Robin Hood - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Robin Hood Reviews

Page 1 of 698
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
Super Reviewer
July 27, 2016
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.
Super Reviewer
½ July 18, 2016
Another Robin Good remake/reboot whatever you want to call it and after it started brightly it did fall flat in the middle and we really didn't have any care for the main plot as we all know it, The ending battle was ok but nothing great, Russel Crowe played a good Robin but his accent was not very good, I should know as I live in the East Midlands where Nottingham is and his accent is pretty poor.
½ July 16, 2016
How can a Robin Hood story be so boring. Robin Hood should be an adventure not a melo-drama. This version takes itself a little too seriously.
July 13, 2016
Satisfying as a good meal.
June 9, 2016
Robin Hood, with Russell Crowe ( 2010 )
½ June 4, 2016
Sorry universal, but i fell asleep in the theater watching this shitty movie.
May 17, 2016
liked it, great action
½ April 21, 2016
Ridley Scott is a director I have always admired for his ability to direct different genres effortlessly, has a vision for spectacular visuals and known to get the best out of his actors. He fails in all of above in this movie. I am an equally ardent admirer of Russell Crowe as an actor who looked uninterested, overweight and not in one scene fit the character of Robin Hood the legend we had all heard about.

Firstly, it is a bummer that this movie is about how a nobody archer became a legend - since it is still a legend where there is no historical evidence whether such a character ever existed, the point that the writers concocted a story like this already feels artificial. The essence of Robin Hood is all about adventure, daredevilry and chivalry - where you see none of it. Just a morose soldier who puts himself in extraordinary circumstances and does stuff that you expect any hero character would do.

Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe), Little John (Kevin Durand) and a few other soldiers deserts the English army after the death of King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston) during his French conquests in the Third Crusade. They chance upon an ambushed English convoy of Knights that are taking the King's crown back. Robin and his gang impersonate the Knights for a ticket back home that is simmering with civil unrest due to heavy war taxes, looming drought and tyranny. Prince John (Oscar Isaac), next in line for English throne is betrayed by his trusted mercenary Godfrey (Mark Strong) who is a French double agent helping the enemy take advantage of this civil unrest. Robin's impersonation leads him to a small unknown town of Nottingham where he is obliged to carry forward his act as the Oxley heir and husband of Marion (Cate Blanchett) which becomes the center of unrest.

There is not one special moment in this lengthy monotonous war epic that you have not seen before from an abundant collection of movies featuring this era. The first 30 minutes features a highly disconnected screenplay with questionable acting for a Ridley Scott's movie and the battle sequences though ambitiously produced were generic with not one scene producing a moment of awe. Though Cate Blanchett has more than required screen time, she hardly makes a case for it. The overall runtime does not help as well. The most entertaining and innovative stuff is reserved for ending credits with brilliant animation and exciting music.

A rare but a complete misfire by Ridley Scott.
½ April 16, 2016
It takes alot for me to dislike a medieval film. I have a lifelong love for the aesthetics and feel of the period, which allows me to disregard any issues I could have. This is doubly so for a Robin Hood movie, as the Robin Hood legend is possibly my favorite folktale ever. So it is surprising that it is, along with "13th Warrior" and "Excalibur" (both really terrible films), one of the only medieval movies I can recall that I've been unable to like. The reason is that I have even more of a problem with what this movie represents than with the film itself. This movie exists to tell the viewer that exact historical accuracy (details, facts, figures etc) is more important than quality storytelling. It is ponderous and didactic, with Ridley Scott taking the role of historian who will take any pains to tell you how things really were. The purpose of this movie appears to be to cluck at previous screen versions of Robin Hood, but even in this questionable function it has no credibility. For all the warts those films may individually be seen to have, they at least understand how to tell the story, to bring to life its essential elements. The result of this boring and condescending picture is that the contention that exact historical rendering are superior cannot be believed. How you tell a story is simply more important than incidental details or even major facts. This Robin Hood movie needed more traditional artistry and a lot less clucking. And of course there is the big reveal, and let down, that it isn't a Robin Hood picture at all, but rather some sort of prequel. It has been speculated that this was inspired by Batman Begins, but the success of the latest Batman films has been misinterpreted; it wasn't the weightiness and sense of import that made those movies work (they were troublesome baggage), it was the commitment to intricate and well-paced plotting and some dynamite acting. And on the acting in this film: I've always liked Russell Crowe, but both he and Cate Blanchett, who is one of the best actors in the world, seem to be running on fumes. I think Russell has been outpaced by his countryman Hugh Jackman. He may not have spoken with an English Accent, but at least Kevin Costner got the fundamental characteristics of Robin Hood, and while he was overshadowed by Alan Rickman's riotous sheriff, that is one of the most watchable performances ever. There is very little that is watchable in this one.
Page 1 of 698