Robin Hood

I'm delivering on what I promised, and after watching the director's cut DVD version, I'm adding a fifth star to the four strong movie theatre stars. And I like adding that last star. Ridley Scott is a whiz at this kind of film and in Robin Hood he once again shows very solid craftsmanship, which together with Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven makes a fantastic historical triptych. It's hard to know what to praise first. A script that isn't afraid to look at the legend from a completely different angle? The direction, visuals, music and elaborate costumes and props (see the bonus features on the DVD)? The great pairing of Crowe and Blanchett, with a nice spark between them (saving the ram)? The slimy Mark Strong, the dignified Max von Sydow, the bearded William Hurt, the unrecognizably masked Danny Huston? I really don't know and that's why I applaud everybody. Robin Hood is definitely a good film, worth two and a half hours of your time.__P.S. The way Scott quotes Private Ryan at the end really amused me.__P.P.S. The only flaw is that I expected the director's version to be at least half an hour longer. (19/09/2010)

The director laughs while the viewers cry. Superbly cast and extremely engagingly narrated, the two and a half hours flow by like water among authentic battle scenes and impressive locations. But despite expectations and Scott's reputation, Robin Hood is nothing but a summer popcorn flick that brings nothing new to the table and incomprehensibly distorts the original legendary story. From Scott, this flabby, impersonal and pointless in every sense film is a scam. (27/11/2015)

In the Kingdom of Heaven, I was expecting another Gladiator and I got something completely different. The initial disappointment was replaced by amazement and understanding after the second and especially the third (extended version) screening. With Robin Hood, I was expecting another Kingdom of Heaven, and, once again, the film was completely different. This time, however, I was prepared for such a possibility and it didn't surprise me so much. The muted rating really bothers me; the absence of blood is incomprehensible, especially considering that the film takes place in the harsh Middle Ages, and one of Ridley Scott's main trademarks is his unmistakable sense of visuality, therefore I consider it fatal that one of the key ingredients is missing. The music is average, it's not comparable to either of the aforementioned films as a standalone soundtrack by any means. The acting is high-quality, and most importantly, the romance of the Middle Ages was exactly what the film needed, and at the same time, it was something one wouldn't expect. Surprisingly, there was almost no pathos and unnecessary heroic scenes – equally unexpected. I would greatly welcome a sequel where everything really begins, an extended version where the story is better analysed and edited, and most importantly, an unrated version because otherwise it really doesn’t work with Robin. For now, it's an average rating, but it's highly possible that it will fluctuate, as it has already happened with Ridley. Kevin Costner still remains the best Robin Hood. (23/05/2010)

I'm trying to find adequate words for this repulsive and bloated screenwriting conglomerate, brought to total impotence by Ridley Scott's trembling hand. I am struck by words such as despair, embarrassment, lack of criticism, anachronism and ideological naivety bordering on simplicity. It can be roughly summarized as follows: Robin Hood was caught in the woods and sodomized with a loud reading of Marx's Capital. What was quite cute in Kingdom of Heaven is offensive and boring in this film. Only Max von Sydow stands out from the weak attempts at heroism. In a single scene, Max demonstrates what the rest of the film is hunting for in vain in the soulless theft from Shakespeare, The Lord of the Rings and about five thousand other films. One star out of sheer disrespect for Scott, who should either get bigger scissors, or leave history alone. It’s already taken a decent beating from him. (10/05/2010)

One might say that Robin Hood has some entertainment value as well as nice locations and a great cast (especially the super villain played by Mark Strong). But it is hard to accept it as the fruit of another collaboration between Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe, from which we are accustomed to mature films with a strong directorial touch that are ambitious in terms of quality. Because Robin Hood is (at least in this cinematic version) just a straightforward, ideologically naïve summer flick without a pinch of originality, stealing from all sorts of other sources. Once again, Crowe touches the burned ground lethargically or strolls through a cornfield, but this time the viewer cannot feel anything. I don’t like slacking off and an impersonal, routine approach to filmmaking, especially from filmmakers for whom movies are usually everything and who know that the world expects something more from them... (11/05/2010)