
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.
50 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A mythical figure minus the myth is just some guy
Ytadel2 December 2010
Ridley Scott aimed to bring Robin Hood down to earth and in that straightforward respect he was successful. The problem is that he arguably brought Robin Hood CRASHING down to earth, jammed like a square peg in a round hole into a generic semi-epic of medieval warfare and political intrigue. Change the names of Robin, Little John, Marian, and the village of Nottingham and I'd pretty much have no idea that this screenplay was ever written with the intention of being a Robin Hood movie — even the villain, a French spy and marauder named Godfrey, is a brand new creation, with the Sheriff reduced to a piddling, zero-impact supporting character. It ends up feeling like a little bit of Robin Hood mythos accidentally leaked onto a print of Braveheart or Gladiator so they said to hell with it and decided to release it in theaters, albeit with the bloodshed dialed back to PG-13 levels.

That's not to imply that the movie is boring or devoid of action; there's plenty of battles, hundreds dead, and even a spot of comic relief in Little John and Friar Tuck. But when I think of Robin Hood the giant neon sign in my mind flashes the word ADVENTURE, and I would in no way, shape, or form ever describe Scott's Robin Hood as an adventure movie. A medieval war movie perhaps, but not an adventure movie. There's a little bit of travel, sure, but Robin spends at least half if not more of the runtime just chilling in Nottingham, flirting with Marian and tilling the soil. And, sorry to be unimaginative, but I wanna see Robin Hood getting chased, sneaking under the enemy's nose in disguise, picking up new companions on his journey, swashbuckling, and in general feeling like a rogue, none of which this Robin Hood does. It's a bizarrely dry interpretation of one of popular fiction's most infamous scoundrels.

Part of the problem is the badly miscast leads. There's fun to be had in Kevin Durand's Little John, Max von Sydow's Sir Walter Loxley, Sherlock Holmes and Kick-Ass's Mark Strong further cementing his villainous typecasting as Godfrey, and even a bit of scenery-chewing in Oscar Isaac's King John, but however many Academy Awards they may have between them I don't think that Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett were right for Robin and Marian. Fine actors, especially Blanchett, but they have virtually no personalities in this movie and no romantic chemistry whatsoever. Dryness emanates from them; I was worried they would near a spark and catch flame.

It's also kind of bizarre how the film purports to be the beginning of the legend, yet Robin Hood is played by an actor nearing fifty. Don't get me wrong; I'm not one of those morons who needs all my film leads to be whippersnappers — I'm the world's biggest enthusiast of 58-year-old Liam Neeson's newfound career as a pulpy action star — but both Crowe and Blanchett just look too damn old for these parts. I would have rather seen someone like, I don't know, Stardust's Charlie Cox as Robin Hood. Not as good an actor, no, but better for this role. I never thought I'd say this, but even Orlando Bloom would have been better.

As for what the film gets right, if you've seen Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven (which, by the way, in its director's cut form ties with Alien as the best film Scott's ever done) you know that Ridley Scott has a real talent for making these medieval epics look and feel just right. The sets, the costumes, the castles, the villages, the weaponry, the layer of Middle Ages dirt and grime on everything, it all looks great, especially bolstered by beautiful cinematography. I won't go so far as to say it makes you want to be there, but it's authentic and drawn with painterly skill, simply a nice movie to look at whatever near-fatal weaknesses may be found in the storytelling.

Still, I'd only recommend seeing this Robin Hood if you're really, really into medieval warfare and conflict. If not and you want some adventure then just watch Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves again. That's right, you big baby, you know you like it.
16 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Promising Start To New Robin Hood Adventure
changmoh9 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
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)
91 out of 169 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Typical Ridley Scott - good images but plot and rest derivative!
badajoz-112 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Ridley and Tony Scott and I grew up watching the same sort of dual feature movie down the local flea pit - only his was in Hartlepool and mine was in Cardiff. There was a genre that was set in medieval or Arthurian England where a secondary leading US actor like Robert Taylor or Alan Ladd came across to Britain to lead up a cast of local thesps like Robert Morley or Guy Rolfe or Michael Rennie, which were fairly successful - the best by far being 'Ivanhoe' which had a gorgeous young Elizabeth Taylor being burnt at the stake! This 'Robin Hood' is an expensive remake. The reason, I say that, is that they always had some plot about the lead role finding out his father was some great liberal lord or peasant who fell out with the establishment! Unfortunately this film is top heavy with superfluous plot, and the real identity of Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) takes ages to come to fruition. Yes, Robin's father wrote the document before Magna Carta, being a sort of illiterate medieval version of Tom Paine and Thomas Jefferson - really!? The plot becomes so convoluted that Mark Strong is some sort of Benedict Arnold figure (got to make it comprehensible to US audiences), King John is a mad spoilt brat, and Marian a sword wielding warrior queen aka Xena (cue the joke when you first see her bending a long bow - a feat few men could achieve!), while the totally wasted Sheriff of Nottingham (Matthew McFadyean) takes the humorous relief award with the best line about his mother! A historical mish mash then with stock characters and plots from every source imaginable (plus plenty of slomo), eg the opening looks like a colour remake of 'Lord of the Flies!' and pre-final battle looks like Wendy leading the Lost Boys into action! The acting is okay, but mostly one note. The script soon to be seen in court with Steven Spielberg suing for plagiarism - would you believe that the French invaders come ashore in WW2 landing craft with scenes of dead bodies, arrows whizzing and blood shot underwater!? Knowing where the final battle was shot at Freshwater Bay, I shall be going to look soon for those CGI cliffs! And, by the end, if you are wondering how Robin becomes an outlaw, then don't blink, it all happens ludicrously in about 120 seconds flat! Four for brio and cheek and lots of action, but what a load of old blarney, sorry, horse manure!
56 out of 102 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I wanted to throw a cell phone at the screen
Jackpollins15 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
As most people know, Russell Crowe got arrested for throwing a cellphone at a hotel concierge. That's what I wanted to do to the screen when I saw Robin Hood, an excessively boring and lamely made attempt to screw around with the classic tale of Robin Hood. Crowe is either screaming or sleeping throughout the film. I have never had this complaint about an action film before, but I would like less action. Although they over modernize this version, at least there's no dance breaking Johnny Depp like in Alice In Wonderland. The film finds its right tone 1 or 2 times for not more than a couple of seconds. The pacing is poor, and the running time too long, and it feels like they try to fit about 10 different movies into a ridiculous running time of 2 and 1/2 hours. I respect what they try to do with the steal from the rich to give to the poor thing and twist it around, but it feels too much like just another Ridley Scott action film, except more dull than usual. A great supporting cast like Mark Addy, Mark Strong, Cate Blanchett & Max Von Sydow are wasted, reading their lines in an either dull or laughable or dull and laughable way. Overall, you can definitely skip this Robin Hood because it's just here to steal from your wallet and give to the movie theater.
40 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A great legend mangled beyond recognition.
garyvanhorn10 January 2011
Let's get a couple things out of the way: Robin Hood is not real, he is a legendary character and is, for all intents and purposes, wholly fictitious, yet set in 12th century England. Since the whole story is made-up, you can make the villains anyone you want, set it in any year you want, and have the plot go pretty much anywhere you feel like. That being said, the story of Robin Hood is so iconic that messing with any of the following will severely hurt the feel of the story: robs from the rich and gives to the poor, Sherwood Forest, Maid Marion, The Merry Men, Friar Tuck, Prince/King John, The Sheriff of Nottingham, archery, England, and King Richard. You can get by with a few tweaks here and there, combining villains, offing King Richard, and minor characters eliminated/added, but if you eliminate everything but the names you end up with the dreadful film directed by Ridley Scott.

The movie really boils down to: Robin Hood comes back to England after the death of King Richard as he was returning from the third crusade and finds English traitors working with the French to destabilize and invade England. Robin helps lead an army to combat the invaders and saves England, then is branded an outlaw and slips away into the forest as the screen fades to "So the legend begins" and the credits roll.

So what went wrong? In a nutshell, everything except the kitchen sink (and only because indoor plumbing hadn't been invented yet). Russell Crowe could have been a cadaver in chain mail and been more interesting and exciting. In this film Robin Hood has been stripped of everything that made the character worthy of legend. There are no merry men, Sherwood Forest is a footnote, The Sheriff of Nottingham is more like a prop than a character, King Richard is dead, Friar Tuck is a twit, the romance with Maid Marion is mostly left to your imagination, the villains keep waffling on their villainy, and robbing from the rich to give to the poor is still in the planning stage; all because the movie is a prequel that is set before Robin Hood became a legendary folk hero. Why on God's green earth would you want to take such a legendary story and turn it into a "before they were famous" piece. Nobody cares what Robin Hood did before he became the legendary outlaw because it's interminably boring, as this film clearly shows.

Most of the characters are woefully underdeveloped and appear in the film only because they are "supposed" to be there. The action sequences aren't impressive in any way but they did make me wonder exactly when a peasant archer (Robin Hood) came across the skills of horseback riding, swordsmanship, and mounted combat. To be fair, all the other peasant archers had horses too, so why not I suppose? The battle sequences were less than spectacular and held precisely zero suspense. I noted English casualties were next to nothing during the final climactic encounter with the invading French army, so I guess there was a little suspense because I was wondering if any English soldiers would get killed at all.
49 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed