Robin Hood

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)

Loads of money wasted on a pointless, sterile and lifeless film. Scott is still a master of the craft, but that doesn’t mean anything if has to work with a screenwriting monstrosity that doesn’t even allow the beautiful Cate Blanchet or the charismatic Strong to express themselves properly. In short, two and a half hours of delayed sleep and bitter memories of the never made Nottingham. Ridley, please, go back to the Aliens and make me happy this time. (03/09/2010)

It's nice to see a film on the screen where bytes are not being smashed against each other, but where a massive ensemble is pushing conquering battering rams and stuntmen in fireproof suits are falling from the walls. The trailer was off-putting, while Ridley’s name was carrying it. I don't regret the money in favor of honest filmmaking, which compromises on ratings and, in the second half, on the tolerability of the runtime (I will, like many, be looking out for the DVD with the extended bloodier version), but otherwise entertains with well-written and acted characters that you fully believe in. Crowe’s pathetic charisma drips throughout, while the rest of the gang spit out dry catchphrases and Cate Blanchett is breathtaking. That's what makes even the romantic storyline pleasant and spirited. In a way, it's nothing we haven't seen from Ridley before, but his paintings have always had eyes boring into them, and Robin Hood isn't going to change that. (01/06/2010)

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)

I was too content to be disappointed, but... I expect rather more from Ridley than a slipshod, while entertaining historical snack. I don’t doubt that in a year and a day we’ll see the release of a dozens of minutes longer and countless percent better director’s cut. Because mainly the editor had to do inhumane overtime on the second half and so in many places it doesn’t make too much sense. But it isn’t ridiculous, not at all (apart from the lady charging on the pony, huh?). The reason why Robin Hood is worth seeing isn’t sumptuous production design (there is none, anyhow) or monumental battles (there are none, anyhow), but the electrifying courting chemistry of the central two. Despite all of potential for mediocrity, I would certainly like to see a part two. Or, better still, I want Scott to give us a whole new movie about Richard played by Huston! P.S.: And although this has almost nothing to do with the legend, still it is a hair’s breadth closer to it than what they did in the version starring Costner. (13/05/2010)

He promised us the story of the Duke of Nottingham, then a dual role for Russell, and finally reminded us of Gladiator through the trailers. And there Ridley Scott luckily remained. Robin Hood is indeed about a rebellion, but it is not a pathetic epic about noble heroes' victory. It is a cautiously romantic memory, but not a fairytale about Robin and Lady Marion. But most importantly, it is the story of a few righteous men and the rough birth of a legend. (14/05/2010)

What a nice surprise. I really didn’t feel like watching the new Robin Hood, but all the more Scott managed to persuade me that there is sense in this fairly fundamentally innovated version. Helgeland’s screenplay is one of the greatest boon of the picture, making something more out of this dusty old legend. The main problem is that the closer it gets to the end, the more scenes are simply missing. As if someone was hurrying somewhere and to make the movie shorter, they just trimmed down the ending eliminating any climax and so it just “happens". But they could have gotten so much more of the battle by the sea. The ingredients are there, but just not used. Russell gives his standard and what surprised me most was the excellent chemistry between him and Cate Blanchett. The role of Maid Marion suited her wonderfully. Strong’s bad guy is exquisite, despite playing them all the time. You would have thought it would wear a little thin, but it doesn’t. And a final thanks to Marc Streitenfeld for the wonderful soundtrack. (14/01/2011)

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 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)

"Robin Hood," or how to turn a beautiful legend into an utterly ordinary historical blockbuster. Despite Ridley's efforts to make the film appear historically authentic, the story itself is incredibly dull, and the legendary characters are reduced to mere trees bent by the passage of time. The unbelievably poor casting prevents any likability for the characters. Ridley has turned the legend into something incredibly mundane, and the film fails to save itself by lacking any tension. I have been fond of Russell's recent works, but certainly not for this one. It is difficult to identify with the heroes, and the events essentially do not matter to you. This leads to enduring two and a half hours of suffering or choosing to engage in something else. (16/03/2014)

In the end it’s not a complete travesty, as I feared reading most of the negative reviews here. But far be it from me to suggest that I'm among the defenders and non-critics of Scott's take on Robin Hood. The first thing is more than obvious, and while it may be just a "minor quibble" for some, for me it's a pretty substantial quibble and the first major misstep in the production of this film. I'm referring to the casting of the "aging" Russell Crowe, who is undoubtedly an excellent actor, but tragically unsuited to this role. I was also disappointed by the music – if these films usually don’t "play" with a proper script and elaborate characters anymore, the supplemental components should at least be some kind of satisfaction, which somehow doesn't work in the case of one constantly reiterated polyphonic theme. Nor is Ridley Scott as creative and imaginative as usual this time, so in the end the whole film is dragged along solely by the sets and respectable exteriors. The convoluted and sometimes heavily naive story won't surprise anyone anymore. A borderline 3 stars. (23/02/2012)