It's competent.

On the contrary, its Ridley Scott

It was two films in one...Robin hood with friends on a fun aventure to save the kingdom, and a more serious period drama with King John and friends. The acting is solid and the visual part is really pretty...but at times it does really feel like a prototype historical epic.

B

Much better than I was expecting it to be. Based on the reviews I was expecting a dreary ripoff of Braveheart, and although it does come close to that at certain points, I have to say that I really enjoyed it.

***1/2 (Damn iPhones and their lack of keyboard tricks)

Easily my favorite of the Scott/Crowe movies.

All things being equal, it's probably Scott's best film since Blade Runner.

GI Jane FTW!

Agree. Much better than expected.

I'd probably also agree that its the best Ridley Scott film in quite some time and the best Scott/Crowe collaboration, even though I do like American Gangster.

This is like the 3rd movie in a row I thought Mark Strong was Andy Garcia until the credits. Has there been two more alike actors... ever?

Anyways I thought it was decent, no more, no less. Wasn't too enthused with the battle scenes. And throwing in the Crowe's father backstory wasn't really needed and made things a bit too coincidental

I liked the usage of the Durand, singer guy, etc. supporting players

Just like Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Robert Downey Jr. are identical?

This is a comparison I don't get. I know two people already who saw Watchmen and kept thinking RDJ was in it.

What a load on nonsense!

An unwelcome retelling of the Robin Hood story done in a nauseatingly whirlwind directing style. I could barely tell the "merry" men apart and what they did to Lady Maid Marion is unforgivable. Ridley Scott is a very hit&miss director - - he's really only had maybe four or five good films in his whole long career - - though when they're good, they can be very good.

The only reason I'm not rating Robin Hood (2010) a zero, is the incredible attention to historical detail in portrayal of day-to-day life in England in the 12th century. It shines a welcome light into the dark ages.


1 out of 5.

B+

It's great but it lacks something.

Robin Hood is one of the most disappointing films of the year so far. The film, while looking brilliant, drags on and on and when the film seems to reach noteworthy points, the drag just starts over again. The cast isn't particularly strong and Crowe seems more worn out then usual. The film only makes true notice in the last fifteen minutes but it's too late. It does leave a little hope that a potential sequel could be leagues better, but in the end this version is a complete waste. *

B-

Finally seen this and I thought it was better than it looked.

Of course it's on Blu but it still looked fantastic and I am a sucker for epic historical pieces and battles.

I agree it's missing something but it is very well made and the acting is strong throughout save King John.

B+

I watched the director's cut of this recently, having skipped it in theaters. Everything in France, more or less the first half hour, was riveting and well done. Once they return to England the air goes out of the film, it just gets so boring so fast it's like a different movie. I'd much rather have just watched the further random adventures of those soldiers on the run in France even if it didn't have anything to do with Robin Hood.