Robin Hood

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

I'm trying to find adequate words for this repulsive and bloated screenwriting conglomerate, brought to total impotence by Ridley Scott's trembling hand. I am struck by words such as despair, embarrassment, lack of criticism, anachronism and ideological naivety bordering on simplicity. It can be roughly summarized as follows: Robin Hood was caught in the woods and sodomized with a loud reading of Marx's Capital. What was quite cute in Kingdom of Heaven is offensive and boring in this film. Only Max von Sydow stands out from the weak attempts at heroism. In a single scene, Max demonstrates what the rest of the film is hunting for in vain in the soulless theft from Shakespeare, The Lord of the Rings and about five thousand other films. One star out of sheer disrespect for Scott, who should either get bigger scissors, or leave history alone. It’s already taken a decent beating from him. (05/10/2010)

One might say that Robin Hood has some entertainment value as well as nice locations and a great cast (especially the super villain played by Mark Strong). But it is hard to accept it as the fruit of another collaboration between Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe, from which we are accustomed to mature films with a strong directorial touch that are ambitious in terms of quality. Because Robin Hood is (at least in this cinematic version) just a straightforward, ideologically naïve summer flick without a pinch of originality, stealing from all sorts of other sources. Once again, Crowe touches the burned ground lethargically or strolls through a cornfield, but this time the viewer cannot feel anything. I don’t like slacking off and an impersonal, routine approach to filmmaking, especially from filmmakers for whom movies are usually everything and who know that the world expects something more from them... (05/10/2010)

The director laughs while the viewers cry. Superbly cast and extremely engagingly narrated, the two and a half hours flow by like water among authentic battle scenes and impressive locations. But despite expectations and Scott's reputation, Robin Hood is nothing but a summer popcorn flick that brings nothing new to the table and incomprehensibly distorts the original legendary story. From Scott, this flabby, impersonal and pointless in every sense film is a scam. (11/27/2015)

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