Robin Hood

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)

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... (05/11/2010)

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)

In the Kingdom of Heaven, I was expecting another Gladiator and I got something completely different. The initial disappointment was replaced by amazement and understanding after the second and especially the third (extended version) screening. With Robin Hood, I was expecting another Kingdom of Heaven, and, once again, the film was completely different. This time, however, I was prepared for such a possibility and it didn't surprise me so much. The muted rating really bothers me; the absence of blood is incomprehensible, especially considering that the film takes place in the harsh Middle Ages, and one of Ridley Scott's main trademarks is his unmistakable sense of visuality, therefore I consider it fatal that one of the key ingredients is missing. The music is average, it's not comparable to either of the aforementioned films as a standalone soundtrack by any means. The acting is high-quality, and most importantly, the romance of the Middle Ages was exactly what the film needed, and at the same time, it was something one wouldn't expect. Surprisingly, there was almost no pathos and unnecessary heroic scenes – equally unexpected. I would greatly welcome a sequel where everything really begins, an extended version where the story is better analysed and edited, and most importantly, an unrated version because otherwise it really doesn’t work with Robin. For now, it's an average rating, but it's highly possible that it will fluctuate, as it has already happened with Ridley. Kevin Costner still remains the best Robin Hood. (05/23/2010)

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)