(2012-05-01 02:27:14)

Good delivery, bad movie

This review is from: Robin Hood (Three-Disc Unrated Director's Cut Blu-ray/DVD Combo + Digital Copy) (Blu-ray) The movie was delivered as promised but robin hood fell short of my expectations, long movie that did not keep my attention

(2012-04-30 14:24:43)

"Why Do They Call You Little John?" ~ Everything In Proportion

Ridley Scott's 'Robin Hood' provides the viewing audience with an informative if not consistently entertaining perspective on the Sherwood Forest bandit that will all know and love. I found the story line solid, the production values high and the soundtrack engaging. As far as the casting, well anytime you have Cate Blanchett on the screen I'm happy and I've been a big fan of Max Von Sydow for years so that was a welcome addition. As for Russell Crowe, well I must admit I was disappointed in his performance. He seemed listless and uninvolved in his character. I got the impression that he didn't really want to play the part and was just going through the motions. Being the central focus of the story that definitely hurt the film immensely.'Robin Hood' never came to life for me as it should have. I love the Robin Hood mythos, all the production necessities were present and the cast was solid. Yet there was something missing. It lacked that emotional hook that draws the viewer into the story and forms that bond between viewer and onscreen character. As I was watching the film I was somewhat enjoying myself but I was also aware of the passing of time and periodically wondering when it would end so I could go on to something else. That's never a good sign.

(2012-04-28 10:44:19)

NEW SPIN ON A LEGEND.

This review is from: Robin Hood (Three-Disc Unrated Director's Cut Blu-ray/DVD Combo + Digital Copy) (Blu-ray) A GREAT MOVIE IS SPURRED ON BY INTERPRETATION OF SCHOLARS OF THE TIME THAT THERE MIGH BE A DIFFERENT ORIGIN TO A FAVORITE LEGEND. I FOUND THE MOVIE AND THE CONCEPTS BOLSTERED BY A DISCOVERY CHANNEL LOOK INTO THE LEGEND AS A SATISFYING LOOK AT A CHILDHOOD LOVE. THE DISCOVERY LOOK MAKES ALL OF THE MOVIES AND THE T.V. SHOW JUST AS MUCH FUN ONCE YOU SUSPEND YOUR IMAGINATION. THE MORE THE MERRIER.

(2012-04-27 11:53:43)

Yeesh. What a mess.

"Robin Hood"--------------------------------My wife and I are both big Robin Hood fans, and think that Ridley Scott is a great ("Blade Runner") director... But, oh my god, what a lousy movie this was. The script is terrible -- flat, preposterous, unsurprising and uninteresting at every turn. Plus, it completely warps the Robin Hood legend and denudes it of its essential character, in oh, so many ways. It's really just not a good film at all. Mildly engaging in parts, but ultimately not worth your time... And if you are a Robin Hood buff, chances are you'll really hate this film. It's pretty skippable. (Axton)

Sandie Angulo Chen

(2012-04-21 18:01:27)

http://www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/robin-hood-2010

fortunesmiles

(2012-04-21 14:07:38)

1 out of 10 and that's generous!!!

I cannot even begin to describe how bad this film is but maybe thefollowing mistakes listed below could help give you some insight:-1) Richard the Lionheart is killed before the movie even really starts.2) Prince John is not a Prince but a King, and HATES his Mum, which isodd. 3) Maid Marian is not a Maid, she's married. 4) The Sheriff ofNottingham is a wimpy little man, a far cry from Alan Rickman'smagnificent performance. 5) Robin Hood is not Robin of Locksley,instead there is a Robert of Locksley that Robin Hood gets entangledwith.The only reason this film has a 1 out of 10 (aside from the fact itwon't let me give a 0) is that Mark Strong plays an excellent villainand the Merry Man were quite funny. One did secretly hope though for afew more British actors.I am however praying every night that they DON'T make a follow-up.

(2012-04-20 01:32:43)

What more can you want?

Most of the critics hated this movie. A lot of audiences hated this movie. I have no idea why. The combination of Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett could make paint drying fascinating. There is not a poor acting job in this film, the script was solid, the story was compelling and it was directed well. Seriously, what more do you want?? Go into the movie with a willing suspension of disbelief and don't compare it with any movie you've seen before about Robin Hood because that's not what this movie is and you will enjoy it. I think we have all just seen to many movies that we forget how to enjoy the ones with merit without being groundbreaking. Ridley Scott's vision for Robin Hood is well-executed, well-acted, and well-directed. Enjoy it while knowing it's not going to change your life.

Abi Rotherham

(2012-04-19 11:45:15)

Quite disappointing...

I am a big fan of Robin hood movies and TV programmes, so, I was exitedto see the up to date take on the story layed before me. As I settleddown to 2 hours that I thought would keep me on edge I started torealize something, This wasn't the story I knew and loved, Instead, Itwas based before it! This was quite surprising, so I continued towatch, expecting it to be introduced soon, but sadly it wasn't. Leavingme until the end of the film disappointed as the story that has kept ushooked through out the years faded to the words "And now the storybegins" and the film ended. The acting in the film was great, showing the loyalty yet wildness ofRobin and he so called "Merry Men". A Favorite of mine was the role ofMarion Loxley, played by Cate Blanchett, as The rest of the movie, thecharacter was not the stereotypical beautiful and elegant woman we seeall the time, but a rough survivor who would protect her family and thevillagers at all times. Overall a disappointing film That I score a 2 and that I wouldn'treally recommend..

Frank Swietek

(2012-04-07 20:31:41)

A slightly soggy popcorn adventure. Far from being a Robin for the ages, it's a retelling you'll hardly care about while you're watching it and barely remember after the lights come up.

(2012-04-07 10:42:04)

Brings History alive with meticulous artistic endeavor. A masterpiece, indeed!

This is one of few memorable movies I have ever watched twice, in the same evening. In order to beat the opening date, the movie played a minute after midnight of Thursday April 15. Even though the movie theater has four screens playing Iron Man 2, which was fully seated on most days, Robin Hood played on two screens, simultaneously, and seemed to attract very special viewers. That explains why some reviewers did not see the magnanimity of such high quality movie making. The movie is a great lesson on the Western Civilization, with England and France at the center of world power, driven by religious rivalry. By watching the living history on the big screen, one could easily appreciate the confidence of the moviemakers in their ability to transcend viewers into the far past with its intriguing people and their needs. At the hallway, a father explained to his young teen that King John was such sleazy person as the movie depicted him. Another commented on the betrayal of Godfery to King John and the plot to invade England by King Phillip. Getting historians, psychiatrists, scientists, lawyers, and moviemakers to sing, think, and play in such harmonious manner that the movie displays are signs of great genius. Aside from the thorough performance of actors of many characters, spanning high social classes and common folks from the far past, the movie connected all the dots on how military warfare was conducted by primitive tools, how soldiers were being compensated for their service, and how kings played pivotal roles in leading their armies to battle. Crossing the English channel by both French and English troops was played in such convincing manner that represent the technology of the far past. Sending and receiving message by pigeons explains the creativity of man in exceeding his limited means and exploiting nature to its limits. The movie constructs the chronology of the development of modern economics, law, civil rights, and religious conflicts that existed prior to the arrival of the industrial revolution, few centuries later, yet through the lives of real people. Like our contemporary George Bush, King Richard ventured into the Crusade unaware of its high cost that affected the lives of every English household. With the heavy hand of the Kingdom, citizens have to endure the organized militia of the King if they have to keep their property, remain free from persecution, incarceration, and loss of lives. The farmers must depend on manpower to cultivate the land and feed their families. The King must collect taxes to plan and execute greater plots proposed by few close associates. Even though 900 years do not seem a long span in historical terms, the movie succeeded in showing the greatest strength of man of mastering the globe with the simplest tools. The arrow and bow that sounded too simplistic to inflict greater harm were convincingly mastered at exceptional accuracy and power compared to the modern firearms. Similarly, the impressive castles and places, combined with the massive manpowered ships attest to the genius of man in pursuing greater purpose. Horses, swords, and armored, and gold distinguished the classes of the populace. Moving up higher in class required either death or strike of luck. On the third time I watched the movie, I could easily jump of my seat and travel back in time 900 years into the gloomy farms of England, the emaciated and poor farmers, the Kings that have to lead their armies to battles and incur equal harm as their soldiers, the exceptional skills of men in mastering the archery, rowing, horse back riding, fencing, and fighting for something they believe in. The sense that the national struggle between France and England was brewing since 1199 over the global control could easily understood from the harsh living conditions in the cold North. One could not resist but applaud the moviemakers for such masterpiece of history making.

(2012-03-31 07:47:04)

Truly Moody and 'Accurate'

The character of Robin Hood is very intriguing. Ever since I first saw Errol Flynn don tights and Olivia DeHavilland wow movie goers (on Golden Cloud-Trigger) many years ago, I have missed few Hood films.Kevin Costners' Robin Hood was okay, but this presentation is stunning. From authentic looking sets to period dramatic flairs, this one has you hooked. Russell Crowe is Loxley, aka Robin Hood pre-Prince John, and while other versions deal with Robin after his outlaw years, this is a prequel. For that reason, it is able to touch new ground and break any pre-conceptions. It succeeds.We have Robin, Maid Marian, Little John, Prince John (pre-tyrant), and Friar Tuck. Each of the characters gets their chance to breathe, and develop. For instance, while we think Prince John is going to go along with the treaty he helped establish, he rejects it and sets up Robin to be an outlaw...we know the rest of the story from there. It is entirely possible this sets up a sequel, at this point, we are not sure.Cast chemistry, set dressing, location scouting, and stunt choreography/set up is top notch. Where Rome and Spartacus set standards for TV accuracy, this Robin Hood sets the bar high.Five arrows!

Iusedtobeacat

(2012-03-30 18:06:41)

BAD unbelievably Bad !

I could only think of one word to describe this film "BAD" ! I can'tbelieve I've actually purchased this movie on DVD and wasted my moneyon a boring piece of junk. OK, I have to admit that it was a purchase on impulse, I was lookingfor a good film to watch, I saw the cover and thought ...Russell Crowand Cate Blanchett in Robin Hood it can't be that Horrible right ? Iwas Wrong Wrong Wrong ! this movie is Horrible it's worse than horrible! And it has no credibility to the Robin Hood legend what so ever !Robin Hood wore Green, he Wasn't a king follower he was an outlaw, hewasn't in his 40s he was a young man in his 20s which is why thecasting of Russell Crow as Robin is horrible ! He lived in a forestwith a group of outlaws like himself and they called them selves themerry men. There were other characters with him like Maid Marion whowas a single woman not a widow ! and Big John who was a bishop, thereweren't any blind father-in-laws, or dying first husbands or anythingfrom that sort ! But most importantly Robin Hood stole from the richand gave it to the poor that's why he is called the King of Thieves andthat is not shown here at all ! In a matter of fact that idea iscompletely ignored by the director which makes it hard to believe thatthis is a Robin Hood story. The Cast choice is bad ! Russell Crow hardly delivers and CateBlanchett falls out of place !, There is almost NO Plot, the movie isboring the action scenes "blink" and you miss them. The story isboring, the characters are all dull and flat I didn't care for any ofthem. Robin Hood fought the corrupt Lords of England (they were hisenemies) he didn't fight for them ! And he certainly couldn't give adam* about the French ! I was soo frustrated by this movie ! Probably the worse Robin Hoodadoption I've seen ever. This DVD is going straight to the donationcenter ! If your looking for Robin Hood you won't find him in this movie Irecommend you skip this entirely and forget it even exist !

(2012-03-22 00:43:17)

A different Robin Hood

This review is from: Robin Hood (Three-Disc Unrated Director's Cut Blu-ray/DVD Combo) (Blu-ray) This story really is different in a lot of ways. Once you accept that, it is really an enjoyable film. And it fulfills what a movie is to me: entertainment.

Ron Wilkinson

(2012-03-21 08:16:54)

Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe will be better off pointing their arrows in different directions after this Dark Age howler.

Jizdenky

(2012-03-20 21:29:45)

Had Potential But Second Half Messes It Up

I'm not much of a fan of the Ridley Scott- Russell Crowe combo but Iwanted to see 'Robin Hood' because I was curious about Scott'sinterpretation. It starts off well just like an epic movie but mainlyfocussing on the story rather than jump into battle scenes. The pacingis well maintained. The director tries to be historically accurate ashe uses historical events of the time and incorporates them into thescript. At times it appears forced, as though, he's trying too hard butnot in an irritating way until in about the last half hour.This is when things go very haywire and extremely patchy. Hood'sbackground story is told in a matter of a few flashbacks and then Scottjumps into the battle sequences which, unfortunately, areunintentionally funny. There are plenty of plot holes, like what onearth was Marion doing taking a bunch of untrained kids to thebattlebeach? Or how is it that Robin Hood all of a sudden assumesauthority and commands the army. The French king is portrayed like aclichГѓВ© and an idiot and the boats banging into one another washilarious.'Robin Hood' is quite a well-made picture. The art direction,cinematography and background score are top notch. The sound effect wasa little flawed an the lighting could have been better. The acting isvery good even though most of the characters (with the exception ofMarion) aren't well developed. Cate Blanchett easily owns each andevery one of her scenes winning the viewer's heart since herintroductory scene. Russel Crowe is quite adequate even though the roleoffers nothing new to him. It's far from his best work. The rest of thecast do fairly well.I liked seeing a new interpretation that is almost completely differentfrom what I've seen on screen but this could have easily been anamazing film had it not been for the poor writing. Only in the end,does one realize that this is supposed to be the start of the legend ofRB (why imply this at such a late point?) and the makers were clearlyintending to produce sequels.

AlxP-64

(2012-03-20 09:51:11)

Extended setup for a sequel featuring the real Robin Hood

He does not live in a forest, he does not rob the rich, and he does notwear green; but he leads the English army against a French invasion andhe almost makes King John sign the Magna Carta. And the film has nocharacter is named Robin Hood: there is a Robin Longstride; there is aSir Robin Loxley (with an x); the two merge into one -- but still thereis no Robin Hood.The historical background is weird. There is a King Richard in themovie, but he dies in France and does not get to return to England. Themovie's King Philip of France tries to invade England using LandingCraft Assault ships ripped from a WW2 documentary (you have to see thisto believe it). Maid Marian is a 30 years old widow. Robin's mainopponent is a high-ranking official with of mixed English and Frenchethnicity. The Anglo-Norman noblemen prefer to speak English, as doesthe King of France (who actually makes a point of asking the officialmentioned above to speak English).Cate Blanchett is a great actress. Russell Crowe has great presence.Max von Sydow is a legend. But the script is hard to follow, especiallygiven that the title promises a movie about Robin Hood, whereas themovie is a combination of "Sommersby" with the struggle of the Englishbarons to limit the powers of royalty. And the movie is slow! It takestwo hours until Robin is made an outlaw, and then the film ends. Theonly way to understand this is as an extended setup for one or twosequels featuring the real Robin Hood.

Minerva Breanne Meybridge

(2012-03-12 09:48:07)

Snooze Fest Sequel to Gladiator

Zzzzzzzz. Just saw it last night. Yes, Virginia, there is onedimensional film. With the exception of Max von Sydow (OMG, he was oldin Three Days of the Condor and that was and that was in 1975!) theacting was about as flat as Twiggy's chest. Wake up, Russell! A littlemore vim in those sawed off words! Smile once, Cate! Sherwood Forestwon't go up in flames. The version with Errol Flynn is still the mostfun. The one with Uma the most enthralling. The one I saw last night,the best cure for insomnia! And JFC, he wasn't called Robin Hoodbecause he was "Robin of the hood." RH isn't the frigging Green Arrow,and he didn't grow up in the hood. His name was Robert Hodd and RobinHood was a nickname. I was just disappointed that Russell didn't crowout, "I am Maximus Hood." Now, that would have made a bland moviegreat.

(2012-03-11 20:30:25)

Breathing New Life Into "Robin Hood"

Despite the needlessly convoluted opening scenes, director Ridley Scott provides a vigorous, gritty spin on the Robin Hood legend. Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett make an ideal Robin and Marian for the 21st century - backed by impressive production values, a fine supporting cast (Max von Sydow and William Hurt are always welcome) and Scott's epic sweep. The 156-minute "director's cut" is slightly overlong yet far superior to Kevin Costner's ridiculous 1991 version. Judging by the international box-office success, do not be surprised if Crowe, Blanchett and Scott reunite for a sequel.

vinod_baazee

(2012-03-11 05:42:58)

This is how it all started,.. yet

Ridley Scott whose Gladiator gave us all an epic experience pushed meout of home to watch another take on Robinhood. We all have loved Robinfor being the outlaw who is the quintessential underdog, the one wholoves to rob the rich and give to the poor, for his band of brothersand their camaraderie.. However this back to the future is set againstthe backdrop of 12th century politics of England and the struggle forpower between Richard the Lion heart and his brother John with theFrench powers thrown into the mix.. So for those reasons this does notgive you the tale that we have grown to love and so you end up beingexposed to a watered down Braveheart, or a kingdom of heaven.. RidelyScott does deliver the goods when it comes to production values ofauthentic props, extracting solid yet uninspiring performance from theactors.. However there are hardly moments that you take away from themovie hall, very few goosebumps from arrows hitting the mark, and noanticipation as you watch frame after frame.. Possibly the scriptneeded to have lot more intensity, be more taut if one were to focus onRobin before he became an outlaw as this is virgin territory.. In all ,felt a bit let down as I trudged home and was thinking hard about thepositives that were eluding me.

Optimus_

(2012-03-11 02:46:00)

A great director+two great actors+a classic story to start from => COMPLETE CRAP

Someone here said that the last 30 minutes turned a strong 9+ movieinto a poor 6- movie. I'd say he was extremely generous with the firsttwo hours of this film!First, this Robin Hood isn't the classic story (as it can be found inIvanhoe and in the 1938 movie). This shouldn't necessarly be somethingbad, but the movie's new Robin Hood plot also fails miserably in beinghistorically accurate. And, in the end, the plot also makes little tono sense from start to finish.I don't mind someone reinventing a Robin Hood, I can even deal with itbeing so historically inaccurate, but I really don't want to watchmovies with logical goofs all over the place.Add to this the fact that Russell Crowe looks extremely bored troughmost of the movie, and you'll get the full picture of this failurecalled Robin Hood. Sure, Cate Blanchett gives it a try, but is far fromshining at her best, and Max von Sydow's part is way too small to makehis formidable acting really count. Mark Strong tries hard but his roleis so unidimensional and dull that it gives him no chance.Overall the movie is a 5+ or 6- but nothing more.