sign in
register
Watch
Starz AMC+ Starz Roku Premium Channel
+9
Robin Hood
Starz AMC+ Starz Roku Premium Channel
+9
JustWatch
Remove ads

Robin Hood

2010
Drama
Action
2h 20m
The story of an archer in the army of Richard Coeur de Lion who fights against the Norman invaders and becomes the legendary hero known as Robin Hood.
Directed by:
Ridley Scott Ridley Scott
Written by:
Brian Helgeland Brian Helgeland
Starring:
William Hurt William Hurt Cate Blanchett Cate Blanchett Russell Crowe Russell Crowe Danny Huston Danny Huston Mark Addy Mark Addy Matthew Macfadyen Matthew Macfadyen Max von Sydow Max von Sydow Mark Strong Mark Strong Scott Grimes Scott Grimes Oscar Isaac Oscar Isaac Léa Seydoux Léa Seydoux Denise Gough Denise Gough
More
Franchise:
Robin Hood
Genres:
Drama, Action, Adventure, History
AKA:
Nottingham
Countries:
UK, USA
Languages:
English, French, Ukrainian
imdb More information at IMDb
See title update history
Suggest an edit
Show Less
Your probable score
?

Robin Hood

2010
Drama
Action
2h 20m
Your probable score
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer
Avg Percentile 37.09% from 3696 total ratings
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

(3695)
Compact view
clear
Compact view
Show
Sort
cagedwisdomcagedwisdom
Rated 12 May 2010
50
38th
Crowe is still playing Maximus and Scott is still directing Kingdom of Heaven. Scott rarely makes a film so clearly begging for sequels, and if he doesn't come through on that this film won't stand up on it's own over time, and I don't know if this can be pulled off as a series. Much to love, including great cast/direction/dialog, just not quite enough when you spend half the film wondering where Hood's motivations are, only to find out they make their entrance minutes before the end credits.
Rated 12 May 2010
fredericg54frederic_g54
Rated 17 May 2010
4
13th
Would've have been just as interesting (if not more so), had they drawn stickfigures using Microsoft Paint...
Rated 17 May 2010
bitch_alertBitch Alert
Rated 03 May 2010
40
25th
A visually decent but emotionally irrelevant revisioning of the classic fable.
Rated 03 May 2010
panzerwolfpanzerwolf
Rated 05 Jun 2010
62
41st
It sports very beautiful scenery, but other than that, it seems to fall short in almost everything else. There's a plot, but it isn't very compelling, the fight scenes are nice enough, but nothing special and the acting is decent, but again, feels as if it's all about good actors doing their jobs for the paycheck. I blame the script.
Rated 05 Jun 2010
kmcneilKMcNeil
Rated 20 Nov 2010
4
33rd
Impressive action sequences bookended by minimal character development and zero surprises. Ridley Scott's "Robin Hood" is exactly what you'd expect, and from a man, who's already done "1492", "Gladiator" and "Kingdom of Heaven" that's a decided disappointment. It's just there. I also felt bad for Max. He really could've used a hand from his chess playing friend, Death.
Rated 20 Nov 2010
cclzaCCLZA
Rated 21 May 2010
50
23rd
Stylish visuals and solid acting, but lacks in the directing department. It's great battle scene after battle scene after battle scene, none with enough emotional resonance, an area Scott thought was covered with some love scenes inserted here and there.
Rated 21 May 2010
ytadelYtadel
Rated 15 May 2010
3
28th
I dunno - it's visually splendid as expected at this point from Ridley Scott medieval movies, with perfect sets, costumes, design, etc. However, the plot is ultra-generic medieval-warfare-and-politics fare; if you changed the names of the main characters I'd have no idea it was ever supposed to be a Robin Hood movie.
Rated 15 May 2010
langelundLangelund
Rated 16 May 2010
60
47th
Gladiator meets Braveheart and even though it lacks the epic scale and the emotional depth of both - plus the charm of some of the most memorable Robin Hood-flicks - Ridley Scott's version offer an original, decently entertaining and well-crafted take on the classic tale
Rated 16 May 2010
grimsoothgrimsooth
Rated 15 May 2010
53
45th
While the (reasonably) historically accurate combat and plot additions make this movie worth seeing once, there are serrious lulls mid way through and some several plot errors (how does john know who Robin Longshank is?). Sadly, it's just not that interesting in general, nor a very good robin hood movie. Also, how are you going to fall in love with a hateful Cate Blanchett in two days?
Rated 15 May 2010
difontaineDifontaine
Rated 24 May 2010
55
20th
Or Hood: Begins perhaps. It seems only some of the lessons of Kingdom of Heaven were learnt. So, no Orlando Bloom and the good actors aren't pushed to the fringes as much (good). Still overlong, still too much pontificating, still too much made in the build-up to the film of historical accuracy which goes for shit fairly quickly (bad). As for Crowe's accent, it isn't bad but it does wibble wobble a bit all over, particularly compared to Cate Blanchett, who had the advantage of playing English.
Rated 24 May 2010
thedenizenTheDenizen
Rated 27 Sep 2010
50
26th
A handful of good action sequences, but Crowe is wooden and boring as usual, imbuing Robin with zero personality, and the whole thing is just so utterly joyless. Needlessly long and plodding.
Rated 27 Sep 2010
ducoDuco
Rated 18 May 2010
77
58th
Wow... a really interesting aproach that combines classic Scottesque grips in epic storytelling, yet adds a fresh, humorous and easy part as well. The Lord of the Rings, so it seems, really invented a new genre. The movie shows the middle ages as a fairytale as well as a classic grim period; combined with sufficient cast, great sound score and (as usual) impressive camera work, Scott again made an enjoyable movie, yet way more fresh than his previous titles.
Rated 18 May 2010
kahKAH
Rated 22 Sep 2010
1
10th
Robin is a completely uncharismatic man who almost singlehandedly stops a french invasion, and even travels to the future to steal the ideas of their revolution in 1789. The last part will be included in the inevitable director's cut, of course. Some nice autumn colored trees.
Rated 22 Sep 2010
luna6ixLuna6ix
Rated 08 Jun 2010
79
70th
takes a different direction than other robin hood movies--this one is essentially a preamble to the other stories. it has a decent story, and some good action--and that's more than most action movies these days. also, it's a great recreation of medieval england, tip top on that aspect.
Rated 08 Jun 2010
mjvmoviemanMJVmovieMan
Rated 21 May 2010
62
34th
The idea of turning Robin Hood into a gritty franchise seems brilliant. However, Ridley Scott fails to make the hero's backstory the least bit engaging, and Russell Crowe sidesteps turning the character into the ultimate interpretation and instead regurgitates his Gladiator performance. There's not a single heartbeat to be found in this incarnation. Instead, the film survives as a passable, generic Crusades epic with mammoth battle scenes that's better off having nothing to do with Robin Hood.
Rated 21 May 2010
omgfridgeomgfridge
Rated 15 May 2010
3
27th
There were a couple of laughs and some well filmed action scenes. It never felt like a Robin Hood movie (Crowe not being Hood for the bulk of the movie attributes to this) or even the Gladiator one as the trailer misleads you into thinking. Could of gone without the kids in the forest and even Cate Blanchett's character. Just watch Kingdom of Heaven (directors cut) instead as you're not missing much here.
Rated 15 May 2010
therealj_roTheRealJ-Ro
Rated 24 May 2010
65
31st
I have a few quips about Robin Hood. Firstly, they set up a potential sequel SOLELY on the fact that the King is a big jealousy-pants over the fact that the people love Robin instead of him after they beat the French. That bugged me. Also, King John is a total dick, to everybody, but it's never really explained *why* he is. He just is. He shows his cock to his own mother, for fuck's sake. Sydow was great. Overall, the movie was good, but kinda just... there. Not bad, but by no means sensational.
Rated 24 May 2010
davidblastDavidBlast
Rated 21 Dec 2010
40
28th
Like any old couple, it's been years since Crowe and Scott had anything really interesting to say to anyone, and this movie seems more of an excuse for Scott to do something nice for Crowe, than a genuine attempt at entertaining the rest of us. An alternate take on the Robin Hood legend, it's the least fun of it's kind, with accents all over the place, zero chemistry between Robin and Marion, and a story that collapses when going for epic. Scott and Crowe should consider getting a divorce.
Rated 21 Dec 2010
sirstuckeySirStuckey
Rated 18 May 2010
40
14th
Should of had a different title because this is not about "Robin Hood" per say. He rarely uses his bow, he doesn't live in the "hood" until the very, very end. He robbed from the rich and gave to the poor 1 time. The Sheriff of Nottingham was basically a cameo. They took so many liberties with the story we know and love that all it really does is annoy you. It's boring and most of it feels like stuff you've seen from other movies. Worst off they left it open for a sequel...one that I don't want.
Rated 18 May 2010
adrianavbadrianavb
Rated 24 May 2010
55
45th
Entertaining, but that's it. It didn't look like a Robin Hood film, seemed to me any middle age movie.
Rated 24 May 2010
tathieltathiel
Rated 13 May 2010
77
52nd
Decent movie with a good cast. Crowe did his usual performance, nothing special but good as did Cate Blanchett. A real surprise was the good old Max von Sydow. The film itself is quite good, but it breaks with tradition as it mainly depicts the soldier behind Robin Hood. The outlaw Hood is shown only at the end, which cries for a sequel. What I didn't like was some misplaced music and a Maid Marian who rides to battle in armour.
Rated 13 May 2010
afx237viafx237vi
Rated 23 Aug 2011
25
9th
A cold and dispassionate affair. Bloated and clichéd battle sequences, terrible dialogue and wooden acting from everyone concerned. The accents are hilariously bad... Crowe sounds like a cross between Liam Gallagher and Frank Carson. The historical context adds a little interest, but it's not handled particularly well - there were times when the whole "for England" angle made it feel like a UKIP party political broadcast. Not good.
Rated 23 Aug 2011
paxtonPaxton
Rated 10 Feb 2015
52
24th
Mark Strong read about Boyhood and laughed heartily. "It doesn't take twelve years to make one movie," he laughed. "It takes two years to make twelve movies." He was a bright spot amongst a cast I loved and a film I didn't.
Rated 10 Feb 2015
kasperlKasperL
Rated 15 May 2010
55
39th
Somewhat superflous take on the myth. Solid, yet lacking in inspiration and engagement. I didn't much care about the characters - and even less about the rather dry storyline.
Rated 15 May 2010
gordonbombayGordonBombay
Rated 04 Jan 2014
40
16th
Fun Fact: Crowe was the same age in this movie as Connery, who played an old Richard Lionheart, was in the 1991 version. Yep... I had to dive deep into the fun facts to find ANYTHING interesting about this movie.
Rated 04 Jan 2014
jebJeb
Rated 19 May 2010
72
53rd
Missing the adventure and inspiration which made Robin Hood such a legend. Scott with his fine directing leads this revisioned classic story in a epic, grim and thrilling new approach. You can definitely see reminiscences and influence from Kingdom of Heaven and Gladiator tossed in throughout. Crowe and Blanchett are good, and the rest of the supporting cast are also decent. The music at times is misplaced and unneeded, and we didn't quite get to see the outlaw of Robin Hood, but the soldier.
Rated 19 May 2010
billyshearsBillyShears
Rated 22 May 2010
65
42nd
Ehn. Rating's generous, only about 30 minutes of this movie could be considered "Robin Hood", the rest is just whatever.
Rated 22 May 2010
citizenxCitizenX
Rated 06 Dec 2010
60
62nd
yeah it wasnt as much action as it could have been, yeah it was more about the person than the story, ... yeah you are all right, but still i liked it, specially the soundtrack and scenery
Rated 06 Dec 2010
philipPhilip
Rated 17 Oct 2010
40
18th
They could have called this movie pretty much anything. It has nothing what so ever to do with Robin Hood except a sad attempt at the end to tie it together. Pretty much action movie type 1A.
Rated 17 Oct 2010
mini_tMini-T
Rated 29 Jul 2010
83
41st
Somehow dissapointing. There is action, but not enough of the classic Robin Hood-kind. The focus was to much on the man behind the legend. Hopefully we will see more of Russel Crowe in action in the second film. Besides that some individual scene's where very enjoyable (beach etc). But the plot seemed to drag on at times and wasn't that interesting at many occasions. By the way, Mark Strong is great in every role.
Rated 29 Jul 2010
ewp805ewp805
Rated 05 Oct 2010
69
42nd
A lot of talent seemed wasted here. Scott makes it look pretty, but he and Crowe are capable of much better than this generic snoozefest. Disappointing.
Rated 05 Oct 2010
kavuKavu
Rated 23 Sep 2010
48
23rd
Crowe fits the part better than I feared, but Scott fails completely to make the old story interesting. Or maybe the script is just that bad.
Rated 23 Sep 2010
x_humanx-human
Rated 08 Jun 2010
69
27th
A lifeless bore that's so PC it'll make you sick. Sucked all the fun and adventure out of the legend. When Costner makes a better version, you know you've done something wrong Scott old boy.
Rated 08 Jun 2010
astrakhanastrakhan
Rated 22 Jul 2010
75
37th
It's certainly a spectacular spectacle, and I do love to see a swords-and-sandals epic done this way, but unfortunately this is no Gladiator 2. Helgeland's script is way too complicated, repetitive, and illogical in regards to time and distances travelled. Robin's character is blander than a straw sandwich, his monologues are corny and his ceaseless heroics are on a par with Superman's. And was half the film's budget spent on those endless sound effects of swinging swords and clashing blades?
Rated 22 Jul 2010
velvet_croweVelvet Crowe
Rated 10 Jul 2011
35
30th
I kept asking myself throughout the film how this relates to Robin Hood in the slightest outside of some really small and hardly relevant connections to the Robin Hood story. Even disregarding this, the movie is immensely cliche, dry and boring. I'm not one to really pick on writers for taking liberties for well known stories like this, but if you're going to take such liberties you should be aware of what the liberties you're taking. If it's about Robin Hood, actually make it about Robin Hood.
Rated 10 Jul 2011
perrystroikaPerryStroika
Rated 21 Sep 2011
44
12th
I liked this movie better the first time I saw it, when it was set in Rome, robin was maximizus, and john was commodus. Then again I didn't like it that much the first time around neither.
Rated 21 Sep 2011
elahnElahn
Rated 19 Sep 2010
60
36th
I went into this movie with very low expectations, but they were exceeded. A passable film with a few good moments.
Rated 19 Sep 2010
thereminjamThereminJam
Rated 04 Nov 2011
81
59th
Solid effort. I wouldn't mind watching again, but if it was a choice between this and Gladiator, Gladiator takes the cake.
Rated 04 Nov 2011
cruelclowncruelclown
Rated 01 Nov 2010
60
35th
Even more historically inaccurate than the Tudors, the TV series. The usual Scott-bros anachronistic bullshit continues of course, Robin Hood is not a vigilante but a deep political philosopher who inspires Magna Carta? Great landscapes, good battle scenes and so on. (And food for thought: I love how in the historical movies the French stand in for the Commie Ruskies, they are slimy, backstabing just the same)
Rated 01 Nov 2010
nutcrackrnutcrackr
Rated 03 Sep 2010
73
50th
Good movie, flawed but with two major problems. The sheriff is a big wuss and not a rival. Marion riding into battle with her band of kids greatly lowered the overall impact of the film.
Rated 03 Sep 2010
mistakesMistakes
Rated 30 Jul 2010
48
39th
Mistakes - 1) On the cliff top before the battle on the beach, wind farm turbines can be seen. The film is set in the 12th Century. 2) In the first shot of the small church in Nottingham, you can hear the bells ring. However, the bell on top of the church is not moving.
Rated 30 Jul 2010
philamentalphilamental
Rated 20 Aug 2015
58
31st
Effectively this is 'Robin Hood Begins' with the character of RH as the outlaw living in Sherwood Forest with his Merry Men appearing in the very final scene. This for me is the greatest weakness of the film. This new origin story isn't as interesting as the legend and tales of Robin Hood that the world knows and loves. It seems clear that the intent was to springboard into a series of films focusing on the traditional RH legend, but those plans seem dead due to the poor reception to this film.
Rated 20 Aug 2015
kingofjewkingofjew
Rated 09 Nov 2010
65
14th
Ridley scott is an old man , and it shows. I bet he was just too tired to put some real action and effects in this movie. Too slow! and the action that there is tries to hard to be gladiator. Those days are far over Mr. Scott
Rated 09 Nov 2010
moraesfelipemoraesfelipe
Rated 31 Mar 2011
30
5th
Ridley Scott's film never finds its core -- which is Cate Blanchett's character, at the end -- and kind of misses the point by telling the origin of the hero, and I guess the audiences wanted that old Robin legend that takes the money from the rich and gives it to the poor.
Rated 31 Mar 2011
krf7krf7
Rated 05 Sep 2010
30
13th
Cliched, clunky, and lifeless...just all around terrible. While I was watching, one question bothered me again and again: Why the hell was this made?
Rated 05 Sep 2010
snakefood89SNAKEFOOD89
Rated 15 May 2010
80
43rd
the magna carta? spies? king phillipe? with cate blanchett in it I almost thought i was watching ELIZABETH. except instead of the mean old king of spain weve got the mean old king of france.
Rated 15 May 2010
cinemaasiaCinema_Asia
Rated 01 Oct 2010
60
30th
It should be mandatory to view all of Scott's historical-dramas in uncut versions. This was panned but still a mindlessly entertaining first part of a planned series of films. The weak box office makes a sequel doubtful. The Robin Hood myth is fleshed out with more back story than past versions. Robin is more of a regular soldier in this. However the two dimensional archetypes are present which is due to lazy writing. There were also groan worthy battle scenes involving Lady Marion and children.
Rated 01 Oct 2010
nursusNursus
Rated 14 May 2010
74
36th
Un peu décevant pour du Ridley Scott : histoire un peu convenue, ralentis grandiloquents, plans mal raccordés, musique un peu plate... Mais Cate Blanchett est si jolie...
Rated 14 May 2010
okkervilOkkervil
Rated 23 Sep 2010
50
38th
Entertaining enough, but littered with problems, not least Scott's attempts at realism & authenticity, which weren't helped by some awful accents. Blanchett does well, but for me there is a lot of bad casting in this movie, not least Crowe himself. The script is poor, the music misjudged, & the plot thin for a film that is over 2 hours long. Even so the final battle is a fun climax. Some may not know this was filmed in modern day Nottingham, which really is just that much of a shithole!
Rated 23 Sep 2010
majorbMajorB
Rated 08 Jul 2010
87
50th
It's less of a historical epic than a gritty fairy tale... sure, it's silly, but so is the legend of Robin Hood and Scott's film is a great prelude to that legend. The one issue with the film that keeps it from being great is that Robin himself is kind of a boring character; he's a designated hero who fufills a quest but never really changes through it. I never really felt like he was emotionally invested in the film's conflicts.
Rated 08 Jul 2010
redfalconRed_Falcon_
Rated 12 Dec 2010
60
12th
I watched the Director's Cut of this film.This film should have been trimmed down a bit and have been more focused on how Robin Hood came to be then on everything else.Also the plot moves very slowly and there's very few action scenes in this film except at the beginning and end.
Rated 12 Dec 2010
thedicemanTheDiceman
Rated 25 Sep 2010
30
9th
Laughably poor, highlight of the amusement was on the beach when the forest children arrive on minature horses and join the attack LOL.
Rated 25 Sep 2010
mandymandy
Rated 03 Jan 2011
5
18th
An interesting and watchable take on Robin Hood Begins but with quite a few flaws. The accents and the Geography seemed unauthentic. The final battle scene has been done so many times before, ending up with hand to hand combat between good and bad. still I wanted Robin to win!
Rated 03 Jan 2011
bharathbharath
Rated 08 Sep 2010
60
29th
The movie in itself has very little to do with the title. It has great visuals as expected, being a Ridley Scott movie. The movie doesnt go beyond the visuals. The story is weak and is unnecessarily long. There are some scenes which should be forgotten and are senseless, especially towards the end with Marion riding to battle. Overall its not a great movie, its watchable.
Rated 08 Sep 2010
vandelay1Vandelay1
Rated 06 Dec 2010
45
46th
Too long...
Rated 06 Dec 2010
skiewulfyskiewulfy
Rated 10 Nov 2010
55
70th
There's little point in doing another Robin Hood remake, especially since the Errol Flynn version is still better than a half century of reinterpretations. Thankfully, Ridley Scott's Robin Hood isn't even trying, rather using the legend as a stepping off point for inspiration and delivering a story about a military deserter finding purpose with an anti taxation movement. Sure the action could've been better or at least gorier, but its still worth giving a look even if the archetype seems tired.
Rated 10 Nov 2010
mistersplicemistersplice
Rated 06 Jul 2010
50
28th
- worth experiencing :: unrealized potential
Rated 06 Jul 2010
kgbelliveaukgbelliveau
Rated 15 May 2010
72
32nd
The ending was a complete cop out, but hey can I really complain when the film stars Crowe and Blanchett. A well rounded cast and a shout-out to Alan Doyle of Great Big Sea who is making his feature film debut, not a bad way to start buddy. Robin Hood could have been better and I mean way better, for the actors they had the epic story they were working with this film is a bit a let down.
Rated 15 May 2010
siegfriedwasiegfriedwa
Rated 12 May 2010
75
55th
I went to this film with low expectations cause everyone said it would be Gladiator 2. It was better than I expected. Good movie but not in the same league as Gladiator
Rated 12 May 2010
paradigmaParadigma
Rated 31 Jan 2011
60
41st
After a day: Tier 7 -----> Tier 5 Plot is weak, historiographical attempts such as stressing liberty of common people as the main motivation of barons causes the film to follow a heroic story to a revolutionary tale. The bad guy was well played but not so written. Good acting, to watch Sydow was a joy by the way.
Rated 31 Jan 2011
frederikaFrederikA
Rated 18 Aug 2010
70
67th
Scott (as always) creates a believable and lush world and the story is a refreshingly sober take on the myth; not without humour or action, but viewers expecting adventure high jinx will probably feel cheated. My biggest problem with the film is the cliché-ridden and ultimately indifferent final battle, that nearly undercuts an otherwise pleasant experience.
Rated 18 Aug 2010
weirdyodaweirdyoda
Rated 16 May 2010
53
7th
This movie ends where the traditional story of Robin Hood begins...and I think that if they had just done a Ridley Scottified version of the story we all know and love, it would have been a much better movie. I do love to see those minimal CGI battle scenes with real people and real horses and real landscapes. Too bad the best part of the movie is the opening siege scene. Also, the Merry Men are great (nice job Alan Doyle on your premiere acting performance)!
Rated 16 May 2010
corbadCorbad
Rated 13 Nov 2018
55
22nd
Overlong, colourless, and bland. Could have been a decent merry band tale but for its desperate attempt to be historically relevant and grandly expansive, choices that grossly dilute the slight flavour that is present in our reimagined heroes.
Rated 13 Nov 2018
vertiggoVertiggo
Rated 15 Mar 2011
30
6th
Unbelievably poor.
Rated 15 Mar 2011
cameron326cameron326
Rated 25 Feb 2011
40
3rd
dull dull dull dull dull
Rated 25 Feb 2011
spazzpp2spazzPP2
Rated 07 Nov 2010
2
45th
questionable historics, but still good lotr-like action
Rated 07 Nov 2010
matthew_parkinsonMatthew Parkinson
Rated 19 Feb 2013
40
31st
Robin Hood is a film that needed to take a different direction. It didn't need a different director, and it didn't need a different cast. It needed to not be about Robin Hood -- not that it was, anyway -- and it needed to take on a different story. The whole thing was muddled, confusing and unfocused, and ensured that the few strong moments were lost in the shuffle. This is an origin story with a 40+ year old actor in the lead, and it doesn't work.
Rated 19 Feb 2013
imhiilmejohnImHiilmeJohn
Rated 07 Dec 2020
70
36th
Where is your hood Robin?
Rated 07 Dec 2020
cinematicespCinematicESP
Rated 04 Jan 2011
80
52nd
A solid good time. Can't really see what people hated about it. Nothing was glaringly bad. It was a fresh spin on a story we all know, even if that spin is unsurprising for the director.
Rated 04 Jan 2011
spanksSpanks
Rated 08 Jun 2010
10
6th
Very painful. One of the worst movies I've ever seen in theaters.
Rated 08 Jun 2010
luthar15luthar15
Rated 22 Sep 2010
72
79th
thegooddogTheGoodDog
Rated 26 Jul 2010
38
19th
Poor. Really had high expecations for this film only to find it was a let down. The only reason I stayed in the theatre to finish this film was because of the attractive Russell Crowe.
Rated 26 Jul 2010
glumpy99glumpy_99
Rated 18 Dec 2010
39
6th
Bloated, anemic version of the Robin Hood legend, with Crowe and Blanchett unfortunately far too old to be playing these characters in a 'prequel' story. No-one in this lugubrious mess appears to be having much fun, save Eileen Atkins who creates an enjoyable Eleanor of Aquitane. Scott's usually a fine action director, but here he allows a leaden pace and general confusion swamp the story. A real disappointment, considering the talent involved.
Rated 18 Dec 2010
alex_wsAlex WS
Rated 19 Jan 2013
38
16th
People should try waking Ridley Scott when he falls asleep on the job.
Rated 19 Jan 2013
muzak66muzak66
Rated 01 Mar 2011
83
71st
pretty good movie.
Rated 01 Mar 2011
mchaleMcHale
Rated 31 Oct 2010
70
32nd
aka Saving Sir Robin. I'm not a fan of historical epics, and I found it boring.
Rated 31 Oct 2010
icybrianIcyBrian
Rated 17 May 2010
65
27th
A halfway decent movie, but a huge letdown given what it could have been (the movie was originally based on a spec script called "Nottingham", which was the Robin Hood story told from the perspective of the Sherrif.)
Rated 17 May 2010
mrandersen10mrandersen10
Rated 05 Jan 2012
50
6th
Downloading this garbage was a mistake.
Rated 05 Jan 2012
overratedoverrated
Rated 14 Apr 2021
16
9th
I guess some minor congratulations are in order for a film finally portraying Richard Lionheart in a negative light. Besides that there is absolutely no reason to watch this, it's almost exactly like a movie-length bad episode of Vikings. I only did it because of a masochistic Ridley Scott completionist streak, this is his worst film depending on how you view Black Hawk Down (which is technically far superior).
Rated 14 Apr 2021
lebarLebar
Rated 02 Sep 2010
82
86th
The new Robin Hood ... I like it
Rated 02 Sep 2010
peaceanarchyPeaceAnarchy
Rated 03 Sep 2010
83
72nd
This isn't the Robin Hood story I expected and it feels a little incomplete, but I think generally I really like what Scott is trying to do. He uses the character to examine class struggles in a vaguely historical context, but does so more through political intrigue and battle than banditry and wealth distribution. It feels fresh, even if the content isn't so much so and it's pretty fun to watch.
Rated 03 Sep 2010
nick_hamdenNick Hamden
Rated 03 Jun 2013
60
47th
http://gorgview.com/robin-hood
Rated 03 Jun 2013
captainjonnyCaptainJonny
Rated 15 May 2010
70
56th
Very Lord of the Rings-esque, take a very long time to get going and establish itself feeling clearly like the start of a franchise but comes to a satisfying climax.
Rated 15 May 2010
burrrburrr
Rated 31 May 2018
57
16th
55.00+1.86 = 56.86.
Rated 31 May 2018
hellboy76hellboy76
Rated 01 May 2011
65
45th
Fails to connect completely, but is competently acted and beautifully filmed. Takes some liberties with accepted legend but no one really knows the true story anyways (Robin Hood's real identity and area of operations are debated to this day and Friar Tuck and Maid Marian did not appear until much later than the original 14th centery texts). It is enjoyable enough although it feels unfinished and is not likely to recieve a sequel.
Rated 01 May 2011
stewballStewball
Rated 16 May 2010
80
80th
I think this movie suffers from over-anticipation followed by overly plentiful (defensive) marketing. I think the movie itself is excellent in its richness in both plot and location detail. Outstanding Cinematography. The parallels to "Gladiator" are numerous and diminishing, the role of Robin not being nearly as demanding; but overall the movie is still a winner. Unlike Iron Man 2, its message walks the political fence, dropping morsels here and there on either side--saving food a sequel?
Rated 16 May 2010
hakkanarejohakkanarejo
Rated 08 Jan 2021
77
20th
The legendary story of veteran archer Robin Hood, who enlisted in King Richard's army to fight the French. After the death of the king, Robin leaves for Nottingham, a city suffering from the corruption of a tyrannical rear admiral and sky-high taxes. There he falls for the widow Lady Marian, who does not fully trust the identity and motives of this crusader. Hoping to win Lady Marian's hand and save the townsfolk, Robin assembles a gang that excels at deadly fighting tricks and zest for life.
Rated 08 Jan 2021
muutanetmuutanet
Rated 02 Sep 2010
32
24th
The battle scene in the very beginning was a high light of the movie, but the rest of the film was poorly executed. Pacing was horrible and there was no script to talk about.
Rated 02 Sep 2010
pfightmasterPfightmaster
Rated 09 Apr 2018
35
17th
Whatthehellisgoingon?!
Rated 09 Apr 2018
saywhatagainSayWhatAgain
Rated 20 Nov 2011
65
21st
Could have been a lot better.
Rated 20 Nov 2011
obdurateObdurate
Rated 24 May 2010
68
33rd
Sometimes odd placing of music makes some of the scenes more silly than they should be. We're never really sure why King John is so bad and the ending is rushed as hell, like they forgot Robin Hood had to be set up as an outlaw and threw it in at the last minute. There are some other story telling flaws but some plot points are decent enough. It also has good acting, some humour and when the movie cuts the shit and focuses on action, it does it quite well. Now put on this bandit mask.
Rated 24 May 2010
ryan_luedersRyan Lueders
Rated 29 Oct 2012
71
33rd
So, this movie felt unfinished. It just seemed like they were giving us Robin Hood the prequel. I thought the acting was fine, the locations were breathtaking and the action was intense but when the movie was over I wished that I had seen Robin Hood and not the movie about Robin getting into the hood. I really liked Cate Blanchett as Marion, Crowe was an interesting choice as Robin that I probably wouldn't have gone with. Oh Max von Sydow was also really great. I just wish I got more from this.
Rated 29 Oct 2012
zozanZozan
Rated 24 Apr 2011
55
57th
Crowe makes a good historic soldier. Liked him in Gladiator, liked him in here. But I expected something else of a movie named Robin Hood, something resembling a legend, something showing the uniqueness of a historical figure and that, I did not find in this movie.
Rated 24 Apr 2011
alwayssummeralwayssummer
Rated 23 Aug 2019
62
21st
190824: Requires very very high levels of suspension of disbelief. I was unable to sustain. Why would they bring the children to a battle?
Rated 23 Aug 2019
mlightle3mlightle3
Rated 10 Jun 2010
72
33rd
I'll be honest, I fell asleep. Although I don't blame the movie completely. The story was interesting enough, however, I couldn't stop thinking about how much funnier Robin Hood: Men in Tights was, and that I actually cared about Maid Marion in the Disney version. This one didn't improve on either former telling of the tale.
Rated 10 Jun 2010
yorkie19yorkie19
Rated 02 Jan 2013
85
35th
Another film which started with a great idea for a plot but where the execution leaves a little to be desired. Historically, the most accurate Robin Hood, with far more history and far less myth, in places at least. However, it's all a little too convenient in terms of scripting and I was left ruing what might have been. Nowhere close to Gladiator.
Rated 02 Jan 2013
bookhouseboybookhouseboy
Rated 05 Sep 2010
38
45th
#10#, [Unrated Edition], hype, story, (writer Helgeland, dir Scott), (casting).
Rated 05 Sep 2010
yavtonomovyavtonomov
Rated 06 Feb 2018
93
68th
If not very exciting, it is a very believable story, which, unlike many other Robin Hood movies, encourages to take it seriously. It is, however, a bit lengthy...
Rated 06 Feb 2018
ag0stomesmerAg0stoMesmer
Rated 02 Jan 2013
3
73rd
Not a good film but i liked the medieval world created and it hints at interesting sequels, shame about that.
Rated 02 Jan 2013
bellamyrbellamyr
Rated 08 Jun 2010
62
30th
If you have a choice between watching this film and a mid-air collision ... go down with that plane. Russell Crowe is to Robin Hood what George W Bush was to International diplomacy. - This has nothing to do with Robin Hood. Very much the same as any other Crowe movie.
Rated 08 Jun 2010

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...