Robin Hood - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Robin Hood Reviews

Page 1 of 698
September 19, 2017
Robin Hood is all ways saving people and he will be in a battle I found this movie had good action so Robin Hood is all ways ready will he win and save people now find out
July 24, 2017
Visually stunning and offering a new take on the character, Robin Hood is an unexpected, albeit dark and violent medieval epic.
DrStrangeblog
Super Reviewer
July 22, 2017
Unjustly maligned by critics, not every adventure story has to play like a brain-dead summer blockbuster wannabe. Robin Hood is actually one of the best origin stories I have seen, following the path of robin long stride, and archer and Richard the lion heart army, as he returns from the crusades just ahead of the French invasion. All of the characters we know - will scarlet, Little John, Friartuck, and of course made Marion - or cleverly woven into this backstory tapestry that adheres faithfully to the legend that will follow. acting heavyweights Russell Crowe and Kate Blanchett team up tremendously well on screen, especially as Marion tryouts to hi acting heavyweights Russell Crowe and Kate Blanchett team up tremendously well on screen, especially as Marion tries to deny her feelings towards this stranger who upends her life with news of her missing husband, and the phrase "a good knight" becomes a very funny double entendre. I liked about every choice they made with one huge exception, when Delilah drill decides to become yeah whe I liked about every choice they made with one huge exception, when Galadriel suddenly becomes Eowyn despite no apparent battle training in her whole life. Ridiculous!

The supporting cast is very strong with Mark Addie likable as Friartuck,
The supporting cast is very strong with Mark Addie likable as Friartuck, Max Von Sydow still engaging at 106 years old as Marion's father, and Oscar Isaac as a petulant and shifty Prince John to highlight a few. It's true that Errol Flynn and Kevin Costner both have this Robin Hood beat in terms of thrills and spells, but that wasn't Ridley Scott's ambition. He t approaches this legend with reverence and is more interested in who the characters are than showering the screen with arrows, with a couple exceptions. I found this return teaming of Crowe & Scott much superior to the overblown "Gladiator", which many of those same critics probably adored.
July 7, 2017
Nice made movie. Good performance by Cate as usual.
½ June 17, 2017
another poor film by ridley scott if he would just spend more time getting the script sorted
May 31, 2017
A fairly forgettable rendition that doesn't really stick to its jolly, bow-and-arrow roots. Robin Hood is grim and trying to be Gladiator under a different name.
May 2, 2017
An epic movie with fighting but this movie was more serious and complicated
½ April 27, 2017
Certainly a rousing version of the Hood, though it traded in stealing from the rich for epic battle sequences.
½ April 9, 2017
There is one consistent tradition in the orally handed down tale of Robin Hood: the legend always changes. Slight variations and alterations have always accompanied each next version, and there is no one right way to tell the story. I quite enjoyed the mashup featured in Men in Tights. This is the modern Hollywood epic version, convolution and all. Here, no piece of the backstory is taken for granted. Marian and Robin don't know each other, they meet each other. We explore the means by which Robin acquires the title of Loxley. Additional characters like Philip and Godfrey complicate the plot. Richard is featured as less than honorable as we know him from previous tales; that's not unexpected this day in age.

This turns out to be a prequel Robin Hood story, and I'm assuming some of the story was gathered by fictionalization of real history between French and English conflicts. They may also come from previous Robin Hood tales; I don't know, there are an abundance of stories. For Robin Hood buffs, the surprising alteration may be the death of King Richard early on. The writers can get away with this because historically, from a narrative perspective, he doesn't need to be alive. This also opens them up to attack. And rather than Richard be some kind, loving king, he is at most empathetic, but cruel to punish those who would speak their mind. Robin is not out to defend the honor of Richard, he just wants to be out of this crusade mess, which he disagrees with. He gets attached to something else, a pact with a dying knight - Robert of Loxley - to bring his sword to his father and inform him of his death. Robin sets off with his Merry Men, not thinking he'll fulfill the obligation, but feeling more compelled as a voice of destiny speaks from within, reacting to the words on Robert's sword.

This is a nicely crafted screenplay by Brian Helgeland, who is deep into the Robin Hood mythos while expanding the scope. Prince John is boorish

The problem with any Ridley Scott film is the lacking point of view, which I feel only succeeds in the original Alien. Otherwise, he tends to haphazardly cover scenes with lots of angles, but no meaning, purpose, and to no effect. He loses the emotion of pivotal moments by not exploring any ideas within it. His attitude seems to be "act, film, next." Scott has a few tricks - the angled camera shutter and the muted colors -- none of which appeal to me. The production design is fantastic, but you wouldn't think Scott was terribly impressed. I'm not sure what aspect of anything he's interested in while watching his films. It always feels like he just wants to get the job done and go home.

One thing I love in most every other Robin Hood film is the dazzling adventuresome score. We've developed a specific synthesized sound for the modern epic, and anyone daring to dangle outside this cliche will be cut loose from acceptance. That's a shame. Marc Streitenfeld's score is redundantly atrocious, and there were moments I wished for no score at all. Granted, there were some flavorful cues mixed in here and there, but there was no identifiable Robin Hood theme.
½ March 25, 2017
Pretty good but not as great as it could have been.
½ February 27, 2017
I wasn't really impressed with the film on first watching, because the storyline seemed initially confused or not really clear where it was going. However, after watching it a second time in light of the EU referendum, I think the story actually carries a lot more significance than I first thought.

I think that the character of Robin Hood is just a vehicle for a message more fundamental, lost in our expectations. We were expecting something similar to what we know and love. The story is not about Robin Hood, rather Magna Carta Libertatum - The Great Charter of Liberties. The message of the story is that we must fight to preserve those liberties.

Historically, Ridley Scott has got a few things right. He eluded to the Barons War of 1215 in which Magna Carta was signed. King John's reneging on Magna Carta is historically accurate. King Richard's feather by an arrow to the neck whilst laying siege is correct.

From a fight perspective, it was nice to see soldiers in formation, rather than just paring off into duels. Using their shields, rather than just using them as counterweights.

There were a few annoyances, like massive explosion on the castle gates...

Stupid special effects and swords don't go schwiiing when you pull them out of the scabbard.... sigh...

Really enjoyed the film.
February 21, 2017
Best adaptation of Robin Hood Ive ever seen.Brilliant performances by Crowe, Blanchett, and Strong.
½ February 3, 2017
This Robin Hood is not an adventure about an anti-hero who steals from the rich and gives to the poor. It is a grim, joyless war movie with vague references to the mythology that inspired it. To its credit, it provides solid action sequences and a well-constructed story. Unfortunately that story is hardly worth telling, and as a result this film does not provide the entertainment that a Robin Hood film should, especially considering the great talent involved.
½ January 17, 2017
I'm really on the fence with this one. On the one hand, Russell Crowe is an excellent Robin Hood, compassionate, courageous, and he looks fierce firing a bow and arrow. On the other hand, this prequel to the classic tale barely scratches the surface of the things that make this story timeless. It plays more like any other medieval war film, with Robin only becoming Robin Hood in the last three minutes of the movie. The acting is solid, the themes (about personal liberty and governments being accountable to their subjects) are timely, and the action is appropriately epic. There's even some good messages suggesting that morality and integrity keep one close to God. However, the film's tone is aggressively joyless, and while the drama is engaging, there is little fun to be had here. Furthermore, the film contains rear nudity, a surprising amount of innuendo, and is hands-down the most graphically violent PG-13 movie I've ever seen, with realistic medieval battles. Families would be wise to consider Disney's Robin Hood, or the 1930's classic starring Errol Flynn instead.
½ January 2, 2017
It's good movie to watch
December 28, 2016
static interpretation for Crowe on a different context of the character and the history that we know. More dark and violent turning it into a different movie from the usual
½ December 20, 2016
A little entertaining. But mainly horrible.
December 7, 2016
Everyone and their mother knows the story of Robin Hood: a socio-economical tale of the heroic outlaw archer who steals from the rich to benefit the poor alongside a band of merry men. The actual existence of Robin Hood is far from concrete, but Ridley Scott's take on the character grounds him in history as much as possible, to middling results. Scott's epic historical approach works best in all of the areas you expect: those being the technical aspects, of course. All of the costumes and sets are perfectly appropriate for 12th century England, as to be expected from a $200 million budget production. The action sequences are vast and visceral, filmed in both beautiful wide angles and close-ups that make you feel the brutality of the battles themselves. The cast here is solid as well: Crowe, despite an inconsistent accent, is serviceable in the lead. The likes of Cate Blanchett, Mark Strong, Oscar Isaac, and Max von Sydow are all good as well, and scenes shared between each of these heavy-hitters are handled well. It's the story itself that causes this film to collapse as an overall product: simply put, it's a dull affair. The grounded historical approach, while making for a technically marvelous affair, means that the sense of adventure that the character is so well-known for is lost. There's nothing inherently wrong with darker takes on characters, but in this case, the historical approach is plodding and overlong, and could use some heart to make us feel for these characters more. Scott is undeniably a technically incredible character: unfortunately, the narrative makes this an arrow that's missed its mark.
½ November 11, 2016
While Russel Crowe puts in a good performance and there are some good battle scenes, Robin Hood lacks focus with way to many characters and a long run time.
September 5, 2016
Russell Crowe is a great actor, but he keeps getting handed the same exact role ever since winning an Oscar for Gladiator
Page 1 of 698