24 May 2012

Great Robin Hood!

This review is from: Robin Hood (Single-Disc Unrated Director's Cut) (DVD) I really enjoyed this film. Crowe makes a great Robin. Handsome in that commoner look before he gets drunk. The merry men were wonderful. I really wish they were making a sequel or two.

ajfdomingo

24 May 2012

Commendable on a Grand Scale

Ridley Scott stamps his trademark style of telling stories of largerthan life heroes on a grand scale in the latest film on Robin Hood.Much attention is paid to convey the scale and ferocity of battlescenes that there is more than enough gore to make one flinch. Thecommendable trait of Scott is that he takes pains to develop thepersonal story of his lead character. It is as if he is doing acharacter study and inviting the audience to join him. Robin Hoodclocks in at a relatively lengthy two hours and twenty minutes yetthere are no scenes that can be called extraneous and that shows onemore strength of a Ridley Scott film, good editing. The cast do abelievable job of portraying life in medieval England and France, afeat that owes very much to the competence of the set and costumedesigners. I think this film is well worth the audience' time andmoney. It makes me hope that there will be a sequel soon.

Graham Vaughan

22 May 2012

Robin the Who?

Just seen 'Robin Hood'.... did the writers actually research the storyand legend of Robin Hood? Is this just another American version of anEnglish legend? Why does Russel Crowe keep changing his accent? Is itbecause he is a terrible actor, or because the writer really had noidea about England and where about Nottingham is? One of THE worstfilms i've ever seen; slow, boring and NOTHING to the legend. Marianwas known as Maid Marian because she wasn't married, she was a maid,which means an un-married woman! Robin didn't steal the identity ofsomeone else and live happily next door to the sheriff of Nottingham,who had a little mud house in the middle of a village. He lived in acastle and Nottingham was the town built up around it. Richard LionHeart was not killed by a french chef who's just served up soup duringa battle, and the French certainly did not battle Robin Hood,apparently now the leader of the English army, after landing in modernlanding craft invented and used in World War 2!!! Who the hell writethis rubbish!! Go back to directing Alien Films Mr Scott, because youare cr.... rubbish at historic English folklore.

berbecar-alex

22 May 2012

far worse than i could ever expected (

In the beginning they don't say its about the beginning of hislife...how he become the "Robin Hood"... He fires he's bow about 5times in whole movie? Really, that's all about Robin Hood...his skillswith the bow...i didn't payed ticket to see him mastering a sword wholemovie.. :))) that's crap... that was no action movie... bloodyjuicy..romantic....look what happens if you put old man playing actionmovies... You'll get a bloody romantic kinder drama instead of anaction movie. Even as a romantic movie... same story like most ofromantic ones, guy comes from nowhere, falls in love, rescues the girl,and they live happily ever after... but Robin Hood should be about theaction not the love he can make :))))

22 May 2012

Not the definitive version

For every one thing that this movie gets right (no, the middle ages wasn't neat like Disneyland...) it gets something else wrong (the entire beach scene...medieval LSTs, really!?). Russell Crowe has fallen for his own publicity, and can't find a role equal to his own magnificence...Excesses will abound, and if he lives long enough he may get back to doing an excellent job on good roles. In the meantime, expect roles with realities stretched to suit his inflated ego. Just about any other version is superior...I'd even watch "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" before subjecting myself to this dog again...

21 May 2012

A thoroughly good watch!!!

After reading some of the comments left on here before actually goingto watch Robin Hood, I thought I wouldn't like the film very much buton the contrary, I absolutely loved it!!! First of all, this is notanother Gladiator-type movie and I think a lot of people were expectingit to be just that, given the reunion of Ridley Scott and Russell Croweafter a 10-year gap.This is more of a film with a storyline which precedes the familiarstory we're all accustomed to, kind of like the story in Batman Begins.In other words, the story of the character (and others) before theybecame the legend(s) that we're all familiar with now.I won't spoil the film by mentioning anything at all that happens in itas I would rather recommend that anyone reading this should go and seeit for themselves in the theatres before it's taken off. It'sdefinitely a film not to be missed at the cinema.I thought the acting was brilliant. The scenery was awesome, the action(fight scenes) were well-captured, the plot could be deemed ascomplicated yet also cohesive and entertaining. There were a fewhilarious moments too, especially with the immature and inexperiencedKing John as well as Little John. The music was the only main thingwhich had a reminiscent feel to that of Gladiator but that did notdetract from the film in anyway.The only thing I agree with in the negative reviews is where someonesaid they'd stolen a similar scene to that of Steven Spielberg's'Saving Private Ryan' but to me that could simply just be a tribute tohistory.All I'd say is go check it out for yourself and enjoy!!!

aspinks

16 May 2012

Best Robin Hood and Scott returns to form

Most people feel that Errol Flynn's Robin Hood film is the best of themall. Personally I think that film is overrated. I do feel that is thebest Robin Hood film that they have ever done.Ridley Scott, who was coming off the disastrous Body of Lies, hasreturned to form with this film. He drives the story with great easeand no ruff spots or parts that seem to drag and be boring. I waspleasantly surprised that this film wasn't Gladiator 2 like everybodythought it was going to be. It was interesting to see the removal ofall the b.s. that has hindered Robin Hood films of the past. The score, cinematography, and art direction are fantastic as usual ina Ridley Scott film. Russell Crowe was very good at playing a role that has seen the likesof Errol Flynn, Sean Connery, and Kevin Costner. He continues to provehis great ear for accents. Cate Blanchett gives a solid performance asMaid Marion. Mark Strong, Oscar Issac, and William Hurt are all verygood.Then we come to the real scene stealer and truly the most memorableperformance of the film. Max von Sydow truly was perfect in this film.Giving a great and masterful performance and making Oscar winners likeCate Blanchett and Russell Crowe look like high school actors. Ihaven't felt this strongly about an Oscar-worthy supporting actorperformance since Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men.All in all a really entertaining film with great action and a greatstory.

AndrePhilidor

16 May 2012

Skip this movie!

The only positive thing I can say about this film is the excellentproduction and filming. What a melange of near incomprehensibleaccents! Russell Crowe - Australian, Cate Blanchett - Australian, Maxvon Sydow - Scandinavian. Much of the dialogue is barely intelligible.The lines spoken in French had subtitles (the only lines I couldunderstand with my high school French!). This is unlike any Robin Hoodyou may have seen before. Of course there was only ONE Robin Hood -Errol Flynn. All others are only feeble imitations. The battle sceneswere impressive. But Robin fighting with a long handled hammer???Admittedly it was effective against the helmeted French, but, as Isaid, unlike any other Robin Hood. And the landing craft for the FrenchFleet? Did they buy discarded WWII LST's used to land our Allied Forceson Normandy Beach? Overly long, overly talky, they could have talkedthe French to death. Definitely a disappointment and, in my book (andmy wife's) not worth seeing. At least Mel Brooks' version "Men inTights" gave us a few laughs.

reneemsm

16 May 2012

just one thing

Honestly, there is only one thing that bothered me about thismovie...the boats in the last battle scene. Why? WHY? why would theymake the boats look like that? Someone else likened them to WWIIcarriers and I have to say I totally agree. That was the only thing Ikept thinking during that scene. Normally something that trivial wouldnot bother me, but in this case I felt like it was over-shadowing whatwas going on in the scene. I just kept thinking "who designed thoseridiculous-looking boats?". A couple other things about that scenestarted bothering me after that but nothing worth mentioning. Honestly,it was a really good movie and I liked how it ended. I'm hoping theyhave already started making a second one (with a little moretime-period accuracy).There isn't any sexually explicit material (no mention of it at allreally, except for a couple of suggestive bar maids who don't even showany skin or anything).The language isn't bad, that I remember. Just a few mild curse wordshere and there (but these are men in battle after all).The violence is really not horrible. A ton of people getting killedwith arrows and some sword fighting, etc. But probably a third to halfof the movie is battle scenes so it's to be expected.Overall, I think it's an accurate PG-13.

wittmann73

16 May 2012

Gladiator it is not

I went to see the film with low expectations and I wasn't disappointed.The film starts with some good action in France and the first 15minutes are well done.After that, with the return of Robin to England, the movie slows down alot and basically nothing interesting happens for the next 90 minutes.Lots of talking, some plots unfold, but all in all only ho-hum. Nothingto write home about. I espected more action and especially moresuspense in a film about Robin HoodThen the last 20 minutes the film picks up speed again and has a nicefinal battle on a beach. But what were the "feral boys" suddenly doingthere with Maid Marian? That was silly and never explained.All in all, the film doesn't play in the same league as "Gladiator",although Crowe and Scott are involved again. Crowe shows a solidperformance, but nothing memorable. The film shows some great locationsand sets, but doesn't do much with it.The villain is well played by Marc Strong, but criminally underused,and the final showdown between him and Robin Hood is a huge letdowncompared to "Gladiator".Personally, I rate this film 5/10. The film is not a flop, but it isone of those films you see once and then forget.

robthompson

12 May 2012

Excellent reinvention of an old story

I was dreading watching this film since I was worried it was going tobe another rehash of an already tired story. This version was arefreshing reinvention of that legend. Every character has been createdanew so the tale never falls into well-worn territory. As well the filmactually sought to tell a story as opposed to rely on wall-to-wallaction sequences. Ridley Scott is adept at using visuals to pull you into the world he iscreating and this film does not disappoint in that department. Theacting is strong across the board and Crowe and Blanchett were in topform. As long as you're not looking for that same old Robin Hood story, thenyou will probably enjoy this rather loose historical fiction with adash of swashbuckler thrown in.

Ytadel

11 May 2012

A mythical figure minus the myth is just some guy

Ridley Scott aimed to bring Robin Hood down to earth and in thatstraightforward respect he was successful. The problem is that hearguably brought Robin Hood CRASHING down to earth, jammed like asquare peg in a round hole into a generic semi-epic of medieval warfareand political intrigue. Change the names of Robin, Little John, Marian,and the village of Nottingham and I'd pretty much have no idea thatthis screenplay was ever written with the intention of being a RobinHood movie — even the villain, a French spy and marauder named Godfrey,is a brand new creation, with the Sheriff reduced to a piddling,zero-impact supporting character. It ends up feeling like a little bitof Robin Hood mythos accidentally leaked onto a print of Braveheart orGladiator so they said to hell with it and decided to release it intheaters, albeit with the bloodshed dialed back to PG-13 levels.That's not to imply that the movie is boring or devoid of action;there's plenty of battles, hundreds dead, and even a spot of comicrelief in Little John and Friar Tuck. But when I think of Robin Hoodthe giant neon sign in my mind flashes the word ADVENTURE, and I wouldin no way, shape, or form ever describe Scott's Robin Hood as anadventure movie. A medieval war movie perhaps, but not an adventuremovie. There's a little bit of travel, sure, but Robin spends at leasthalf if not more of the runtime just chilling in Nottingham, flirtingwith Marian and tilling the soil. And, sorry to be unimaginative, but Iwanna see Robin Hood getting chased, sneaking under the enemy's nose indisguise, picking up new companions on his journey, swashbuckling, andin general feeling like a rogue, none of which this Robin Hood does.It's a bizarrely dry interpretation of one of popular fiction's mostinfamous scoundrels.Part of the problem is the badly miscast leads. There's fun to be hadin Kevin Durand's Little John, Max von Sydow's Sir Walter Loxley,Sherlock Holmes and Kick-Ass's Mark Strong further cementing hisvillainous typecasting as Godfrey, and even a bit of scenery-chewing inOscar Isaac's King John, but however many Academy Awards they may havebetween them I don't think that Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett wereright for Robin and Marian. Fine actors, especially Blanchett, but theyhave virtually no personalities in this movie and no romantic chemistrywhatsoever. Dryness emanates from them; I was worried they would near aspark and catch flame.It's also kind of bizarre how the film purports to be the beginning ofthe legend, yet Robin Hood is played by an actor nearing fifty. Don'tget me wrong; I'm not one of those morons who needs all my film leadsto be whippersnappers — I'm the world's biggest enthusiast of58-year-old Liam Neeson's newfound career as a pulpy action star — butboth Crowe and Blanchett just look too damn old for these parts. Iwould have rather seen someone like, I don't know, Stardust's CharlieCox as Robin Hood. Not as good an actor, no, but better for this role.I never thought I'd say this, but even Orlando Bloom would have beenbetter.As for what the film gets right, if you've seen Gladiator and Kingdomof Heaven (which, by the way, in its director's cut form ties withAlien as the best film Scott's ever done) you know that Ridley Scotthas a real talent for making these medieval epics look and feel justright. The sets, the costumes, the castles, the villages, the weaponry,the layer of Middle Ages dirt and grime on everything, it all looksgreat, especially bolstered by beautiful cinematography. I won't go sofar as to say it makes you want to be there, but it's authentic anddrawn with painterly skill, simply a nice movie to look at whatevernear-fatal weaknesses may be found in the storytelling.Still, I'd only recommend seeing this Robin Hood if you're really,really into medieval warfare and conflict. If not and you want someadventure then just watch Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves again. That'sright, you big baby, you know you like it.

Charlie Lyne

04 May 2012

A painful 2.5-hour slog through monotonous battles, pointless name-checking and excessively elaborate plotting.

Stacey

04 May 2012

The re-boot nobody asked for

They had some pretty big shoes to fill, like the modern Batman did for the Michael Keaton/Jack Nicholson. Batman pulled it off; thanks in part to some horrible sequals of the previous run. Robin Hood did not. In all fairness, I'm not a fan of the massively overrated Crowe. He's 5'8 and pudgy, not really super hero material.It's as if they tried to keep it a secret and surprise us with it; because I didn't even know about this movie until a month before it came out. It certainly doesn't help that they decided to release it right after Iron Man 2. Not smart.The movie itself was rather dark and murky, and flooded with gore and violence, like Braveheart, but Braveheat made up for it with greatness everywhere else. They should have called it Gladiator Goes to Shearwood. Just not that good. Sorry.

ibalog

29 April 2012

Bad but not tiresome

This movie is bad, but I do not regret watching it because it is nottiresome at any point. It starts off great, with interesting plotdevelopment and good action scenes. The creators had an interestingidea of how to "put a new spin" on the story of Robin Hood.As the story progresses some plot points are introduced trough a backdoor, which turn out to be relevant towards the end of the movie. In myopinion the entire story changes its flavor in this way. Robin isforced into a role of deliverer of the entire nation, something likeWilliam Wallace in the movie "Braveheart". But this only seems slightlyout of place and the movie does well until the last half an hour.The way in which the movie culminates is terrible in my opinion. Themovie is transformed into a sort of an unintentional comedy. The makersof the film, completely awkwardly and obviously mix motives fromdifferent films. The way in which this was done can only be regarded asa comedy relief! Everything culminates in a final showdown and a bigbattle, because nothing less could sell probably. Needles to say thatRobin plays the central role and everybody else bows to his might. Onlyso that the storyline twists once again at the very end, bringing us to"how Robin Hood came to be".To sum up: movie starts very good as an action pass-time but as itprogresses, the story is totally forced and even comical. As if thecreators had an idea of how to start the movie, but not how to finishit.

Harry T. Yung

29 April 2012

Representative entertaining Hollywood A-movie

This has become such a sweeping fashion, with "Batman begins" and allthe rest of them. Here's another "beings" rendering, this one of themost popular British folk hero, known globally, even to those withlimited exposure to British culture and history. This Hollywood A-classcollaboration, incidentally entire foreign (British director, NewZealand male lead, Australian female lead), has given the world alucid, entertaining tale calculated to please its mass audience. Unlikepredecessors too many to mention, this "begins" offering doesn'tportray Robin Hood as the world's most famous outlaw, but rather showsyou how he gets there. Along the way, there are exciting action, wittyromance, customary heroism and beautiful cinematography (suchmesmerizing aerial shots of Nottingham Forest).Russell Crowe is good with this kind of role, a pragmatic man, aCrusader who is almost a mercenary at heart, turns hero by revelationof a hidden corner in his mind from his childhood. All verymelodramatic but apt for the movie nevertheless. Cate Blanchett isinvariably good in everything she does, and Marion Loxley is noexception. Max von Sydon and William Hurt, as Sir Walter Loxley andWilliam Marshall respectively, are two excellent support claiming andcommanding a lion's share of every scene in which they appear. MarkStrong seems to have become Hollywood's "official villain" and isprobably thanking his parents for giving him a look that iseffortlessly convincing as one. Oscar Isaac, who played Joseph oppositeKeisha Castle-Hughes' Mary a few years ago in "The Nativity Story", isdelightful to watch as flamboyant King John. The others in the cast,such as Mark Addy (Friar Tuck), Matthew Macfadyen (Sheriff ofNottingham) and Kevin Durand (Little John), all contribute towardsgiving the audiences an entertaining two-hour expected of such aHollywood A-movie.

JeffersonCody

29 April 2012

Rather disappointing.

"Robin Hood" (2010): (Rating: An extremely generous 6 out of 10)."Robin Hood" plays like a supposedly commercially cunning stylisticcross between "Gladiator", "Saving Private Ryan" and "Batman Begins".Okay, so it's a prequel, an origin story and Sir Ridley and Russellobviously hope it will be the first part of a trilogy. Shame on them.Do they need the money so badly? Ignoring the heart and soul of anenduring and inspiring romantic legend, these buggers have aimed theirarrows squarely at the wallets of the mass market and gone for thelowest common denominator. One film pleases all, so to speak. Andsadly, a lot of undiscriminating modern cinema-goers will enjoy whatthey have served up.The new "Robin Hood" was, for me, a bitterly disappointing film and,with a running length of nearly 150-minutes, a sometimes boring onetoo. It's big and sprawling, and, with Sir Ridley at the helm, it iscertainly well made on a technical level. But does it have heart andsoul and emotion and a stirring story? No ways. After about 120 longminutes we get the French invading Britain in an expensive, GGI-ladenaction sequence which seems to have been inspired by the Normandylanding scenes in "Saving Private Ryan". What it is this? Sir Ridley'shomage to the Spielberg flick. Only, instead of machine gun bulletstracing through the water as soldiers stumble across the sand at thebottom of the sea trying to avoid a rain of death, it is arrows.Then, five minutes before the picture ends, the story I wanted to seefinally arrives on the screen. But shorty after this, the words "And sothe legend begins" appear, and the movie ends.I'm a fan of Russell Crowe and I thoroughly his performances in filmssuch as "Romper Stomper", "LA Confidential", "Gladiator", "Master andCommander: The Far Side of the World", "Cinderella Man", "The Insider"and "The Sum of Us". Hell, i even enjoyed his work in "State of Play"and the remake of "3.10 to Yuma".But his surly Robin Longstride, the man who will perhaps - if thispicture makes enough money to allow the sequel to be made - become theRobin Hood we know and love, is not one of his finest screen moments.The character is merely another figure in a sprawling cinematiclandscape created by Sir Ridley. He never registers on an emotionallevel, and Crowe,IMO, despite looking fairly buff, is too old for thepart. What a waste of a good actor.Blanchett, who I also enjoy, fares slightly better, but she is miscastin an underwritten role. Her Maid Marion is an interesting creation,but we never get to now her well enough. Even the Sheriff of Nottingham(an ineffectual Matthew Macfadyen - looking like a chubby version ofDermot Mulroney) is a minor character in the picture.In the supporting cast, Mark Strong - as the wicked Godfrey, and MaxVon Sydow as the blind Sir Walter Loxley, have their moments, andEileen Atkins is good in her few scenes. Then there are Mark Addey(Friar Tuck) and Kevin Durand ( Little John) who are, I presume,supposed to be the comic relief. Not that I laughed much. Danny Hustondoesn't exactly shine as King Richard the Lionheart either. And WilliamHurt is wasted as William Marshal.I saw "Robin Hood" in South Africa. The cinema was surprisingly fulland the multiplex mob seemed to enjoy the film. But I found it an utterdisappointment, It didn't stir me, it didn't amuse me and it didn'tthrill me. And I'm usually quite easily to please. "Robin Hood" isnothing more than an expensive attempt to steal from the poor anddesperate (cinemagoers), who will go looking for spectacle andexcitement in all the wrong places. Isn't a film like this supposed tobring joy to the poor and downtrodden.It seems as if they wanted to pull in the "Gladiator" crowd. But thatwas silly because this film suffers hugely by comparison, as doesCrowe's performance.Watching this version of the tale, only made me ache for Errol Flynnand Olivia De Havilland in "The Adventures of Robin Hood", now that wasa Robin Hood picture. "Robin and Marion", the Lester flick, was alsomore romantic than this current version. Hell, even the Costner versionwas more fun. Boo.While I didn't enjoy "Robin Hood", it still looks likely to pull inabout $300 worldwide, so sequels could still be on the cards. In myheart of hearts, however - and it pains me to say this, I hope it doesnot do sufficient numbers to generate sequels.I saw "Robin Hood" a day after watching Miley Cyrus in "The Last Song".So I thought, how bad can it be?" Sir Ridley, Cate, Russell in warriormode. it can only be an improvement on The Last Song". Sadly, itwasn't. At least "The Last Song" was shorter.If anybody with a passion for cinema lusts to see this film, I wouldsuggest they wait for the DVD release, and then approach it with lowexpectations. Very low expectations! I suppose the upside is that Ididn't have to pay to watch the film. But even that brings me littlecheer.

Angelus2

28 April 2012

Terrible accents, but satisfactory

Robin Hood decides that he must carry out his duty to return a sword tothe father of a fallen Knight, but as he arrives in Nottingham, hefinds a place were he belongs.I can see what Scott has tried to do, he has tried to give Robin Hood afresh start, make it more realistic, away from the tights and merrymen. And to an extent he has succeeded, however; I as a Brit found theaccents to be quite awful...Now, I'm willing to look away..but Croweseems to move from an Irish accent, to a strong Yorkshire accent..Pickone! The actor who played Little John stuck to an Irish accent, butagain it's not an authentic Irish accent. The story itself isinteresting and does keep the film entertaining but I honestly thoughtit was far too long. But credit does go to Mark Strong, a master of hiscraft, he plays the role of the villain wonderfully and is perhaps theonly highlight of the film.

John Mango

26 April 2012

A Robbery in Itself

Can you blame a movie for trying to do so much but succeed at verylittle? Absolutely and Robin Hood deserves much negative criticism.Almost everything about Robin Hood was not very good. Battle sceneswere so poorly portrayed as to leave you wondering why in god's namethey opted to make this movie PG? Nothing was done right and theabsence of gore in action scenes that had all the brutal elements forit was very annoying. Acting was nothing of noteworthiness and RussellCrowe and Cate Blanchett were sorely miscast for their roles.Robin Hood starts off easy with a good introduction to the maincharacter, Robin Longstride. Sorry folks, he's only ever actuallycalled something like Robin Hood once in the whole movie. However, theplot quickly starts to chug along and nothing really happens for abouttwo hours. So many of the lore's important characters are stuffed intothe fray that many don't get their dues. Where was the Sheriff ofNottingham for 98% of the film? Isn't he supposed to be the mainantagonist? Spoilers Robin Hood has the worst end battle since Returnof the Jedi's ewok catastrophe. We are seriously supposed to not thinkthat Lady Marion and a bunch of young boys riding in on horseback andfighting a bunch of French invaders is anything but insanely moronic?In this day and age to show something like that to the viewer is justinsulting.No level of sycophant could say this film was a good "Robin Hood"movie. It should have been called Robin Longstride. That would at leasthave given the viewer a hint he was watching a prequel and to startsaving up for the inevitable next film.4/10, baby.

Hussain Nabi

25 April 2012

Big Stars...Low Entertainment

To start with, i'm a big fan of Kevin Reynold's Robin Hood: Prince ofThieves back in 1993. Not to mention that it features my favorite songever "Everything I do" for Brian Adams. However, I cannot reallycompare the two stories as for 1993 it tells the story of the outlawwho became the prince of thieves, but in Ridley Scott's version ittells the story the archer who became an outlaw...or as it says, thebeginning of the legend.Having said that, it's just not convincing enough to have Russell Croweas Robin Hood. Size and age did not really help. Cate Balnchet was alsonot as what Marion is expected to be. The performance was not reallywhat's been expected from academy award winners!! I really didn't enjoythe movie. The suspense was not there. The war action wasn't up to thelevel of the previous Ridley Scott's movies. The love story betweenRobin and Marion was not even clear. So many plots within the movie,that i really don't want to mention here so I don't spoil the movie,that don 't make sense or don't really make the movie much enjoyed.I had great expectations about the movie before seeing it, though i wasa bit skeptical about Russell being Robin Hood, but i was surprisedthat such an ordinary movie that can be better watched on DVD comesfrom three of Hollywood's biggest stars.Bottom line, I was really disappointed!