Robin Hood (2010)

Robin Hood (2010)

(2010)

Oscar-winner Russell Crowe and acclaimed director Ridley Scott, in their fifth collaboration (after Gladiator, A Good Year, American Gangster, Body of Lies) retell the Robin Hood legend – last tackled by Kevin Costner in Prince of Thieves.... More

Crowe stars as the bow-wielding hero, while Cate Blanchett plays Maid Marian.Hide

On Demand, DVD & Blu-Ray

Available from 2 providers

Flicks Review

I had a sense of unfulfilled hopes when I sat through the whole of Robin Hood only to have the words “The legend begins” appear in the final few seconds. Why not begin when the legend does? That’s when the fun starts, surely?... More

Like Casino Royale, or Batman Begins, this is a back-to-the-beginning tale that explains how the character came to be. The intention is to revisit the folklore hero, to make him more real and ditch the fantasy. Personally, I liked the fantasy.

Instead, this bland but bombastic version attempts to set everything within a pseudo-historical context, channel-hopping between England and France, and throwing in a bit of politics.

Fans of Scott’s Gladiator will be relieved to find quite a bit of action, including a beach landing that recalls Saving Private Ryan. And yet it’s not very graphic – there are plenty of arrows going through bodies but there isn’t much blood to be spurted.

There’s certainly a thrill in seeing all the usual characters on screen (The Sheriff, Little John, Friar Tuck et al) and they are well cast. Hood’s camaraderie with his merry men (not referred to as such, although they use ‘merry’ as an adjective on occasion) is fun.

Everything is set up for ‘Robin Hood 2’ and hopefully that will have a better sense of adventure. Meanwhile, the 1991 Kevin Costner version remains a more entertaining take on the hero of Sherwood forest.Hide


The Peoples' Reviews

Average ratings from 8 ratings, 9 reviews
Reviewed & Rated by
Your rating & review
Rate / Review this movie

BY Bonux superstar

This is a long movie and it feels awful long. This is Robin Hood's story before he became an outlaw. And it makes a fair mockery of history.

For some reason the movie focus on the French trying to invade England after Richard LionHeart came back from Jerusalem and died on his way back to France. Only Ridley Scott failed to explain that Richard Coeur de Lion (his original nickname - later translated as Lionheart in English) was not only French speaking very little English, son of King Henry... More II of England (also French) and great grand-son of William the Conqueror (French again) but was also living in the Duchy of Aquitaine, in south west... eur France. This took place a century after the French (Franks) conquered Jerusalem during the First Crusade. Saladin led the Ottoman (Turks) to reconquer Jerusalem and that is when the Pope called for a Third Crusade. So while painting Richard "Lionheart" as an Englishman fighting the French seems patriotic to Ridley, it is historically inaccurate. Richard Coeur de Lion although born in Oxford was a Frenchman fighting his French father King Henry II of England, and in order to do so, he made an alliance with the French court and pledged allegiance to King Louis VII. So it was pretty much an all French affair.

Now, that is where it becomes horribly complicated.

Robin Hood fought under the orders of Richard Lionheart therefore he was on Louis VII side against the King Henry II of England. Then, once returning in England, he creates an alliance with Henry the Young King (who betrayed his father Henry II King of England) but who also happened to betray Richard Lionheart. In other words, Robin Hood never fought the French as it is described in the motion picture, he just switched camp whenever suited him. In other words, in true History Robin would be more of a treator than the bad guy of that movie who was in fact the only guy loyal to his King Henry II, if you still follow me.

If you are not fond of History, they are two other major let downs in this movie. First, Robin Hood made use of his bow only twice the whole time. (once to torture a French dude then to kill the treator at the end) The rest of the movie, Robin is using a sword having stolen the identity of a knight in order to save his skin. At this point Robin seems to enjoy his knighthood (and an old Mariane played by Cate Blanchett) while trying to find who killed his real father, a pointless quest that brings only more confusion to the movie. Indeed, he becomes friend with the old man who had his real father killed. The old man in question is 80+ years old which is well worth a page in the Guinness Book Record given we are in the Middle Age and everyone dies in their 40s (bad luck and bad teeth).

The second major drawback is that the infamous Sheriff of Notthingham plays no major role in this prequel, only the role of a buffon who seems to be afraid of his own shadow. It is hard to imagine how the Sheriff could ever become the main bad guy in the sequel, because any little respect Ridley Scott gave him, he took it back almost immediately. Now the good news is: I sincerely doubt Ridley Scott will dare to do a sequel. His movie was so bad it is already available on DVD as a bundle with Gladiator. Hence the reason(s) why this Robin Hood is by far the worst version ever. Atrocious indeed.Hide


Really enjoyed this rendition with great acting and think its really worth the effort. Go you won't be sorry


This movie is terrible and I am sorry I wasted 10 dollars and two hours of my life on it. Poor acting, predictable plot and some scenes were so bad they made you cringe!!


I must say that I expected this movie to be dull and repetitive and kind-of boring in an old-England, men-in-green-tights, kind of way. I was wrong! It kept me intrigued from the beginning, very reminiscent of Lord of the Rings grand scale warfare and adventure. Russell Crowe adapts to these roles easily so (unfortunately) it is more of the same from him, but the director wanted a harder, less "gally-ho" and more "outta my way", character and that's what Russell Crowe has delivered. I'd say... More go see it - it's definitely the rawest Robin Hood you'll have ever seen!Hide


Easily the worst movie I've seen this year. boring, predictable, poorly acted. Don't waste your money.


Showing 5 of 9 reviews. See all reviews

The Press Reviews

43% of critics recommend.
Rotten Tomatoes Score. More reviews on Rotten Tomatoes

  • Grown-up but not too serious; action-packed but not juvenile… Not only is this the mullet-free Robin Hood movie we’ve been waiting decades for, it’s also Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe at their most entertaining since Gladiator. Full Review

  • Scott has an eye -- and it's a very good one -- for sieges of castles, charging horsemen, hand-to-hand combat, glistening swords arcing through the air and deadly arrows whistling toward helpless targets. Full Review

  • Rusty Crowe and his trusty bow in good form but movie can't see Sherwood forest for the trees... Full Review

  • The most pointless and bloated vanity project since Battlefield Earth. Overthought, overwrought and not over soon enough. Full Review

  • The final epic sequence which culminates on a battle on England's Dover cliffs is stunning - cameras swoop in and capture every nuance of the action. Full Review

  • Impressively made and serious-minded to a fault, this physically imposing picture brings abundant political-historical dimensions to its epic canvas, yet often seems devoted to stifling whatever pleasure audiences may have derived from the popular legend. Full Review

  • Ridley Scott's take on Robin Hood is nicely acted and features some state-of-the-art CGI effects but there's not enough action, it drags horribly in the middle and the decision to focus on the pre-outlaw days means that it occasionally feels a bit Braveheart-by-numbers. Full Review