Sound Off: Ridley Scott's Robin Hood - What Did You Think?
by Alex Billington
May 14, 2010
Now that you've seen it, what did you think? The latest epic action/adventure movie from Ridley Scott arrives in theaters today and it revisits a classic medieval hero we're all very familiar with. So how is Ridley Scott's Robin Hood? Is it better or worse than his other big epics like Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven? How does it compare to the other great Robin Hood movies of past, both comedy (Mel Brooks) and serious (Errol Flynn, Kevin Costner)? How is Russell Crowe in yet another new Ridley Scott movie? Best or worst movie of the summer? If you've seen it, leave a comment and let us know what you thought of Robin Hood!
To fuel the fire, I thought Robin Hood was pretty mediocre. I love Ridley Scott's production values, they're always incredible, and this is no exception, but the story and script just felt a bit rough and everything got a little "goofy" in the middle once they got to Nottingham. I can't really blame Scott or even Russell Crowe for the problems, and as much as I wanted to love every second of this, I just slowly lost interest as time went on. The action is great, the performances are all fantastic (especially Mark Strong and William Hurt), but it's by far not one of my favorite Ridley Scott movies. It's good, but definitely not great, in my humble opinion.
What did you think of Robin Hood? Another great epic adventure or just bland and boring?
I really liked it despite all the mixed reviews. Great performances and great battle scenes. Pacing was pretty good too and it didn't seem to drag anywhere.
Neo on May 14, 2010
this really sucked badly. mark strong is awesome, and so is russel. but it still sucked.
boye on May 14, 2010
FAIL. A very disappointing outcome from such a talented director and cast. It was an absolute waste of what could've been a great reboot. The script was boring the action sequences were lazy and generic. People were walking out of the theatre midway through. I'm just glad I saw an advanced screening that didn't require me parting with my cash. That money is now going towards the blu-ray Kevin Costner version.
Malaka on May 14, 2010
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.
El Guapo on May 14, 2010
Boring. Bad characters development and weak action scenes...
Dexter on May 14, 2010
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.
Chazzy O on May 14, 2010
Oh, and when I say his other movies had a quieter score... i'm referring mostly to dramatic scenes, with dialogue. Obviously the action scenes had tons of music booming.
Chazzy O on May 14, 2010
it was going to be rated r and now its pg 13 so i have one thing to say to the producers suck it!!!
sickdoghats on May 14, 2010
What movie have people been watching? Each major role of the film had nostalgic and solid value. From Robin Hood, played very well by Russel Crowe, to Prince John, whom I loved to hate, along with every character who does not need nor has ever needed to be developed, such as Little John and Friar Tuck, Every thing from the Robin Hood world ideal was presented in an extremely satisfying and enjoyable way. As for the story, the plot element of Mark Strong's character leading the French was the PERFECT drive to combine the revelation of Prince John's character as a twisted and corrupt ruler with the introduction of Robin as a unifier of the people of England. Even if one existed, I could think of no more perfectly designed plot to bring together the key characters of a beloved story. As for violence. I don't know when people decided that clubs to the face, people being combusted with flaming arrows, or arrows through the neck of a victim sputtering their last breaths through gargling blood became tame or boring, but those of you pouting wimpishly over the fact that this movie was not rated R can stop with your whining. Quite frankly there was nothing short of epic excitement in the many attention grabbing action sequences here. Also, every key element of a classic epic adventure was exploited with the masterful direction of the director. With delightfully quippy side characters, a rising and hopeful Hero, an admirable love interest, a heart warming wizened guide for the hero, and the perfect set up of archenemies between the well known figures of the story, this well crafted and solidly shining movie proved its worth. Personally, the whole set up of the final battle, with a classic setting of Hero vs. Villain in a final, gripping sword fight while the damsel awaits her hero is what gave me a sense of nostalgia for all other Robin Hood stories. The film managed to create a tough and independent love interest and still put her under the protection of the Hero while not failing with the character. In all, I am sad to see that so many unfocused, Gladiator biased, whining losers are tearing down a movie that deserves no criticism for what it is receiving. the movie is truly spectacular and well worth seeing in theaters, and every weak attempt to trash this movie for its music, which was if anything an aid to the experience of watching, is not worth the read and should be kept in the minds of those sad individuals who cannot appreciate a classic and pleasing experience. This movie was AMAZING and every bit the best of what Robin Hood can and ever should be. To prove me wrong, post one aspect of the movie that doesn't work in regards to plot, rather than just claiming you know the director and his potential or whatever sad thing, and tell me how this doesn't live up to what it was made to be.
Ravek018 on May 14, 2010
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.
Ken on May 14, 2010
Amazing film. The first true epic in a long time. HUNDREDS OF EXTRAS AND HORSES. No CGI making up half of the battalions - REAL PEOPLE. Great action, solid story, and Mark Strong needs an Oscar nomination soon. Haters of this film boggle my mind.
Rashad on May 14, 2010
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.
fazha on May 14, 2010
When I first saw Kingdom Of Heaven I hated the balls out of it; after seeing the director's cut I thought it was flipping great. They should have stuck with calling it Nottingham and not Robin Hood since it was more of an origin story than anything else. Sort of like Unbreakable in that way I think. Hopefully they will bring out a director's cut of this film and let everyone see if there was more to the movie and the story that was cut to keep the length down (even though it still came in at 148 minutes). It will be good to see Ridley do something other than another period epic next, hopefully it'll be Alien 5. Schepsi out.
Fred Schepsi on May 14, 2010
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.
radbots on May 15, 2010
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.
U.G.T.F.O. on May 15, 2010
Its a very pretty movie that lacks HEART! The very talented cast and beautiful cinematography could not save this pig of a movie, and this is coming from a HUGE Ridley Scott fan! There was zero intrigue, zero drama, and even the epic battle scenes lacked punch. Honestly ask yourself exactly when did you feel any excitment in this movie?! I'm still a Scott fan and i will chalk this one up to a bad day at the office but WOW what a disappointment!
Scared S-less!!! on May 15, 2010
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!
Dandooo on May 15, 2010
The biggest beef I have with this movie is that it doesn't even resemble the classical tale of Robin Hood. We get only glimpses of the real Robin Hood in the robbing the Church coach and the arrow in the poster scene, and everything else is some imaginative but non-hood related out-of-date pre-Rennaisance junk. Prince John is not outraged and pathetic because some petty mason's son is more charismatic then him (the castle mop is supposed to be more charismatic then prince John, and I don't have any problems with the acting in the movie, it was almost pitch perfect), he's threatened all the time by the return of his brother and the fact that he's not the King but is left with all the responsibility. The parliamentarian plot is just completely misplaced in that medieval setting of 12th century England. And the fatherly figure plot is just... wrong. In one sentence, this movie was supposed to be about Robin of Loxley hiding and hunting in the Sherwood forest and we only got about 10 minutes of that.
Emir on May 15, 2010
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.
beavis on May 15, 2010
From everything I hearing about this, I'll wait to see the Directors Cut instead of seeing it in theaters.
shadow on May 15, 2010
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.
DaNorbs on May 15, 2010
This is a perfect example of how Critics just dont get it..and honestly one of the few times i disagree with you Alex. My biggest issue with critics is the fact that they over-analyze movies and forget that sometimes all of us normal people just want to be entertained..and to see cool fight scenes..and have a few laughs. I REALLY LIKED ROBIN HOOD- it was great..and i bet most people in the theater like me, wanted to see more..and are hoping for a sequel. There were applause at the end of the movie in the packed theater i was in..anyone else? Sorry but this is just one of those "lets jump on the bandwagon of early bad critic reviews" situations i think
sam on May 15, 2010
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.
Ryan on May 15, 2010
"Honestly ask yourself exactly when did you feel any excitment in this movie?!" Each battle scene - especially the beach battle
Rashad on May 15, 2010
I thought it was good. Not great, but still good. I definitely think it was worth the time.
jjboldt on May 15, 2010
I haven`t seen Gladiator 2 but I hope will be good! ha ha
George on May 15, 2010
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.
Ravek018 on May 15, 2010
This isn't and was never supposed to be Gladiator 2, and those of you unfairly comparing this to another work related only by the fact that they have the same main actor and similar looking time periods I would please ask to stop telling people that this was anything like Gladiator. Story wise, and from features such as the action and romance, this is almost nothing like gladiator, and if anyone other than Russel Crowe had played Robin Hood, this wouldn't even have been brought up. If you can deny this? I again ask for an intelligible response to prove your point.
Ravek018 on May 15, 2010
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.
zack on May 15, 2010
I think Sam expressed it very well. I go to the movies to be entertained and get away from the stress of everyday life. Is this Ripleys best effort, maybe, maybe not but to each his own. I thought it was an exceptional film. I thought it was a more accurate portrayal of the era. I also enjoyed that it wasn't the same tired story told time and time again. I thought this was a very creative way to tell the story of how Robin Hood came to the point where he became the benevolent outlaw that everybody knows and loves so well. I may see this one a second time but I will definately buy the DVD when it comes out. And I also hope to see a sequel/
Skew B Do on May 15, 2010
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.
Chazzy O on May 15, 2010
Saw it a couple hours ago and I thought it was Excellent! From beginning to end! Certainly didn't feel like 2hrs plus, the pacing was great. Really enjoyed the storyline. All the acting was excellent. The action was great, although it would have been nice to have them a little more R rated Ridley style. Perhaps if their is a directors cut DVD. Another Crowe/Ridley classic! I am so sick of the comparisons. Judge this movie on it's own merits. I've read so many bad reviews and the majority of people have been trashing this movie. I just don't get it but to each their own I guess.
KB on May 15, 2010
The cinematography was amazing and all the action scenes were too. There were to many plot holes throughout.
Moon on May 15, 2010
robin hood just robbed 3 hours of my life!!! hope it gives them to someone didnt see this....it sucked!!
cregs on May 15, 2010
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.
Linkfx on May 15, 2010
Wow, Ravek018, u really need those chill pills I was talking about earlier!
Dandooo on May 15, 2010
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.
Ravek018 on May 15, 2010
Right on #11 I absolute loved it. I felt this movie was made for me especially. Im a huge fan of the few and far between epic/middle ages/dark/gritty/battle movies. While it didnt quite have the impact of Gladiator(that movie broke ground), this movie was a joy ride. Everything in the movie was well made. I loved the characters, sets, battle scenes and music and all. It was just perfect!! Of course if this type of stories werent my cup of tea, I might now like it and find it cheesy at times, but if you like middle ages based epic, GO SEE IT!!!!!!!! The movie perfectly set up Robin Hoods beginning and I really hope there is part 2... as the movie kind of hinted at.
Tomi on May 15, 2010
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.
Mr. Ileftacommentonthiswebsite on May 15, 2010
Plus, I was so exited so many times throughout the movie!!
Tomi on May 15, 2010
BAD BAD BAD!
Lincoln on May 16, 2010
I thought it was a fantastic movie....hmm
eric on May 16, 2010
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
macatae on May 16, 2010
Ah yes, as the population grows we are blessed with more morons and pathetic brainless losers who spent too much time shoved infront of a tv and neglected by their parents. As a result, we have too many small- brained, uneducated, weak, frail, brain dead people. They hate themselves because of their weak bodies. They despise their frail and empty brains. They have contempt for a better life they can't obtain, and this naturally causes these losers to hate on anything that has real value or is great. Hence all the "bad" reviews of this terrific robin hood movie. All the haters have major problems. Go back and watch Jumper or Twilight, or whatever girly, corny, dumbed down piece of garabge that you enjoy because itmakes you feel better about how weak and dumb you are. leave these good movies to real men who can enjoy a great movie. Do us all a favor and do not have children, in fear they might be as brain dead as you are. GREAT MOVIE! SEE IT!
chickenpotpie on May 16, 2010
I pass on any Russel Crow movie.. so.. I have no idea.. I didn't watch it.
Dresden on May 16, 2010
45. macatae I did see the bloody film and its name bloody well wasn't "The Origins of Robin Hood and his Band of Merry Men", it was "Robin Hood". This origin is NOT according to any legend of Robin Hood I've ever heard of and come off your high horse, as I said, it's imaginative, acting is great and no one can tell Ridley how to make a glorious spectacle. But the STORY is complete and utter Hollywood bullshit just like Gladiator's was. I didn't even see the Errol Flynn version, I've READ the bloody literature.
Emir on May 16, 2010
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.
adam on May 16, 2010
If you remember, another Cate Blanchett movie, Elizabeth, got panned for similar issues. It assumed that it had an intelligent audience with some grasp of English history or literature. I just read a blog that referred to Alan A'Dayle as "some Allen guy" and complained that Russell Crowe looked too serious after supposedly coming home from 10 years of crusading. Please go back to watching the Power Rangers and spare us the comments on an ambitious movie. The siege and battle scenes were fantastic, the actor's performances solid and enjoyable, and depiction of life in 12th century England seemed plausible. It also presented an interesting theory as to why a supposed noble is so adept with a bow and arrow vs. a sword and charger. I thoroughly enjoyed it, though am getting tired of Mark Strong playing bad guys. He was incredible opposite Kate Beckinsale in 'Emma' - a version which buried Ms. Paltrow's insipid take on the Austen classic.
Lisa on May 16, 2010
It was fecking nonsense, what a long drawn out bucket of pigs pish. It made Braveheart seem believable.
Crapola on May 16, 2010
Ravek018, totally wholeheartedly agree with you on this. I lived every second of this film. I onl wish The subplot with Marion and the wild kids in the end battle had been explained more thoroughly. I'm sure that will be in the directors cut, otherwise, the film was truly great. Russel Crowe was fantastic in it, and I honestly don't know what people are complaining about. It was a rip roaring epic, an original Robin Hood tale. It's best attribute, I think was the production design thy made it feel so authentic, second was the acting, my favorite being Crowe obviously, but his Merry Men, especially Kevin Durand, were all funny, brawny badasses. This is a film that will be respected on DVD and blu, I think. I hope.
Linkfx on May 17, 2010
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.
tyler on May 17, 2010
What absolute rubbish 3 of the 4 Friends I went with fell asleep, Hollywood ruining what could have been an epic, instead they tried to make another gladiator film. Wrong casting with crowe. No storyline, what's with the 3 minutes at the end, that wad supposed to be what the whole film is about. An absolute discrase.
Markus on May 18, 2010
Writing Blanchett's character like a modern day marxist feminist was nonsense. Writing women who act like men kills the romance.
Phil on May 19, 2010
the actors are boring and empty , unable to touch our hearts. the action is a pale remind of "gladiator" or "kingdom of heavens" the music....which music ? where is the damn sound ? the scenario wants to fit in reality but ist just basic anti-french propaganda and very far from the History (rumors say that scott is very upset when journalists told him so :p) the decors are muddy , depressing , nothing is worth the sight , a real sh**hole . The usual speech about freedom and humans rights makes it even more pathetic And its boring.so boring . I dunno what is the worst in this movie ( and i am a big fan of crowe , scott and blanchette) i couldnt believe what i saw : pure epic fail. After Scott's other movies , its not a disappointement , its an insult. A sort of cheap parody of "braveheart" , but very racist , ill-played and ill-directed .
jo on May 20, 2010
"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...
Sigelle on May 20, 2010
48 emir, No need to get personal. Your quote "this movie was supposed to be about Robin of Loxley hiding and hunting in the Sherwood forest" ehh no it was not. Your knowledge of the myth of Robin Hood seems narrow as there are many names of this figure doing similar deeds in different parts of the country over many centuries and in all likelihood, bits have been forgotten and added so there is no definitive Robin Hood. A very enjoyable film and I look forward to the next instalment. By the way and my horse has very short legs.
macatae on May 20, 2010
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.
Mary on May 24, 2010
I couldn't understand a thing they were saying. Russel Crowe mumbles every word. My girlfriend fell asleep within the first half hour. The only good part were the trailers in the beginning. We left early. Bring a pillow and a redbull
Pharrell on May 24, 2010
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.
Dan on May 25, 2010
I found it to be decent, but I was expecting a little more considering Gladiator is my favorite movie.
Chase Baker on May 29, 2010
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.
Ladyhawke on Jun 13, 2010
Ridley Scott has an amazing directorial "oeuvre" or achievements. "he is an inveterate stickler for detail who tackles each movie project with the vehemence of a general with a battle plan" a quote from IMDB. My favorite of course will always be "GLADIATOR" and because I have seen it over 200 times, I can practically say it line for line especially the scene where Maximus meets Comodus in the area for the first time. Awesome acting because it is so visceral. Thelma and Louise came at a time when I needed strong female role models and this one hit all the buttons. Ridley Scott movies should be appreciated and watched with an eye for detail, synergy and complexity. So comparing one of his movies to every movie he has made or will continue to make, is, basically, boring and insulting. Ridley Scott, Michael Mann, Martin Scorsese are the new age directors who will always exemplify "Movie Magic". So appreciate their craft for what it is meant to be, not rocket science! And by the way, opinions are like ass holes, everyone has them, one used for speaking and one used for eliminating feces, that's why they are called "opinions". Go see Robin Hood more than once, it is really worth every dollar.
Ladyhawke on Jun 17, 2010
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.
Meredith Fletcher on Jun 21, 2010
Apart from the fact that this is a BEAUTIFUL historical reprentation, there is no connection between our childhood romantic memories of Robin Hood and this film. The hero might have been called by any other name and would not have smelled as a rose. In a way this is cheating. If the film had a different name, for example - "The Birth of the Magna Carta" it would have been just the same only less media blabla and less audience and less money, of course. It is not clear at all why Robin Hood had to tell King Richard that he was bad bad for having massacred c.2300 Muslims in Acre and a description of the last moving (movie invented) words of the pious Muslim woman before her execution (that was enforced on Robin[King Richard`s accomplice ? ] ) blaming the Crusaders !!! those lines and that scene from this overloaded film could have been cut oss without ANY damage whatsoever, but Hollywood is cowtowing to Islam now, and more. Blaming the Crusaders indeed, that is pure Muslim point of view. The film is beautiful, the film is too long, the film is not about Robin Hood, the films robs the watcher of Romance, the film uses entertainment to indoctrinate certain socio-political ideas, and generally speaking, in a generation that hardly reads any more but watches films and videos this is another film going the way of disinformation and alteration of no longer copyrighted classical works.
Lily on Jun 26, 2010
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!
Ladyhawke on Jun 27, 2010
Everybody says that the movie is too long. And this scene, the entire scene with the king going to visit robin and asking him questions and then punishing him etc - at least 15 minutes, - a scene that led nowhere except to the pro muslim indoctrination that has nothing to do with the romantic robin Hood tradition and the romantic richard Lion heart tradition. Why is that scene there ? As for the last sentence of your comment - yes, true, and who embedded this unnecessary piece of "Anti Crusaders" piece into the film ? And by the way, why is not the story told that Richard returned to England ? iF an ignorant or non educated child or person sees this film they will conclude that richard was punished for his bad bad Crusader behavior and he ends up dead ! Yes, I am an Israeli. I throw the gaunlet (glove ?) at Ridley Scott. Why did he enter that alongated episode into his film if not to be politically correct and if not to make money ? Using the truth to advantage eventually destroys science and development.
Lily on Jun 27, 2010
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.
Ladyhawke on Jun 27, 2010
I dont care what king Richard did. The history of the Jewish people is so replete with massacres, blood libels, auto de fe, etc etc etc. by Europe, that if one of the Kings chose to Massacre Muslims, it is just like a drop in the sea to me. I care about R.Scott luring me to see a Robin Hood film and instead i saw something else, half myth (i.e. robin being the son of a Free Mason who drew the first draft of theMagna Carta) half history (i.e. the massacre in Acre of which you write SOOOOOO MUCH - I wish you would write more about Robin), and about the fact that in the political climate of today, this is a strange statement. Since I dont like, for example, the Hamas Covenant - calling for the wiping out of my country (I will add a link for you at the bottom), and since I went to be entertained, I had no pleasure in being reminded in this film of religious conflicts ! I have enough of them as there are! My friend and I are both grandmothers, who grew up together. We ourselves did not have grandmothers, for certain obvious historical reasons. She came to me and said: "There`s a film about Robin Hood." And I said to her, "Yes, I want to see Robin Hood." And that`s why we two elderly ladies went, to see Robin driving the Sheriff of Nottingham crazy, courting dame Marianne and dispensing money to the poor, etcetera. But what we got was not the film that we went to see. At the very very end of the film we got a huge caption saying: And this is where the legend begins. We went to see the legend, and we got a caption of 5 seconds at the end. I am still of the opinion that something political and unpleasant is lurking in the redundant episode of th massacre of Acre, which was unnecessary\superfluous in this film. And since my country is being delegitimized by the media (because they can`t delegitimize the UN resolution)s, I have become sensitive to other aspects of delegitimization. I suggest Mr. Scott join the USA Democratic Party and run for Presidential Candidacy, if he is so interested in media politics. That`s it. [here is the Hamas covenant] http://www.literatura.co.il/website/index.asp?id=29769
Lily on Jun 27, 2010
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!
Matthew on Aug 9, 2010
I just saw the Director's Cut of the film after having to wait (as I did not see it in the cinema) with my dad and we both loved it. At first we found it a little confusing as not all the characters are instantly explained. But right from the start the filming and acting was good. It was very good casting and I loved the feisty Marion that wasn't painted up like all others have been. The film had both humour and seriousness with romance in between and I didn't find myself groaning at kisses like usual as they were actually heartfelt and at the right moments. I don't get why everyone is so Anti-Robin Hood. It is an ORIGIN story, it was never going to have much stealing from the rich! All in all, with the amazing score that left me with goose bumps, the film was a good buy and I loved every second of it.
Lyddie on Sep 24, 2010
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 on Sep 24, 2010
Even though they didnt follow the story line of the Kevin Costner version it was a great movie! I really hope they make a 2nd part,because they did not finish the story. And judging by the last written comment in the movie, which was- That's how the legend begins- it looks like they probably will make a 2nd part. I look forward to seeing it!!!
Ryan on Sep 28, 2010
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!
Ryan on Sep 28, 2010
This movie is absolute garbage! I usually love Ridley Scott and Russell Crow but man this movie sucked! Boring, drawn out and generally not entertaining. One HUGE flaw that I noticed was the fact that up until 1 hour and 14 mins we only know Robins name......none of the merry men! I was confused as hell up until then, Which guy is Will? Who is Little John? Some of the worst writing I have ever seen.
Ben on Oct 22, 2010
Sorry, new comments are no longer allowed.