What did you guys think of Robin Hood (2010)?

So this is what Ridley Scott was getting at when he said he wanted to do a different spin on Robin Hood 😁😁🤣🤣



Here are a few more shots...

A few more shots from the set...



Check out the rest here...

http://www.comingsoon.net/imageGallery/Robin_Hood_Set_2

this might actually work 🤣

Maria James94 said:The last decent Robin Hood flick I saw was the one starring Kevin Costner and Morgan Freeman.

What a garbage movie! Just total nonsense!

If you want to see what a real movie looks like, go watch The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)👍




The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) is the only Robin Hood flick worth a damn—I just rewatched it and man, it blew me away. It’s an absolute masterpiece, and Errol Flynn plays Robin with so much heart he basically becomes the character.

Now, look, Russell Crowe is one of my favorites, don't get me wrong, but I really don't think he could even come close to capturing the essence of Robin the way Errol Flynn did. It’s just not the right fit for Russell.

Seriously, if you haven't seen "The Adventures of Robin Hood" from '38, stop what you're doing and go watch it. It's incredible.

This movie is looking incredibly promising to me! I’m expecting something along the lines of Gladiator, perhaps just a notch below that level of greatness, but even then, that would still be a solid 👍
.
Does anyone happen to know when the trailer is scheduled to drop?

Peter Reed70 said:So I was scrolling through some news site earlier and saw this wild article claiming that Robin Hood wasn't some hero at all—he was actually just your run-of-the-mill thief who didn't give a dime back to the people! And get this... it even says he was assaulting men!!! Like, what kind of robbery is that even?!

Look, there isn't a shred of actual evidence that Robin Hood ever even existed. It's all just tall tales and bedtime stories for kids.

Maria James94 said:The last decent Robin Hood flick I saw was the one starring Kevin Costner and Morgan Freeman.

Interesting. Personally, I didn't care for that one at all.🤷

The version with Errol Flynn was significantly better.👍

I'd even take the one in gym shorts over that.😁

I honestly don't get why anyone would hate on the version with Kevin Costner...

I mean, Alan Rickman is an absolute legend in that one! 🙏🙏🙏

What would Mel Brooks say? He’d probably joke about burning down another small town just to get the perfect shot for a movie.😂

Richard Wilson4 said:I honestly don't get why anyone would hate on the version with Kevin Costner...

I mean, Alan Rickman is an absolute legend in that one! 🙏🙏🙏

Go watch The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) and then compare the two—tell me how much of a quality gap there actually is.

To me, it’s like night and day—the Flin version is a straight-up masterpiece, while the one with Kevin? Honestly, it's total garbage.

Kate Harris4 said:Go watch The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) and then compare the two—tell me how much of a quality gap there actually is.

To me, it’s like night and day—the Flin version is a straight-up masterpiece, while the one with Kevin? Honestly, it's total garbage.

What is so incredibly wrong with Prince of Thieves that you keep insisting it's complete trash?

Dennis Doyle3 said:What is so incredibly wrong with Prince of Thieves that you keep insisting it's complete trash?

Do yourself a favor—watch The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) and then try to tell me there isn't a massive gap in quality between the two. 👍

I watched both versions a long time ago—and honestly, the '91 version is just incomparable... it's got that certain charm, you know? Everything else pretty much falls to the '91 one.

Kate Harris4 said:Do yourself a favor—watch The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) and then try to tell me there isn't a massive gap in quality between the two. 👍

I saw that one ages ago. CNN has aired it plenty of times; you can usually catch those kinds of flicks on Saturday mornings if you know where to look. Look, I wasn't asking you for a movie recommendation. I asked why you think The Adventures of Robin Hood is such absolute garbage that you have to label it trash.

Dennis Doyle3 said:I saw that one ages ago. CNN has aired it plenty of times; you can usually catch those kinds of flicks on Saturday mornings if you know where to look. Look, I wasn't asking you for a movie recommendation. I asked why you think The Adventures of Robin Hood is such absolute garbage that you have to label it trash.

I honestly don't get the hype at all. This isn't actually a movie about Robin Hood—it’s just some pale, washed-out imitation. I’m giving it a pathetic 2/10 on IMDb. If you want the real deal, go watch the 1938 version; that’s a 9/10 masterpiece in my book.
Look, the '38 version of Robin Hood is an absolute classic—that’s just a straight-up fact. Maybe that newer version with Kevin is better simply because it’s more modern, and I get why people dig it, but at the end of the day, there is only one definitive movie about Robin.

Take another look at this. You know, I was revisiting *The Adventures of Robin Hood* from 1938 the other day—yeah, the classic Errol Flynn version—and it really hit me how much we’ve lost in terms of pure, unadulterated cinematic energy. It’s one of those movies that just refuses to feel dated, even if the pacing is different than what you’d see from a modern blockbuster. It’s got everything: swashbuckling action, high stakes, and that sense of righteous justice that feels almost missing from today’s cynical superhero flicks. You watch Flynn command the screen and it’s just effortless. There isn't any of that over-polished, CGI-heavy nonsense we get pumped into our brains now—just real stunts, real sets, and a story that actually knows where it's going. It’s like comparing a perfectly seared steak at a local diner to some overpriced, chemically-enhanced molecular gastronomy mess you’d find in a trendy LA bistro. One actually satisfies you, while the other is just trying too hard to look important. Honestly, sometimes I think we spend way too much time looking for "depth" in movies when all we really need is a damn good story told by people who actually know how to act. This film doesn't apologize for being an adventure, and frankly, that’s exactly why it still works. Maybe then you'll actually notice the difference in quality. 👍

Kate Harris4 said:What a garbage movie! Just total nonsense!

If you want to see what a real movie looks like, go watch The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)👍




The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) is the only Robin Hood flick worth a damn—I just rewatched it and man, it blew me away. It’s an absolute masterpiece, and Errol Flynn plays Robin with so much heart he basically becomes the character.

Now, look, Russell Crowe is one of my favorites, don't get me wrong, but I really don't think he could even come close to capturing the essence of Robin the way Errol Flynn did. It’s just not the right fit for Russell.

Seriously, if you haven't seen "The Adventures of Robin Hood" from '38, stop what you're doing and go watch it. It's incredible.

Kate Harris4 said:Go watch The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) and then compare the two—tell me how much of a quality gap there actually is.

To me, it’s like night and day—the Flin version is a straight-up masterpiece, while the one with Kevin? Honestly, it's total garbage.

Kate Harris4 said:Do yourself a favor—watch The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) and then try to tell me there isn't a massive gap in quality between the two. 👍

Kate Harris4 said:I honestly don't get the hype at all. This isn't actually a movie about Robin Hood—it’s just some pale, washed-out imitation. I’m giving it a pathetic 2/10 on IMDb. If you want the real deal, go watch the 1938 version; that’s a 9/10 masterpiece in my book.
Look, the '38 version of Robin Hood is an absolute classic—that’s just a straight-up fact. Maybe that newer version with Kevin is better simply because it’s more modern, and I get why people dig it, but at the end of the day, there is only one definitive movie about Robin.

Take another look at this. You know, I was revisiting *The Adventures of Robin Hood* from 1938 the other day—yeah, the classic Errol Flynn version—and it really hit me how much we’ve lost in terms of pure, unadulterated cinematic energy. It’s one of those movies that just refuses to feel dated, even if the pacing is different than what you’d see from a modern blockbuster. It’s got everything: swashbuckling action, high stakes, and that sense of righteous justice that feels almost missing from today’s cynical superhero flicks. You watch Flynn command the screen and it’s just effortless. There isn't any of that over-polished, CGI-heavy nonsense we get pumped into our brains now—just real stunts, real sets, and a story that actually knows where it's going. It’s like comparing a perfectly seared steak at a local diner to some overpriced, chemically-enhanced molecular gastronomy mess you’d find in a trendy LA bistro. One actually satisfies you, while the other is just trying too hard to look important. Honestly, sometimes I think we spend way too much time looking for "depth" in movies when all we really need is a damn good story told by people who actually know how to act. This film doesn't apologize for being an adventure, and frankly, that’s exactly why it still works. Maybe then you'll actually notice the difference in quality. 👍

Look, this movie is a total disaster. What’s your problem? Did you somehow miss out on the entire legend of Robin Hood growing up? Because if not, what exactly were you fed as a kid?
I honestly can't tell if you're pulling my leg or just being an absolute idiot.

Kate Harris4 said:I honestly don't get the hype at all. This isn't actually a movie about Robin Hood—it’s just some pale, washed-out imitation. I’m giving it a pathetic 2/10 on IMDb. If you want the real deal, go watch the 1938 version; that’s a 9/10 masterpiece in my book.
Look, the '38 version of Robin Hood is an absolute classic—that’s just a straight-up fact. Maybe that newer version with Kevin is better simply because it’s more modern, and I get why people dig it, but at the end of the day, there is only one definitive movie about Robin.

Take another look at this. You know, I was revisiting *The Adventures of Robin Hood* from 1938 the other day—yeah, the classic Errol Flynn version—and it really hit me how much we’ve lost in terms of pure, unadulterated cinematic energy. It’s one of those movies that just refuses to feel dated, even if the pacing is different than what you’d see from a modern blockbuster. It’s got everything: swashbuckling action, high stakes, and that sense of righteous justice that feels almost missing from today’s cynical superhero flicks. You watch Flynn command the screen and it’s just effortless. There isn't any of that over-polished, CGI-heavy nonsense we get pumped into our brains now—just real stunts, real sets, and a story that actually knows where it's going. It’s like comparing a perfectly seared steak at a local diner to some overpriced, chemically-enhanced molecular gastronomy mess you’d find in a trendy LA bistro. One actually satisfies you, while the other is just trying too hard to look important. Honestly, sometimes I think we spend way too much time looking for "depth" in movies when all we really need is a damn good story told by people who actually know how to act. This film doesn't apologize for being an adventure, and frankly, that’s exactly why it still works. Maybe then you'll actually notice the difference in quality. 👍

Honestly, who cares what rating you gave it? It’s not like you’re the sole judge of cinematic greatness or the ultimate authority on what makes a movie good.
I’ve seen both versions multiple times myself, and the '91 one is better (just like most people here think). Calling a movie total garbage just for the sake of being contrarian to everyone else is, frankly, pretty immature.

It’s definitely better with Kevin and Freeman, though I get why Jack Harper keeps bringing up the '38 version—it really is a solid portrayal—but honestly, how can anyone even compare it to this one where Kevin is involved?

Donna Gray4 said:It’s definitely better with Kevin and Freeman, though I get why Jack Harper keeps bringing up the '38 version—it really is a solid portrayal—but honestly, how can anyone even compare it to this one where Kevin is involved?

👍

Donna, props to you for not trashing a classic like that, but hey, if you prefer this one, fine by me. To some people, both versions work—it really just comes down to what you're into.

Dennis Doyle3 said:Look, this movie is a total disaster. What’s your problem? Did you somehow miss out on the entire legend of Robin Hood growing up? Because if not, what exactly were you fed as a kid?
I honestly can't tell if you're pulling my leg or just being an absolute idiot.

I'm not joking, which pretty much means we're dealing with some kind of K 😂

Do me a favor—don't even bother watching The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) ever again, because clearly, it's not your cup of tea.

Look, it’s not that I don't respect the old-school classics, but The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) is honestly just kind of ridiculous—I mean, you really needed Kevin Costner and Morgan Freeman to give it any semblance of actual grit... otherwise, it's basically just a nostalgia trip. Has anyone actually sat through this Robin Hood (1991) version? It was a bit of a bummer coming out at the same time as Zorro, but it’s a decent enough watch...

Anyway, back to the point... Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe... that could actually turn into a pretty solid adventure flick. I'm not a huge fan when they start making stuff up by messing with the original plot, but hey, we'll see how the final cut turns out...