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

Justin Ward4 said:Honestly, I thought this movie was pretty terrible.
Up until the intermission, I actually had a feeling it might turn into something decent, but after that, it became painfully obvious they just ran out of time to wrap things up properly.
The final battle is so ridiculous it practically crosses the line into unintentional trash. SPOILER: Who on earth decided to throw kids on ponies and donkeys into the mix like that?? And where did they find the time for all that romantic nonsense right in the middle of a fight? Why even bother with a cavalry charge when you could just pick them off one by one with arrows and hold the bottleneck?
It’s clear there's a sequel coming—maybe even a prequel—which is probably the only reason they watered down the plot so much in the second half. At this rate, I'm just waiting for them to shove some Jar Jar Binks-style character into the next one and ruin the whole franchise from scratch.
As Cute says, someone just hand Mel Brooks a camera and let him take over!

And honestly, isn't that what basically everyone thinks? Like, if you really stop to think about it, I don't think a single soul actually gave it a thumbs up.

Is it even possible that the Riddler actually directed something this crappy?! Man, I was putting so much hope into the alien franchise 😢
I mean, I went into this one expecting anything *but* a total disaster, but hey, I guess I really need to sit down and watch the whole thing myself before I can truly pass judgment on how bad it actually is.

I honestly think everything has already been said; this movie is absolute garbage.

No, seriously, the whole thing is just plain bad and at times straight-up ridiculous.

There is zero chemistry between Marian and Russell Crowe, just a bunch of facepalm moments that were supposed to be funny, plus that cringey "I Love You" line that came out of nowhere with absolutely no buildup.

And then in the final battle, you’ve got these kids—total degenerates, really—riding on PONIES without even any gear 😂 I mean, for real, I don't even know 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Then there's that part where Cate Blanchett gets knocked down during the fight and Russell shows up and starts kissing her like some kind of freaking BEAR while she's basically unconscious, like WTFFFFFFF 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

But seriously, I have no clue what kind of vibe they were going for with this flick, but whatever they were trying to pull off, it totally failed. It’s basically just a prequel to Robin Hood from Sherwood Forest, but it has zero connection to the Robin I actually know. It tries to be this historical epic (who knows if it's even accurate?) that vacillates between wanting to be funny and wanting to be dramatic, but overall, it's just nothing.

Oh, and I have to mention the scene where Godfrey and his crew are running wild through England, featuring those scenes with the burning cards and other "creative" nonsense—that was easily one of the lowest points in the entire movie, like total five-dollar production value stuff. How much did this movie even cost?

It’s quite plain to see that Russell Crowe just isn't built for this particular role anymore... he's simply gotten too old for it...

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Just one little thing that isn't exactly historically accurate... the movie kind of assumes the King, the Prince, and all those nobles are strictly English and view England as their only home... back then, Richard and John actually held massive territories in France—they lived there and spoke French too... it wasn't until John lost those French lands that he became the first king to actually settle in England, though he certainly wasn't the first one to start speaking English...

Just watched it yesterday at AMC Theatres. I'm hanging out in New York for a few days visiting a buddy (heading to a Metallica show soon), and honestly? As a historical movie, it's total garbage. But as pure mindless entertainment? I swallowed the whole thing—except for seeing Marian looking like Arwen and those kids in that final battle. Like, wtf?

I have honestly read far too much nonsense regarding this movie.

In my view, Robin Hood certainly isn't among the absolute best of Ridley Scott's filmography, but heavens, it’s not among his worst either. Even his weaker efforts—films like G.I. Joe or Legend—have always been, at the very least, perfectly solid productions.

There is a large group of people claiming the film is a total mess simply because it doesn't align with historical facts, but historical dramas aren't actually about history (though I realize that isn't clear to many). Historical films deal with the mythology born from historical events and how they reflect upon our modern lives. The genre has always said more about our current society and culture than the period it seemingly depicts. As a cynic and a postmodernist, Scott is fully aware of this. It is precisely this postmodern component that has allowed him to remain at the top for so long; it helped him evolve from a director of relatively routine genre pieces and a "director-for-hire" (which, realistically, accounts for most of his career) into one of the most significant cinematic authors of the last three decades. The other issue is that, judging by most comments, it seems postmodernism is falling out of fashion, though eventually, everything does...

Setting theory aside, Robin Hood sits roughly in the same tier as Scott's recent films like American Gangster and Body of Lies—very good movies whose primary flaw is failing to reach the high standards this director set for himself.

By the way, Scott is perhaps one of the directors with the most dramatic highs and lows in history, both commercially and artistically, so I am not at all worried about whether he will produce a masterpiece again. Besides, the very concept of a "masterpiece" is highly subjective. To prove my point, one only needs to look at the theatrical version of Scott's Kingdom of Heaven, which is visually stunning but narratively quite lacking, compared to the Director's cut of the same film, which is arguably his finest work since the days of Blade Runner.

Furthermore, Scott is the type of director who often quietly acquiesces to vague producer demands—like cutting down runtimes—but they grant him the opportunity to release Director's cut versions later and provide funding for new projects. It wouldn't surprise me if the current version of Robin Hood is the result of such pressures, especially since I've come across three different running times being mentioned lately, implying the film was likely being edited right up until the premiere. I am almost certain there is high-quality material here for an expanded, superior version.

=ruggedridge22;26697431]

Look, Robin Hood definitely isn't hitting the heights of his best work—but honestly, it’s not even bottom-of-the-barrel either. Even when Ridley Scott misses the mark—think G.I. Jane or Legend—those films are still, at the very least, perfectly decent watchable stuff.

A potential Director's cut for Robin Hood wouldn't even make sense—this is actually the first time a Scott flick has felt genuinely tedious, where the longer it drags on, the more it just feels like an endurance test. And frankly, who's going to care about fixing uninteresting characters or a dull plot? Legend and G.I. Joe were solid enough, but this? This is just a weak effort.

Historical films don't actually deal with history (though I realize that escapes a lot of people). They deal with the mythology born from historical events and how those things reflect our modern world—the whole genre has always been more about our current society and culture than whatever surface-level story it seems to be telling. Scott, being the cynical postmodernist he is, is fully aware of that.

Exactly!
You see it clearly in Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Alexander, or 300, but it’s just missing from this Robin Hood. Maybe he could have tried to bridge the gap with his previous take on the legend?

Cremation instead of burial back in the Middle Ages during the Catholic era? Yeah, I really don't think that was happening... 🙂

Jesse Booth2 said:I honestly think everything has already been said; this movie is absolute garbage.

No, seriously, the whole thing is just plain bad and at times straight-up ridiculous.

There is zero chemistry between Marian and Russell Crowe, just a bunch of facepalm moments that were supposed to be funny, plus that cringey "I Love You" line that came out of nowhere with absolutely no buildup.

And then in the final battle, you’ve got these kids—total degenerates, really—riding on PONIES without even any gear 😂 I mean, for real, I don't even know 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Then there's that part where Cate Blanchett gets knocked down during the fight and Russell shows up and starts kissing her like some kind of freaking BEAR while she's basically unconscious, like WTFFFFFFF 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

But seriously, I have no clue what kind of vibe they were going for with this flick, but whatever they were trying to pull off, it totally failed. It’s basically just a prequel to Robin Hood from Sherwood Forest, but it has zero connection to the Robin I actually know. It tries to be this historical epic (who knows if it's even accurate?) that vacillates between wanting to be funny and wanting to be dramatic, but overall, it's just nothing.

Oh, and I have to mention the scene where Godfrey and his crew are running wild through England, featuring those scenes with the burning cards and other "creative" nonsense—that was easily one of the lowest points in the entire movie, like total five-dollar production value stuff. How much did this movie even cost?

Everything you listed felt 🙄 absolutely ridiculous to me too. But the most sappy, pathetic scene has to be him sowing that stolen grain at night. 🤮 Then she suddenly realizes how noble and wonderful he is, and of course, she starts looking at him differently. 🙄

Watching this movie is like having bad sex: the action is happening, but my mind is just wandering toward what I'm going to cook for dinner tomorrow and other nonsense. 😁 Honestly, Russell Crowe is the only thing keeping this afloat; the older he gets, the better he is. 🤷 Oh, and that scene where she undresses him? If only there was more of that. 👍

Just got back from the theater and man, here’s my take <massive spoilers>

That opening scene—where Richard is portrayed as this totally ego-driven chicken in some fancy European castle who refuses to hear the truth from his own people before getting taken out by a random cook's arrow? Absolutely brilliant! 👍

Then there's the second part—that group of scavengers deserting, swapping into officer uniforms, looting the dead, and running around using fake IDs? Pure genius!! 👍 Honestly, even someone like Sven Hassel couldn't write it better than that!

And the third bit—the whole rush back home involving those super awkward encounters and the role reversal with the fallen knight? Just brilliant!!! 👍 It felt just like some old-school folksy legend from the 1600s

But then, after that moment, the movie just goes completely and utterly to hell! There are so many plot holes, stupid decisions, and total nonsense that it’s not even worth trying to list them all out... I feel like I could write five full pages and still not be done... I was brutally bored for the rest of the film, which, let me tell you, almost never happens to me at the movies....👎

irontiger29 said:Just got back from the theater and man, here’s my take <massive spoilers>

That opening scene—where Richard is portrayed as this totally ego-driven chicken in some fancy European castle who refuses to hear the truth from his own people before getting taken out by a random cook's arrow? Absolutely brilliant! 👍

Then there's the second part—that group of scavengers deserting, swapping into officer uniforms, looting the dead, and running around using fake IDs? Pure genius!! 👍 Honestly, even someone like Sven Hassel couldn't write it better than that!

And the third bit—the whole rush back home involving those super awkward encounters and the role reversal with the fallen knight? Just brilliant!!! 👍 It felt just like some old-school folksy legend from the 1600s

But then, after that moment, the movie just goes completely and utterly to hell! There are so many plot holes, stupid decisions, and total nonsense that it’s not even worth trying to list them all out... I feel like I could write five full pages and still not be done... I was brutally bored for the rest of the film, which, let me tell you, almost never happens to me at the movies....👎

The first part was good. 👍

The rest... 😵

If this movie is supposedly "criminally bad," then how the hell does it have a 7.3 on IMDb? Seriously... from everything I’ve been reading on critic sites, it doesn't sound nearly as disastrous as you guys are making it out to be. Look, obviously it isn't going to top that classic with Kevin Costner, but I wasn't exactly expecting it to... I'm still gonna sit down and watch it anyway, then I'll give you my actual take.

Opening Weekend:
Domestic: $37,114,000 33.4%
+ International: $74,000,000 66.6%
= Worldwide: $111,114,000

Not bad at all—I bet Ridley can still squeeze out even more from this one... 🙂 😁

By the way, did anyone else catch that Velibor Topić plays that French knight who tries to assault Cate Blanchett?!

Melissa Chase7 said:Opening Weekend:
Domestic: $37,114,000 33.4%
+ International: $74,000,000 66.6%
= Worldwide: $111,114,000

Not bad at all—I bet Ridley can still squeeze out even more from this one... 🙂 😁

By the way, did anyone else catch that Velibor Topić plays that French knight who tries to assault Cate Blanchett?!

He also had a role in Kingdom of Heaven...

Charles Smith4 said:http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0003908/

Sure, there have been plenty of other Robin Hood flicks since '91, but yeah—Prince of Thieves was definitely the last major production centered on his legend.
This one's bound to be one of the top picks next year. Having Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe involved makes it a sure thing (and hey, this actually marks their fifth collaboration) 🙂

To be totally blunt, even that one didn't really blow me away, 🤷 and while I haven't caught this new one yet, I'm definitely not rushing to see it once I see this mountain of negative reviews. 😁

Anyway, hitting theaters in just a few days:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1139328/

This one actually looks pretty solid to me, so we'll just have to wait and see, I guess. 👍

I’m giving you a movie that doesn't rely on some pregnant teenager subplot to drive the plot. That’s how it works, right, kids?

☕

I have never been closer to falling asleep in an AMC Theatres in my life. It was tedious and far too bloated for my taste.🤷

Anyone else who grew up loving the story of Robin Hood feeling totally let down? This movie just doesn't vibe with the legend at all.
I mean—in my head, I’ll always see that iconic moment where Little John and Robin first cross paths on the log 😁, or the way things go down with Friar Tuck and Robin... they just didn't meet like that here... 🙂

Now, Russell Crowe is incredibly sexy... 😍 even if he is pushing fifty—I won't count—and I don't regret seeing this on the big screen. There's just a certain magic to the theater that you can't replicate at home.
It's just that there are far too many battles that feel completely unnecessary. A few shots actually reminded me of Braveheart, and some even felt a bit like Lord of the Rings 😵. In my honest opinion, the movie shouldn't have been titled Robin Hood; if they had just called it something else, it would have worked fine... 😬 people would have expected something different. Which, honestly, is what we ended up watching anyway.
Because when it comes to Robin Hood, the only part that really feels like the story is that final scene.

But hey, look, they took a different approach like they said they would. And honestly, if it wasn't for Russell, this movie would have been twice as bad.
As for my definitive vote for Robin? It stays with Kevin Costner. Now *that* was a real story! 🙏

I just walked out of the theater and honestly, I’m sitting here wondering if I should have just kept my money in my wallet—I mean, does a movie like this really need to be seen on the big screen? Don't get me wrong, Ridley Scott definitely knows his way around a camera, but wouldn't it have been infinitely better if he actually had something substantial to work with? Like, a script that isn't unintentionally hilarious? For a split second at the start, I thought, "Oh, finally, we're getting a nuanced look at King Richard," which helped explain why Robin is from Loxley, but then everything went sideways. Once I saw Lady Marian (Cate Blanchett) portrayed as this hyperactive semi-rural girl—who was supposedly only twenty-one, mind you—and the plot kicked off without any of the classic Sherwood Forest vibes, the looting, or even decent action? Instead, we got those incredibly silly fight scenes with Little John that felt so unconvincing, it was almost painful!
I actually lost it during the line where he says, "Marian, I Love You," and it truly hit a breaking point for me when she decided to jump right into the fray... goodness gracious! All those iconic characters I grew up with, like Little John, Father Tuck, and especially Lady Marian—they all felt like mere shadows in a film that is just far too long, tedious, and frankly, exhausting. It's such a well-directed film trapped inside a catastrophic script!👎

It’s passable, I suppose. I find myself actually appreciating that the narrative doesn't lean so heavily on children, opting instead to focus on actual, breathing adults... There is something inherently compelling about the notion that he truly rose from the common folk, because let’s be honest, what high-born aristocrat could ever genuinely grasp the struggles of the working class? Absolutely none of them. It isn't exactly a cinematic masterpiece, but it serves as a decent enough distraction when one finds themselves with far too much time on their hands and nothing better to occupy the mind... The one thing that continues to vex me, however, is this glaring lack of clarity: at what precise moment did those kids from the woods decide to take his side? And for what reason, heavens above? Did I somehow miss a significant romantic subplot or a sudden moment of bonding? 🤷

I mean, the movie isn't perfect, but in this era of YouTube and Facebook, people mostly just click "like" or "dislike," which I guess ends up giving this Robin Hood a lower rating than some total junk like Film Noir. The cinematography is great and you can tell a lot of effort went into it, so maybe it should only be compared to movies in its own league rather than getting those extreme "this is the worst movie ever" reviews. People who post stuff like that probably just don't have much going on upstairs.

Personally, I found that bit where they flirt with modern social behaviors a little annoying, kind of like in First Knight (or whatever that movie with Heath Ledger was called).