SOUND OFF

this really sucked badly. mark strong is awesome, and so is russel. but it still sucked.

I thought the script was really good. The performances were good, pacing was fine. The directing was solid. Maybe it didnt crank it to 11 but I dont think a robin hood movie needs to be extreme or loud even. Maybe it was a bit quiet, but I enjoyed it. I had to see what else the writer had done and was not surprised to see that he did Mystic River, A Knight's Tale, Payback, Conspiracy Theory, L.A. Confidential. his weaker stuff is at least entertaining.

I liked it enough. It was entertaining... but it was pretty lighthearted for a Ridley Scott epic. The PG-13 rating really killed it..... and in my opinion hurt it. I'm not just talking about violence, either. It seems his R rated films are much more serious and dark, and this one was clearly aimed towards younger audience members. It wasn't anywhere near as serious or epic as Gladiator or Kingdom of Heaven. One would think that a Robin Hood story doesn't need to be serious or violent, but what was offered in the trailers and the movie as an origin story most definitely needs to be an R. I truly believe this movie would have benefited greatly from an R rating. Another thing that really hurt it for me was the score. Streitenfeld's score was so busy. While the music itself wasn't bad... it didn't fit well with this film, especially this kind of film. Ridley's other big historical epics had a lot of silence in regards to the music, or at least a much slower and quieter score. This one was busy all the time, with energetic music during simple dialogue scenes. It just felt off... and the constant energy in the music took away from the drama of the film, and it felt all ADD like. All this said, I still liked it. A lot. There wasn't a single actor/actress in the film with a bad performance, and technically the movie was solid. It was just disappointing, considering Ridley Scott is my favorite director. He is just so much more at home with R rated films than making an "epic" medieval PG-13 film. Again, not a bad movie by any means. I liked it a lot. And compared to other movies in general, it was veeery good. My complaints are only when comparing it to other films of Ridley Scott. I hope the director's cut that Ridley mentioned will not only have more character and serious drama scenes, but added blood as well. It just takes away from an epic action scene when people are getting slashed in the face left and right, yet blood is nowhere to be found. Haha thats all I got.

it was going to be rated r and now its pg 13 so i have one thing to say to the producers suck it!!!

I loved the film. I went into it thinking it would just be a rehash of everything we'd already seen of robin hood and I was pleasantly surprised at how different it was. There was actually quite a bit of comedy at times which lived up to the more "men in tights" side of things but it was received well on my end. If people are looking for a waste of time movie that gives the same story over and over then they probably won't like it but I enjoyed the change.

In typical Scott fashion, Robing Hood is a technically well crafted film. I always love how Scott pays so much attention to period detail, so that you really get a sense of the time. I always say that I can forgive a lot in a film with great atmosphere, and this was no exception. I can definitely see the criticism though; the story was not that engaging, and it felt like Scott was trying to channel Gladiator for the 12th century, but the 'humourous' moments were clunky and it didn't have nearly the epic feel of his previous similarly-themed efforts. All in all I'd give it a 7 out of 10. I enjoyed it for what it was, but I doubt I'll ever see it again, which is not something I'd say about Gladiator, or his (in my opinion) superior film Kingdom of Heaven.

I was quite disappointed. I expected a heck of a whole lot more out of it. I appreciated the performances of the actors and the epic scope of the battles but there was unclarity as well as times where the film seemed to drag. I think I would've rather had a Robin Hood story where he already stole from the rich and gave to the poor than a slightly drawn out origin story.

Kingdom of Heaven Director's cut was one of the best films from Ridley. It's a shame this work wasn't presented as the theatrical version. I feel Robin Hood has met the same fate.

Ravek018, ur a dick! U sound like a real dick, who gives people like us a bad name, with ur loud opinions, take a chill pill, or shut up!

i thought it was excellent. i thought the pg-13 rating sanitized it as far as "bloodless violence" but it wasn't something that killed the movie. i LIKED that it wasn't the "same old RH" tale. i don't want the same story retold over and over. #3 - you must have seen another movie..............NOBODY walked out of the theatre i was in.

I thought the movie was great. I think the issue is it is a Ridley Scott film. Is it as good as his other films, NO. But if this was a first time director or a 2nd tier director, we would be impressed with the film. We have gotten use to more of a perfect film and are holding Scott to a higher standard. He is allowed an average film every once in awhile. I think it really sets the next movie up if he chooses to do it.

I would like that portion of my life back. Had I not been at the theater with a friend, I would have left. Poor characters, poor acting and poor "plot". Thoroughly disgusted with a film that I went into with only moderate expectations. I recommend waiting until Robin Hood is on free tv before seeing it if you insist on watching it at all.

I thought it was good. Not great, but still good. I definitely think it was worth the time.

Dandooo, congratulations. In one or two sentences you proved that no one on here actually has reason to speak. I'm a dick for what? you gave no reason, also most of what I said actually wasn't harsh or rude. You actually wasted a post to try and destroy an in depth review with out actually saying anything about what was wrong. Do you disagree? or what? try saying something worthwhile and redeem your pathetic excuse for a comment.

I agree that it's unfair to compare two films so much just because its the same director and star, within the same time period. However, the trailers for Robin Hood really exploit the fact by saying "By the Same director of Gladiator" and showcases several sword fights between Crowe and other characters all taking place to rock like back ground music. I can see how the similarities are made.

lol @ 9. You're so ridiculous.... lol wow. I bring up a few minor issues, and they are completely valid, then continue on and say that I loved the film a lot... and you accuse me of hating on the movie? Quit reading selectively and try reading a whole post. You're insane. People are allowed to be critical of films. Not everyone thinks every movie is perfect.

The cinematography was amazing and all the action scenes were too. There were to many plot holes throughout.

This film was actually really great. Solidly entertaining, an original-ish origin story with great heavy acting where it was needed. The film has been mismarketed, I really think that this could appeal to a broader audience. I know there has to be a lengtheir directors cut in existence, some parts like Marion's role with the kids in the final battle needed some real development, it wasn't there at all. But the movie was incredibly well shot. Loved it 4 out of 5. I don't know why the critics hated it so much.

I wasn't picking out anyone in particular. I never mentioned a name in my first post, and didn't intend to insult as much as to plead for the people on here who say that this movie was a waste of time to keep quiet so that those who would enjoy it will not be dissuaded. If any of you had taken the time to read MY whole post, you may not just think I was insulting you and you might actually be able to comment on what I was hoping for. And chill pills just prolong typing, they don't stop it. I type a lot because I want to get out what I want to say... not because I'm hyper.

It was boring in my opinion and it never really captured my interest. I didn't even know this was a pg-13 film going into it and I feel that had this been a R-rated movie it would have been much better. And lets be honest here the commercials were targeting adults not kids, I saw not one child in the theater I went to. Also it IS FAIR to judge a movie based on the director. Ridley Scott was the director for Black Hawk Down, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Hannibal, etc (I haven't seen all his films but the ones I listed I have and they are good movies). When a director is known fro making good movies it's fair to judge other movies they make to them. If I see a commercial for a new movie directed by Steven Spielberg or J. J. Abrams I'm gonna have some good expectations of the movie and if they're not met I'm going to be disappointed. The reverse is true for bad directors for example Uwe Boll, it is more than fair to judge his movies as awful before they come out.

BAD BAD BAD!

It seems most people either loathed it or liked. I feel its similar to Kingdom of Heaven in that scenes are missing and the directors cut will make it a better film. 19 Emir: You either didn't see the film or did not read the caption at the start, this is the origin of Robin Hood. The Errol Flynn version while hugely entertaining is pure hollywood hokum. Still too many people here have such vindictive vitriol against Ridley and Russell. Finally its a far better directed acted scripted film than the overhyped tosh that Avatar is. Worthington's acting makes Keeanu Reeves look like Marlon Brando. Alien origns next

I pass on any Russel Crow movie.. so.. I have no idea.. I didn't watch it.

47. Thanks for northing Dresden. It was a sub-par movie at best. The first 15 minutes of the movie was great I loved the sacking of the French castle and unfortunately after this scene the movie sinks into non-enjoyable goop. Don't get me wrong the acting and cinematography was top notch but the plot was stupid. It felt like their was a plethora of movies shoved into this one and none of their plots were resolved. There is just so many things wrong with the plot it would take to long to explain. I do feel dumber for watching it and had I not been there with friends I would have walked out.

It was fecking nonsense, what a long drawn out bucket of pigs pish. It made Braveheart seem believable.

this film was great, I really dont understand what it is about music or gore that everyone seems to have an issue with, I mean for gods sake does everyone have some sick obsession with blood and gore? I mean its robin hood! not gladiator jesus! its ROBIN HOOD!! its not really supposed to be bloody, dark and gory. its supposed to be fun and entertaining, happy where the good guys prevail and the bad guys lose. and just so were clear I have no problem with gore Im a fan but I dont need to see it in every movie and I definitely dont need to see it to make a movie good. I loved the character development, it was great! there was some good solid humor in the film as well as very serious plot with some really good elements I loved the whole impersonation thing it was a cool fresh way to look at it. each actor/ actress played their parts flawlessly. Ridly scott is a phenomenal director and this is definitely one to add to his list of beautiful period epics. I thought everything was good, even down to Richard. so please everyone realize what robin hood is supposed to be and go see the movie and realize as well that this is a pre. Robin Hood, robin hood movie and it sets it up beautifully. I cant wait till he continues the story and really hope that all this bullshit negative review shit doesnt slow that down.

Writing Blanchett's character like a modern day marxist feminist was nonsense. Writing women who act like men kills the romance.

"Writing Blanchett's character like a modern day marxist feminist was nonsense. Writing women who act like men kills the romance." In defense of the ladies, take note: It's generally stupid, boring, boorish and ignorant men who love stupid, boring, passive and uninteresting women. 'nuff said...

I absolutely loved this movie, great entertainment, well cast, well acted, great action scenes. It will be definitely be one of the movies I purchase for my collection.

An intelligent epic with solid performances, perfectly acceptable battle scenes (nothing life-changing but still rousing and intense), and Ridley Scott's usual incredible attention to character and place. Definitely worth seeing, definitely deserving of a sequel.

I would watch Russell Crowe read "War and Peace" and still be fascinated by how his persona captures every nuance of the story. He is the master of the cinema in my opinion and Ridley Scott understands this infinitely!!!! The best way to keep people intrigued is to always leave them with a little mystery to ponder. Great movie, great cast, and keep bringing us more sequels. I do wish Mark Strong did not die because every movie needs a captivating villain to hiss and boo. Of course, there will be new ones but maybe not ask strong.

The only quibble I had was Marian Lockesly riding astride but I guess in a rural Nottingham village they may have put up with it. The movie is brilliant and worth every nickel, I can't wait for it to hit the shelves on DVD 'cos it certainly will be in my collection.

It is a MOVIE! Why is it when a movie injects facts into the script which is what Ridley Scott has always maintained in any of his story telling a segment of the audience takes offense? Beginning with Abraham, Judaism and Muslim religions have been around long before Christianity. The real tragedy with religion are the fanatics and extremists who use "faith in God" as justification for murder. The Crusades were orchestrated by the dominate religious factor of that period for power and wealth. Spirituality and Faith have nothing to do with religion. Religion was created as a form of government to control the masses, whether it was Judaism, Muslim, or Christianity and it continues perpetuates stupidity with ignorance. When any society looses its humanity it abdicates its morality for all life. These are the facts: The massacre of Aayaideh occurred on the 20th August 1191. It was perpetrated by Richard Coeur de Lion, better known as Richard the Lion Heart, during the crusades to recover the holy land from the saracens under the command of Saladin. It is best understood in the context of Richard's attempt to take the city of Acre. The struggle for the city was unusually vicious even by Crusade standards, where little mercy was shown or asked for by soldiers on either side, and massacres were common place, particularly against the citizens of a captured city. On the fall of Acre, Richard attempted to negotiate with Saladin offering a large number of captured prisoners in exchange for the True Cross (reputedly the actual cross upon which Jesus Christ had been crucified), together with a large ransom and a number of Christian captives taken by Saladins men in earlier clashes with the crusaders. Saladin stalled for time in the hope that an approaching Muslim army would allow him to retake control of the city. When Saladin refused a request from Richard to provide a list of names of important Christians held by the Saracens, Ricard Cour de Lion took this as the delaying tactic that it probably was, and insisted that the ransom payment and prisoner exchange should occur within one month. When the deadline was not met Richard became infuriated and decided on a savage punishment of Saladin for his perceived intransigence. Richard personally oversaw and planned the massacre which took place on a small hill called Ayyadieh, a few miles from Acre. The killings were carried out in full view of the Muslim army and Saladins own field headquarters. Over 3000 men, women and children, were beaten to death, axed or killed with swords and lances. And History does repeat itself because of religious fanaticism!

Ridley Scott is a brilliant Director and it is his job to make an entertaining MONEY GENERATING MOVIE, not a documentary which would never have any cinematic value to Hollywood. We live in a world driven by the Holy $, not by truth. I do not understand how your Israeli heritage connects to the historical facts of this MOVIE except that King Richard did massacre thousands of Muslims as the records show. Jerusalem has always been a city with diverse religious dogmas which makes it a sanctuary for all believers, not just one religion. Before MOVIES there were books that sent anti-political/religious messages as an example, Alice in Wonderland, Lord of the Rings and even Harry Potter. Creativity is synonymous with everything inspired through the mind and will. Be good to yourself, Breathe deeply, Love passionately and Live each day as it is your last! The rest is just the garbage of rich, greedy men who will never be happy with what they achieve or destroy. Remember Maximus "What we do in Life, echos in Eternity". Strength and Honor no longer exists, except in the MOVIES!! These are historical facts which anyone who reads should look up on the Internet: The Battle of Jaffa took place during the Crusades, as one of a series of campaigns between Saladin's army and the forces of King Richard I of England. It was the final battle of the Third Crusade, after which Saladin and King Richard were able to negotiate a truce. Although the Crusaders did not regain possession of Jerusalem, Christian pilgrims were permitted entry into the city, and the Crusaders were able to retain control of a sizable strip of land stretching from Beirut to Jaffa. Although largely a footnote among the greater events that unfolded during the Crusades, the battle was a decisive encounter, illustrating both the determined spirit of Saladin, and the reckless bravery of Richard. It was the final encounter before the treaty between Richard and Saladin was concluded and helped anchor the Crusader presence in the south, and ensure, at least for the time being, the perimeter of the Christian realm in the Holy Land. In March 1199, Richard was in the Limousin suppressing a revolt by Viscount Aimar V of Limoges. Although it was Lent, he "devastated the Viscount's land with fire and sword". He besieged the puny, virtually unarmed castle of Chalus-Chabrol. Some chroniclers claimed that this was because a local peasant had uncovered a treasure trove of Roman gold, which Richard claimed from Aimar in his position as feudal overlord. Châlus' is where Richard I of England was mortally wounded by a crossbow bolt. It was shot by Pierre Basile while he was besieging the castle in 1199. In the early evening of 25 March 1199, Richard was walking around the castle perimeter without his chainmail, investigating the progress of sappers on the castle walls. Arrows were occasionally shot from the castle walls, but these were given little attention. One defender in particular amused the king greatly—a man standing on the walls, crossbow in one hand, the other clutching a frying pan which he had been using all day as a shield to beat off missiles. He deliberately aimed an arrow at the king, which the king applauded. However, another arrow then struck him in the left shoulder near the neck. He tried to pull this out in the privacy of his tent but failed; a surgeon, called a 'butcher' by Hoveden, removed it, 'carelessly mangling' the King's arm in the process. The wound swiftly became gangrenous. Accordingly, Richard asked to have the crossbowman brought before him; called alternatively Peter Basile, John Sabroz, Dudo, and Bertrand de Gurdon (from the town of Gourdon) by chroniclers, the man turned out (according to some sources, but not all) to be a boy. This boy claimed that Richard had killed the boy's father and two brothers, and that he had killed Richard in revenge. The boy expected to be executed; Richard, as a last act of mercy, forgave the boy of his crime, saying, "Live on, and by my bounty behold the light of day," before ordering the boy to be freed and sent away with 100 shillings. Richard then set his affairs in order, bequeathing all his territory to his brother John and his jewels to his nephew Otto. Effigy at Châlus Richard died on 6 April 1199 in the arms of his mother; it was later said that "As the day was closing, he ended his earthly day." His death was later referred to as 'the Lion (that) by the Ant was slain'. According to one chronicler, Richard's last act of chivalry proved fruitless; in an orgy of medieval brutality, the infamous mercenary captain Mercadier had the crossbowman flayed alive and hanged as soon as Richard died. Richard's heart was buried at Rouen in Normandy, the entrails in Châlus (where he died) and the rest of his body was buried at the feet of his father at Fontevraud Abbey in Anjou. “The reputation of Richard ... has fluctuated wildly. The Victorians were divided. Many of them admired him as a crusader and man of God, erecting an heroic statue to him outside the Houses of Parliament; Stubbs, on the other hand, thought him ‘a bad son, a bad husband, a selfish ruler, and a vicious man’. Though born in Oxford, he spoke no English. During his ten years' reign, he was in England for no more than six months, and was totally absent for the last five years.” John Gillingham, Kings and Queens of Britain: Richard I So Richard never returned to England, not even a physical part of him.

Ridley Scott produced another masterstroke in this movie. I've heard a lot of people say otherwise but, most people don't really pay attention to what Scott's movies are all about. His movies are really about grand tales told in a visually stunning and visceral manner. All the changes that were made to the story and characters was a welcome one, and I LOVE the fact that Little John carries a seven foot war hammer instead of a lame staff. The movie was a blast and in true Ridley Scott fashion, I know that the director's cut/ extended cut on DVD will be crazy good. I would say on par with his extended cuts of Legend, Blade Runner, Gladiator, and the amazing Kingdom of Heaven!

Does every movie, that has nothing to do with Muslims, have to be pro-Muslim now days? Why were the lines thrown in about a Muslim massacre in this movie that supposed to be about Robin Hood? Why, at the very end of the closing credits was a huge white Christian cross shown and then immediately afterwards, a Muslim getting his head chopped off with a sword? I researched the history of the Crusades recently and learned that, in actuality, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands. This movie felt like propoganda. Who paid for it??? Here is a great link with the whole story: http://www.thearma.org/essays/Crusades.htm

Marie, I definitely have to agree with what u said about being pro-Muslim. The American government, media, & yes, Hollywood are all so hung up on being politically correct, so much so that they have created a massive double standard when it comes to the way our country views minorities. Dont get me wrong, the movie was really good but haring that crap takes down a few notches. Besides, maybe whoever wrote that script needs to learn a little history because the Muslims did PLENTY of massacring (Christians) themselves. Whoever wrote that obviously never heard of a group of people's called the Moors, or of a man named Darius, or Xerxes!