I don't quite understand why this film received so much negative criticism, perhaps a bandwagon type thing. Ridley Scott did a great job imagining a 12th century England, enormous battles, and a darker, more realistic rendition of the "Robin Hood" tale. Gorgeous photography, great characters adorned in spectacular costumes, bloody sieges, and a quaint love story - very entertaining.
Robin Hood should be light, gay and merry! This miserable gritty humdrumery snoozer is a bag of elephant toes!
This is not Ridley Scott's Gladiator, though the approach is the same. The aim to re-write a "history" of the legend somewhat fail into a heavy-handed scripts, and disconnect audience with the character. There are tremendous plot to prove that the legend is a hero - but, I keep wondering the effect, if we let the legend being portrayed as an anti-hero and speak less parochially.
An actively mediocre period piece actioner, Robin has some decent performances from Crowe and Blanchett, but they get smothered under Ridley Scott's over-direction and its ungainly length. Also, it barely deserves the Robin Hood name. It's beyond a reimagining, it's blasphemy to the crown of Errol Flynn.
Deadly-dull historical epic is a disappointment coming from director Ridley Scott. Some nice slick visuals, a few decent action scenes, and a capable cast are wasted in an overlong, lumbering plot that seems to be going for gritty historical realism, but is instead awash in cheesy Hollywood blockbuster cliches. Particularly disheartening when you're aware of its $200 million price-tag.
A slightly disappointing film, considering it's directed by Ridley Scott. The original ideas were much more interesting, but the story here was decent. Not exactly the Robin Hood story we're familiar with but I admire to go on a different direction. As with every Ridley Scott film, the film looks spectacular but lacks the memorable quality that made Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven (Director's Cut) great!
Visually attractive, but the storyline has got so much holes that great acting couldn't save it. Fun to watch, but turn your brain off at the beginning, it will pass on smoother on you. And don't even try to find historical accuracy in anything, starting with costumes, language, culture or landscape, or you'll get fairly disappointed. Too bad original script got so altered and down-graded.
Basically this re-teaming of Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe in a period epic is a Robin Hood origin story, it was advertised as the true story behind the legend, but it appears to be the set up FOR the legend. Besides, we all know when period epics that proclaim to be the "true story" behind whatever happened, it's a pile of B.S. (KING ARTHUR, I'm looking at you). ROBIN HOOD lacks the urgency and gravitas that made GLADIATOR so memorable and special, but it is a beautiful film to look at with some good moments. The movie is two and a half hours and yet it feels like it has trouble breathing, as Robin Hood and his merry men aren't given enough time for us to actually care about them, when they should be a memorable, lively and lovable bunch. But that's what happens you make a big movie that's all prologue, it's a set-up for another movie which we probably won't get, the ending teases to something greater that this movie doesn't seem to aspire to.
I have always liked the genre, Both Crowe and Blanchett did a fine job. The story started far too early and finished abruptly, but it was a great ride, Ridley Scott knows how to do this movies back to front and he delivers what its promised. I wished a bit more gore but oh well, can't have everything :)