Robin Hood

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)

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'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)

He promised us the story of the Duke of Nottingham, then a dual role for Russell, and finally reminded us of Gladiator through the trailers. And there Ridley Scott luckily remained. Robin Hood is indeed about a rebellion, but it is not a pathetic epic about noble heroes' victory. It is a cautiously romantic memory, but not a fairytale about Robin and Lady Marion. But most importantly, it is the story of a few righteous men and the rough birth of a legend. (05/14/2010)

Loads of money wasted on a pointless, sterile and lifeless film. Scott is still a master of the craft, but that doesn’t mean anything if has to work with a screenwriting monstrosity that doesn’t even allow the beautiful Cate Blanchet or the charismatic Strong to express themselves properly. In short, two and a half hours of delayed sleep and bitter memories of the never made Nottingham. Ridley, please, go back to the Aliens and make me happy this time. (09/03/2010)