Robin Hood - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Robin Hood Reviews

Page 2 of 698
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.
March 27, 2016
I actually really like this movie.
March 6, 2016
Amazing Cinematic accomplishment. Great acting. Awesome movie. Glad I never rely on Movie critics! What idiots.
½ February 20, 2016
Grade: F (7%)
Rating: 1/10 -
January 30, 2016
Definitely view this at peak hours with a cup of Joe!
January 30, 2016
An interesting movie. Not that great sadly.
½ January 27, 2016
This movie was too confusing and hard to understand I did not like this movie. It was hard to understand the characters and who they where so I was not for this movie
January 8, 2016
Ridley Scott's view on Robin Hood is amazing and I wish I would of thought of this idea. The action scenes are amazing and the movie is directed very well. Robin Hood is a good movie in my eyes.
½ January 3, 2016
I don't see Robin Hood is legendary from here but the fighting scenes are acceptable.
December 20, 2015
Good production value. That's about it.
November 15, 2015
Good story telling. only a few instances where I couldn't understand what they were saying.
November 15, 2015
An interesting rehash of the Robin Hood character that makes little/no use of Sherwood Forest. However Maid Marion, Friar Tuck etc. are all there.
Was looking forward to director Ridley Scott's approach to such an already well filmed franchise.
Russell Crowe as Hood puts on what can only be described as an accent between the dulcit tones of Sean Bean and Shadrach Dingle off Emmerdale. However that aside he puts in a respectable performance as Hood and all memories of a mullet headed, LA accent Robin of Loxley (its in Sheffield interestingly) are gone.
The film intertwines elements of historical fact as well as some motion picture fiction. The crusades of Richard The Lionheart that bankcrupted England are explained as well as suttle references to his homosexuality leading to a lack of direct ascendents and the throning of his brother John who is made a villain in the film. Several historical events are intertwined into the screenplay including John's supposed lesser guile in battle and the Magna Carta.
The Sheriff of Nottingham character is briefly featured and is just a cheap version of Alan Rickman that the casting directors could cast.
The ending as is usual nowadays in these big budget productions paves the way for a sequel that will probably delve more into the Sherwood Forest adventures of Hood seen in other films of the genre.
The battle scenes and blood and gore from arrows piercing bodies will make this a welcome addition to the Blu-Ray library no doubt.
½ November 10, 2015
Very well done. Complex; had to replay a no. of scenes because the British English was hard to understand sometimes. Yes, he didn't steal from the rich to give to the poor much at all. But he stood for the people and the people make England. You actually don't see this if all he's doing is stealing.
Page 2 of 698