Read Mixed User Reviews for Robin Hood (2010)

6

DrewMay 15, 2010

Pros -Special Effects -Battle Scenes -Scenery -giant horse drawing on countryside -Russell Crowe growling about capitalism -Explosions -Depiction of French people Cons -Soundtrack doesn't seem to fit -Scary hooligans wearing bags on Pros -Special Effects -Battle Scenes -Scenery -giant horse drawing on countryside -Russell Crowe growling about capitalism -Explosions -Depiction of French people Cons -Soundtrack doesn't seem to fit -Scary hooligans wearing bags on their heads -King John's poor acting and characterization -King John's facial hair -History mixed with fiction doesn't work as well as it could -No evil emperor for Russell Crowe to slay.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

6

kgmJun 5, 2010

This would be more properly titled

1 of 1 users found this helpful

6

KonradT.May 16, 2010

The acting was good, but I feel like they did the wrong Robin Hood. I would much rather watch Robin Hood be Robin Hood for two hours than watch Robin be a soldier, a knight, a husband, a knight, and THEN an outlaw. A 10-15 minute flashback The acting was good, but I feel like they did the wrong Robin Hood. I would much rather watch Robin Hood be Robin Hood for two hours than watch Robin be a soldier, a knight, a husband, a knight, and THEN an outlaw. A 10-15 minute flashback would have sufficed. Russell Crowe did a great job, but I felt like they could have gotten someone with a bit more personality for the role. Cate Blanchett was marvelous, but when she joins Crowe for the final battle, I honestly rolled my eyes and thought "Hey, look, it's Lord of the Rings.", of which Blanchett also starred in. All in all, I would give it a 6.5.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

5

Karl2000Oct 1, 2010

Felt a much longer than it should've; and no punchline. It tries to do too much and ends up playing like a pilot for 'Robin Hood' the TV series - in which, hopefully, all of the many characters will be developed. Interesting that Ridley wouldFelt a much longer than it should've; and no punchline. It tries to do too much and ends up playing like a pilot for 'Robin Hood' the TV series - in which, hopefully, all of the many characters will be developed. Interesting that Ridley would create a film that looks like 'Gladiator' but fails to hit all the Gladiator,Brave Heart, etc, plot points i.e. : protaganist established as hero, family of hero is murdered by villain, hero is made outcast/outlaw by villain, hero finds love/faith/need-for revenge, etc, etc. While most of those things happen in the film, they don't flow coherently, in fact it's all very disjointed; and too many villains. And the end I was left with a feeling that Ridley was going through the motions on this one.… Expand

5 of 6 users found this helpful51

All this user's reviews

5

grandpajoe6191Sep 25, 2011

Epic, but what's the point of it?

8 of 10 users found this helpful82

All this user's reviews

5

RazvSep 22, 2010

The story was good, being different from the usual Robin Hood stories, but that's about the only positive aspect of this movie. The actors played average, the lines were far to simple, the action and fight scenes were unrealistic andThe story was good, being different from the usual Robin Hood stories, but that's about the only positive aspect of this movie. The actors played average, the lines were far to simple, the action and fight scenes were unrealistic and uninteresting. I expected much more from this movie.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

4

NKMay 17, 2010

Unbelievably boring.

0 of 2 users found this helpful

5

SculpPenMay 16, 2010

The first 3/4 of the move was decent, a little slow going (esp. if you don't know the movie is just setting you up for a sequel) but the acting was good enough and there were only a handful of odd/distracting events. The last half hour The first 3/4 of the move was decent, a little slow going (esp. if you don't know the movie is just setting you up for a sequel) but the acting was good enough and there were only a handful of odd/distracting events. The last half hour was just horrible, everything seemed to happen all at once, and often for no appartent reason. I don't mind a little artistic liberty, but I couldn't understand why (1) after becoming a knight, Robin hardly uses his character defining bow (2) why were the French made out to be the villains... has anti French sentiment grown so strong that movies are trying to capitalize on this? and (3) why was Marion in full armor, leading a band of kids into battle?!? I… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful

5

GregMay 18, 2010

It's not as bad as certain other abominable efforts (take a bow Mr Costner) but as an Englishman, the elephant in its' room is Crowe's accent, which is laughable. He has spent the last fortnight arguing with English It's not as bad as certain other abominable efforts (take a bow Mr Costner) but as an Englishman, the elephant in its' room is Crowe's accent, which is laughable. He has spent the last fortnight arguing with English journalists that what he is muttering is a Yorkshire accent, when it sounds like one part Geordie to three parts Oirish. It might be a piddling thing to our tranatlantic bretheren, but in England we just cannot get past it. Why on earth cast two non-British actors with roles in one of England's longest running and most endearing fairy tale? Scott's re-imagining is ruined by his selection of principle characters.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

JamieCMay 26, 2010

Inane story with ridiculous plot details. Some scenes do display Ridley Scott's masterful touch including the stirring lead up to the final battle, but those moments are few and too fleeting. This feels very forced, Crowe is too old to Inane story with ridiculous plot details. Some scenes do display Ridley Scott's masterful touch including the stirring lead up to the final battle, but those moments are few and too fleeting. This feels very forced, Crowe is too old to be in the prequel, Blanchett is too grave to play Marian, and the story offers nothing new while taking all the fun out of the mythi.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful

4

LJHMay 27, 2010

There are some impressive special effects in this film, and some terrific performances from the supporting cast. Unfortunately that is where the good points end. They are all brought together in a very boring, incoherent story line and a There are some impressive special effects in this film, and some terrific performances from the supporting cast. Unfortunately that is where the good points end. They are all brought together in a very boring, incoherent story line and a terrible leading man. I really struggled to even pay attention to this film mostly because it was so loosely held together with a lot of completely irrelevant additions to the story. Who is Robins dad and why does it matter? Who are all the kids running about in the woods and why do we care? The light-hearted moments in the film that made everyone chuckle were the high points, since the parts that were supposed to be serious were just boring. The one thing that kept me watching was that I was trying to figure out what kind of accent Russell Crowe was supposed to have. English? Irish? Scottish? Welsh? Your guess is as good as mine. His performance in this film gives new meaning to the phrase 'doing it wrong.' Basic point I'm making: stay away.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful

5

EggyGJun 11, 2010

With such great cast and director this movie is surprisingly lame....weakest Riddley Scott movie. The fx wasn't polished enough and felt like small budget movie. Too bad.

0 of 2 users found this helpful

4

AndrewWMay 16, 2010

Not very exciting. Of course, the action scenes are quite good (it's Ridley Scott, after all), but in between the story is actually fairly boring. A lot of professional critic reviews complain about how serious it is -- and really, Not very exciting. Of course, the action scenes are quite good (it's Ridley Scott, after all), but in between the story is actually fairly boring. A lot of professional critic reviews complain about how serious it is -- and really, that's pretty much true. The movie just weighs on you; this definitely isn't Robin Hood and his merry men. That's not to say you can't make a serious, "realistic" movie about Robin Hood. I suspect that like the theatrical version of "Kingdom of Heaven," the studio messed with Scott's picture too much. Wait for the director's cut. Also, where are all the reviews, Metacritic? Some sort of agreement with Universal? Check out the NYT, LA Times, Roger Ebert, etc. If you listen to critics anyway.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful

4

ArkonBladeNov 2, 2010

a prequel that just doesnt do much . doesnt feel as fun or as intresting as the old robin hood films we've seen . little in the way of any charicter devolpment not alot of action eather. the acting is good but not much about this film reallya prequel that just doesnt do much . doesnt feel as fun or as intresting as the old robin hood films we've seen . little in the way of any charicter devolpment not alot of action eather. the acting is good but not much about this film really does any thing . i felt like scott was making cate blanchet more like rippley from Aliens this tough take no crap bad ass which felt so off. i felt like this was just half a movie of the story of robin hood . the movie pretty much end when it starts gettin alittle intresting . id rather wach the old robin hood with erol flinn any day over this film . it was wachable and eh so so but from some one like ridley scott id hoped for much better then this.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

DarkCriticSep 21, 2010

Robin Hood is okay movie,but it wasn't as good as the other Robin Hood films that expect it. The only problem is that why does Russel Crowe has a short haircut,just like him in Gladiator that is just the same character? Why does theRobin Hood is okay movie,but it wasn't as good as the other Robin Hood films that expect it. The only problem is that why does Russel Crowe has a short haircut,just like him in Gladiator that is just the same character? Why does the characters are so over the top being so serious,it doesn't seem as possible like other Robin Hood characters? The action scenes are pretty good,but the miss part is that the action scenes are way too violence,slow motion that i wasn't so cool,and has too much edge scenes like the other Ridley Scott films. Only the original Robin Hood from the 30's more better than this,so just stick it to the original. It's almost short like the other 90's Robin Hood with Kevin Costner. But this movie wasn't much too special for me.… Expand

0 of 5 users found this helpful05

All this user's reviews

5

LondonTrueloveNov 10, 2010

I didn't really care for it, was quite a long movie and it just never seemed to peak, it was just kinda flat the whole way through. I was really expecting more.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

The_MOWMay 12, 2011

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. From what I saw in the trailers for this film, I was expecting a fast-paced action flick. Sadly, the movie is far from it.

Following the death of "King Richard the Lionhearted" (Danny Huston) during the Crusades, "Robin Longstride" (Russell Crowe) and four men come upon the aftermath of an ambush, and find a dying British knight who tells "Longstride" of a plot between France and a British collaborator -- a British knight.

"Longstride" promises the dying knight that he will return the knight's sword to his father. But, when he returns to his homeland, he poses as the knight, and helps those in need.

Based on centuries old legends from Great Britian, Robin Hood is far from the typical depictions we have seen over the years in popular media. In other depections, including a popular BBC television series in 2006, "Hood" is either arriving from his journey home from the Holy Land or he has been back for some time, and already declared an outlaw. This movie is focused more on the events leading to the title character becoming the legendary "Robin Hood". But, unlike other depictions I've seen, this one is not a strong representation of the legendary outlaw.

The first 75% of the film is unbearably slow I thought, and I noticed I was paying more attention to my computer (I watched it on HBO this afternoon) than the television. To me, the scenes between any fight scenes just lagged and had poor development for the characters.

It appears that those behind the scenes relied on the audience already knowing the characters, and gave them little to no development. They introduced some new twists with the characters, which worked fairly well, but they were just not presented in an interesting way I thought.

I felt little to no chemistry between the characters, especially between "Marion" (Cate Blanchett) and "Longstride". All the main players are there, but they were one-dimensional in my opinion. None of them stood out.

One thing I noticed is that non-British actors had a terrible time with the British accent. Sometimes they sounded British, while other times, their accents sounded Irish or even Scottish. It was very obvious that the dialect coach hired to help the non-British cast members failed in his or her job. It got quite confusing at times when I heard the wrong accent.

Probably because they were working with a well known story, the movie is pretty predictable. The actors in this movie failed at attempting to make their lines believeable, which didn't get them out of the one-dimensional feel I was getting from them. The worse of the characters had to be "King John" (Oscar Isaac), who was absolutely horrible. Isaac's performance was uneven, and came off as trying to be comical when he most likely wasn't trying to be that way.

Cinematorgraphy wasn't that great either, but was slightly better during wide angle scenes during battles. There were no bright colors in the scenery, nor wardrobe. It was a pretty bland looking movie, which went along with the bland performances.

One thing you need to know is that this movie is fairly violent. I would not suggest this for a young audience that the Disney version of this story targets. You will see a lot of gruesome wounds like an arrow through a hand or chest. It looked as if they did a fair job at focusing at main cast members in close-up shots during large battles, but those close-ups were rushed and just did not work out if you ask me.

If you are a fan of the legend, this is going to disappoint you. If you are new to the legend, I would suggest the superior BBC television series that ended about a year before this movie came out, and all three seasons of that version would be a better addition to your Netflix queue or your personal DVD/Blu-Ray collection. The BBC series has more interesting depictions of the main cast of characters, and is more family-friendly.… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

5

AlienSpaceBatsSep 29, 2012

Mediocre, tepid, clichéd, trite. Despite having some actors whose work I usually enjoy (William Hurt, Max von Sydow), the film is littered with historical inaccuracy to the point of ridiculousness, characterization is very poor toMediocre, tepid, clichéd, trite. Despite having some actors whose work I usually enjoy (William Hurt, Max von Sydow), the film is littered with historical inaccuracy to the point of ridiculousness, characterization is very poor to non-existent but has some nice cinematography. Above all, for what it is, it drags on far too long. Good to riff over in a MST3000K style though.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

cameronmorewoodNov 7, 2012

Robin Hood is visually brilliant and professionally acted. Ridley Scott is an expert of his craft and I look forward to each of his films; however, I do have one issue with Robin Hood. It's a bore.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

mikeonkokNov 16, 2013

As bland as can be. I really can't say too much about Robin Hood, it's just nothing.

I couldn't believe how little meaningful story and they could stuff into a well over two hour movie. Don't waste your time, don't see it. I dunnoAs bland as can be. I really can't say too much about Robin Hood, it's just nothing.

I couldn't believe how little meaningful story and they could stuff into a well over two hour movie.

Don't waste your time, don't see it. I dunno what Ridley Scott is doing nowadays, but he's falling off, that's for sure.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

kyle20ellisMar 29, 2022

I love Robin Hood, and I do like Ridley Scott's films, so this did have the ingredients to be good. Sadly, while it was a valiant attempt, it didn't work for me. The film does look good, with the cinematography excellent and the sets, sceneryI love Robin Hood, and I do like Ridley Scott's films, so this did have the ingredients to be good. Sadly, while it was a valiant attempt, it didn't work for me. The film does look good, with the cinematography excellent and the sets, scenery and costumes authentic enough. The score was a nice touch, it wasn't amazing, but it worked on the whole thanks to some beautiful orchestration. Overall, the archery, fighting and sword play were well handled, Scott's direction is assured and there are some bright spots in the cast namely Oscar Isaac, Max Von Sydow and Mark Strong.

Conversely, my main problem with this film is that it doesn't feel like a Robin Hood movie. If anything it feels like a sequel to Gladiator, but with a less compelling story and bad dialogue. Yes I understand it is an origin story, but the film's tone is rather too serious. This is not helped by the sluggish pacing in the latter half further disadvantaged by somewhat dull chemistry between Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett. The story doesn't always know which direction it wants to go, and I actually found myself confused by some scenes, and the film is much too long, an hour and three-quarters is a perfect length if done right. Then there's the script, which didn't flow very well at all. Also, Crowe didn't work for me. He tried hard to create a commanding and charismatic presence, but what let him down were his dialogue and his accent which came and went. I was disappointed in Cate Blanchett too, she is a fine actress who has given mesmerising performances particularly in Notes on a Scandal and the Elizabeth movies, but she isn't given very much to do apart from a nice touch where she joins in for the final battle. Ah yes the final battle, this was a disappointment actually too. It was well shot with some good sword play and the like but it was badly paced and kind of ran on a parallel with Saving Private Ryan but less gut-wrenching and compelling.

So all in all, a disappointment. Not the worst of the year, but it is to me the worst Robin Hood film and quite possibly Ridley Scott's worst film overall too. If you want the definitive Robin Hood, watch the Errol Flynn film, that is simply timeless with plenty of wit, great performances and one of the best scores of all time. 4/10 Bethany Cox… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

MayMay 16, 2010

The production is fine, the performance too, but there is something that makes you go out the cinema.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

PeterJJun 23, 2010

I thought it was an above average movie, but still disappointed overall. I was expecting Gladiator all over again, and this wasn't even close. Still, it was okay for the most part. I saw it in the theaters and will probably even rent it I thought it was an above average movie, but still disappointed overall. I was expecting Gladiator all over again, and this wasn't even close. Still, it was okay for the most part. I saw it in the theaters and will probably even rent it on Blu-ray just to check it out again in 1080p.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

dijavantewowOct 13, 2010

A decent Robin Hood movie. Although it mostly serious, I enjoy the little parts of humor with his Merry Men. There wasn't as much action as I expected, and that was quite disappointing. The trailers made it seem like an film with multipleA decent Robin Hood movie. Although it mostly serious, I enjoy the little parts of humor with his Merry Men. There wasn't as much action as I expected, and that was quite disappointing. The trailers made it seem like an film with multiple epic battle scenes, but there wasn't fighting at all considering how much there could have been.… Expand