The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part
The Walking Dead
Log in with Facebook
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We want to hear what you have to say but need to verify your account. Just leave us a message here and we will work on getting you verified.
Please reference “Error Code 2121” when contacting customer service.
Ridley Scott's revisionist take on this oft-told tale offers some fine acting and a few gripping action sequences, but it's missing the thrill of adventure that made Robin Hood a legend in the first place.
All Critics (245)
| Top Critics (46)
| Fresh (105)
| Rotten (140)
| DVD (3)
We never even get to see Robin steal from the rich and give to the poor. That's because the film is a prequel in search of a sequel. With any luck, we won't get one.
Its $200-million budget is on the screen. This is a big-scale ambitious period epic in the 60s grand tradition. It seeks to retell a well-worn tale, to put old wine in a shiny new bottle.
The film is pretty, and there are a few solid moments every hour. But considered as a work of cinema, with paid professionals involved, it's an extremely lackluster story.
Yes, it's dour, but it's also gritty and not nearly as silly as most "Robin Hood" adaptations.
"And so the legend begins," the new movie tells us at the end. But it's too late.
Robin and Marian are played by a scowling Russell Crowe and a grim Cate Blanchett, who has the face of a wooden squaw stained by decades of cigar smoke. I can't remember a more un-fun-looking couple.
As the first salvo in a hoped-for franchise, this Robin Hood is pretty much a non-starter. However, as a case study of the Hollwood assembly line run amok, it's earned a peculiar kind of immortality all its own.
Looking beyond the missed opportunity for social commentary, Robin Hood simply fails to hold the attention of its audience.
Scott's story about how a common soldier named Robin Longstride (a riveting Russell Crowe) becomes the enemy of the crown is good, though not great.
Scott decided, I think, to get away from the whole campy thing in tights business and wanted to make this 'real'. So there is sweat and dirt and rats at the cheese and even bad teeth, which is fair enough, but it is also joyless.
I expected Robin Hood to be Gladiator + Braveheart and I was pleased to find that it stands on its own as an entertaining movie.
The irony here is between the powerful merge of cinematic storytelling, history, and the dominant role of the market, because if Sir Ridley Scott's epic doesn't make a profit, there won't be a sequel, and more's the pity.
It is an interesting idea to make it about the character's pre-outlaw story, which comes to life with a wonderful production design and great acting from the cast. Even so, the technical aspects are not enough in a movie that goes for so many questionable narrative choices.
A truly polarizing film. Writing this review a couple of months after seeing it, it feels forgettable, but I remember being entertained, and thinking that the story was well-organized with a few clever angles in the adaptation. I'm saying the same about this as I did about Body of Lies: mediocre for Ridley Scott is still better work than a lot of Hollywood garbage.
Epic, powerful war scenes. Strong acting. Lots of fun!
A decent enough film, with good production value. However it's no Gladiator this time out, in truth it feels more like a prequel to what led up to the tale of Robin Hood. It can't top prince of Thieves though for me.
View All Quotes