Customer Reviews


357 Reviews
5 star:
 (106)
4 star:
 (74)
3 star:
 (51)
2 star:
 (55)
1 star:
 (71)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favourable review
The most helpful critical review


79 of 93 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Legend from a different perspective
I like different takes on the same subject matter. May be this is why -against all the negative feedback here- I still like this movie. It could also be the fact that I am not English (although I am very familiar with Robin Hood and I love the concept as it is universal) and have no national pride involved. Still, the aura around this film, the way it tells the story made...
Published on 14 Oct 2010 by T. Kucukyumuk

versus
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Some beautiful landscape doesn't hide the dull story
It would seem that Ridley Scott and Robin Hood would be a perfect match especially when it reunited him with Russell Crowe after their great success together with Gladiator, as well as the inclusion of Cate Blanchett as Maid Marion. Unfortunately while the acting is good and the film features some beautiful landscape, the films features very little action and some really...
Published 1 month ago by Gatekeeper197


‹ Previous | 1 236 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

5 of 5 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Some beautiful landscape doesn't hide the dull story, 1 Jun 2014
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
It would seem that Ridley Scott and Robin Hood would be a perfect match especially when it reunited him with Russell Crowe after their great success together with Gladiator, as well as the inclusion of Cate Blanchett as Maid Marion. Unfortunately while the acting is good and the film features some beautiful landscape, the films features very little action and some really dull storytelling; better off sticking with Prince of Thieves I think.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


79 of 93 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Legend from a different perspective, 14 Oct 2010
By 
T. Kucukyumuk (Istanbul, Turkey) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
I like different takes on the same subject matter. May be this is why -against all the negative feedback here- I still like this movie. It could also be the fact that I am not English (although I am very familiar with Robin Hood and I love the concept as it is universal) and have no national pride involved. Still, the aura around this film, the way it tells the story made me like it.
First of all, (my observations are nowhere near objective as I am no history buff) everything looked more authentic. The way Scott handles Lionheart and Prince John appear to be more realistic. May be this Robin Hood takes itself too seriously but I believe it is a fresh approach. Up to now, it has always been Robin Hood and his merry men. Now it is Robin Longstride with his ex-military guerilla.
Every legend has something true at its root, which has been so twisted out of shape that it would be very hard to recognize after so long a time. Ridley Scott is attempting to explain how this legend came to life. And I believe he succeeds.
Are there no flaws? Of course not. Crowe's accent is a problem but Blanchett's serene, strong Marion balances his faults. Beautiful shots throughout the movie made me disregard the slow storytelling. Actually, for me it strengthened the effect of the film. I hate it when a director goes too quickly over character build-up, scene setting to the battles etc. It is not all about action. The legend has a heart and the film also tries to reflect that.
There are times when the hype around a movie becomes its pitfall. I feel everybody expected the ultimate Robin Hood from Ridley Scott. It isn't. But it is still a very, very good movie.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


15 of 19 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Robin Hood - "Hey nonny nonny" historical nonsense from Sir Ridley Scott, 1 Jun 2010
By 
Red on Black - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 50 REVIEWER)   
One fears that Ridley Scott is by now so important to the Hollywood money men that the prospect of someone sitting him down and offering advice would be seen as an act of outright hostility. And yet after watching "Robin Hood 2010" you feel that if only someone had the gumption to go up to him and say "Look Rid, you are a great film-maker, you have a huge track record of success but frankly this is a pile of pants and that bloke Crowe's acting is as wooden as the outside privy door" then something could have been salvaged from this risible mess. Indeed watching the Orange Commercial ads before the film you feel that Scott may have been one of the hapless directors whose film pitch was victim to the dastardly plans of the shallow, product placement executives who decided what they wanted was a mix of "Robin Hood - Men in tights" meets "Saving Private Ryan". It is true that Robin Hood films traditionally have a license to totally rip up the history book but in this case it is absolutely shredded, thus we have a number of interesting new theories and historical discoveries. They include -

1. Robin Hood's dad wrote the Magna Carta.
2. At the end of 12th century we were subject to a "French Armada" who alighted at the English equivalent of Omaha beach in World War II landing craft with oars and then decided that were anyone to make a film of their exploits they would make a pitch for Steven Spielberg to direct.
3. The Uffington White Horse in Oxfordshire seems to have taken on whole new forms and dimensions in Scott's film where it is a veritable "Champion the wonder horse" carved onto a small hill
4. The English army may have been made up of a range of bowmen from Wales, Scotland, England and Ireland yet their accents were drawn from a hybrid mix of Geordie, Liverpudlian and down-town Brisbane dialects which they had a remarkable ability to interchange at any point.
5. It appears that someone had invented the tractor in the 12th century since there were clearly visible tyre tracks in the land in one part of the film
6. Peasants in 12th century Nottingham seemed to have a liking for music by the 21st century Irish musicians the Chieftains whose "Women of Ireland" sound-tracked a dance between Crowe and Cate Blanchett that had all the sexual chemistry of two penguins skidding on the ice

Throughout the most sterling acting performances are given by the trees in Sherwood forest. Thankfully Scott found no place to introduce Morris men but every other cliche is thrown in not least the never ending scenes of fat friars drinking mead, buxom wenches cavorting or actors singing terrible folk songs. Cate Blanchett acts with all the verve of a women suspicious that her real life husband may be having her watched by a private detective and as a result is determined to do nothing of consequence to upset him. The film's villain British actor Mark Strong oozes about as much evil as a Sunday afternoon church village fete, what poor William Hurt is doing in here is anybody's guess and don't get me started on the bearded imp who played King John. It is Crowe however who gives them all a master-class in bad acting. It is a performance so destined for a Golden Raspberry award that if I were William Hill I would stop taking bets immediately.

Clearly Scott's thinking on all this was with all the movie's pyrotechnics that we might not notice the wafer thin storyline and to be fair if he had sewn together the battle scenes and played down the clichéd dialogue ("cometh the hour cometh the man" - Give me a break!) he might have got away with it. Sadly at some two and a half hours plus this film is a tedious and bewildering slog and makes Scott's previous lowpoint "The Kingdom of Heaven" look like a Fellini. By the end of the a film we were threatened with a sequel (oh god no Ridley no, we beseech you!) at which point this punter was so fed up the temptation to get up and shout "Vive la France" and sing the Marseilles was almost irresistible.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


106 of 134 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Lighten up!, 8 Sep 2010
By 
academe (Cambridge UK) - See all my reviews
Just a reply to a couple of points raised by others.
Firstly, as far as we know, Robin Hood is a conflation of various other 'rebels'and now unknown story-tellers favourites or a purely mythical creation.
There would have been already well-known stories of adventure and derring-do re-ascribed to 'Robin Hood' as the action hero 'flavour of the medieval day'.
Therefore, adding another layer to the mythos is not a crime, it's more a continuation of the historical process - the myth of Robin Hood did not spring into being fully formed and finished, after all...
Secondly, Prince John DOES NOT SIGN anything like the Magna Carta in the movie - it actually gets destroyed!
Any complaints about the dates for the signing of the Magna Carta being out by years are therefore irrelevant, as are complaints about Robin Hood's dad writing it.
Obviously, it was just a template, later revived and improved by the English Barons : ) (Joke!)
And thirdly, as for Eleanor of Aquitaine not seeing herself as English, well, she WAS Queen consort of England from 1154-1189, 35 years, her husband being Henry, Count of Anjou and Duke of Normandy, later to become Henry 2nd OF ENGLAND.
At this point, the relationship between England and France was far more indistinct than in the modern day; great swathes of France were tied to England by marriage and conquest. If you were the monarch of a country, you would see yourself as a 'defender' of that nation, be it where you were born or not; it would be your royal duty.
Finally, the wandering accents - unless Ridley Scott did a Mel Gibson and made the whole film in Medieval Anglo Saxon English, Norman French and Medieval Latin, no accent is going to be 'authentic' - we're not even sure what the accents they had back then sounded like!
So, maybe just lighten up and enjoy this movie for the entertainment it is, i.e. not an historical documentary - although, btw, it's the only film I've ever seen that shows the correct way to take off a mail shirt (I'm a reenactor, so 'been there, done that'!)
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


4 of 5 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars The decline begins....., 13 Mar 2013
By a rare coincidence-given the fact that Ridley Scott is one of my favorite film directors-I watched this movie AFTER I had sufferd the shock of "Prometheus".Had I viewed them in the right chronological order,I would have,at least,been prepared to a degree for the "Prometheus" disaster.
The signs of Scott's decadence are quite obvious in "Robin Hood".To save you from a lengthy analysis I will only suggest that you watch this film concurrently with "Gladiator".Two films that are,practically,identical,as fara as their "circumstances"are concerned.They are both "pseudo historical",by the same director,they have the same leading actor,excellent supporting cast,a lot of action and an underlying Just Cause,and more than ample means at the director's disposal.
That is where the similarities end."Gladiator" is an uplifting,thrilling,masterly and impressively filmed cinematographic treat,with an arrowlike course towards a suberb ending.

What exacty is R.H. ,I am not certain.A compilation of missed opportunities and ineptly directed scenes,with an ending where the beginning should be,perhaps ? A demonstration of directorial confusion , missing a sense of purpose ? A total twist of a popular legend's circumstances and characters known to us since childhood ? All of the above ,and then some ?

The bottom line is that it marks the beginning of the "master's"decline,which,unfortunately,led to the "Prometheus" disaster.(Simply to think that the same person directed "Alien","Blade Runner",AND "Prometheus" is an exercise in improbability).

But,paraphrasing the famous line from "Casablanca",I can say that we will always have the "Ridley Scott" period up to year 2001.And that is more than a treat from filmlovers.After all ,it is a rather common phenomenon amongst great Direcors(and a universal one witout a single exception where French Directors are concerned)that the worse work of the Great Masters is their late work.Eisenstein's "Que Viva Mexico",Kubrik's "Eyes wide shut",Kurosava's "Dreams",to quote but a few examles, are both these masters'last, and by far the worse, movies.

That alone in no way diminishes these "creators of the Seventh Art" masterly stature or their prolific work.It just dims its glow somewhat.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


76 of 98 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars 'I awoke this morning with a tumescent glow!', 27 May 2010
Can I begin by saying that there is absolutely no reason to compare this with the schmaltzy Kevin Costner movie Robin Hood Prince Of Thieves [1991] [DVD]. The two are light years apart, and as you'd expect from a Ridley Scott film this is far grittier and miles more atmospheric, although it is far from po-faced and is actually quite lighthearted in places.
Russell Crowe is predictably one-dimensional in his portrayal of Robin Longstride, archer to Richard the Lionheart, who finds himself taking on another identity in order to spare an old man's (a superb Max Von Sydow) pride. Thus we have an alternative idea of how the Robin Hood myth came about, and on the whole it's a good, pacy action-oriented romp.
Mark Strong excels as evil henchman to King John - the scar-faced Godfrey, whilst Mark Addy (despite a fast-growing resemblance to the late Terry Scott) was born to play the less than pious Friar Tuck. Cate Blanchett makes a fine feisty Marian, and the actors playing the other outlaws all slot in nicely. Overall this is a decent enough addition to the ever-growing canon of Robin Hood adaptations, and with Scott's masterly handling Crowe isn't at all bad as the titular outlaw.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


7 of 9 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars A new string for the old longbow, 20 Dec 2010
By 
Trevor Willsmer (London, England) - See all my reviews
(HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)    (TOP 100 REVIEWER)   
Despite a convoluted and tortuous pre-production history and the participation of two of the biggest bigheads in the business, Ridley and Russell's Robin Hood is a surprisingly impressive and enjoyable medieval epic that manages to find a new string for the old longbow by placing a prequel to the Hooded Man's outlaw days in a relatively accurately drawn Middle Ages with some contemporary relevance. Admittedly it's going to mean a lot more to British and European audiences, but it's hard not to notice that in its unloving royal siblings Richard (a gruff and bluff Danny Huston) and John (an impressive Oscar Isaac) there's more than a little Tony Blair - vain, bankrupting his abandoned country in unnecessary foreign wars and delusionally regarding himself as a pretty straight kind of guy yet quick to punish anyone who tells him the truth - and Gordon Brown - a petty and spiteful ruler who briefly wins over his people with promises he promptly drops as soon as his throne is secure and is woefully inadequate at turning the economy around. The film even uses the infamous political kiss-of-death phrase 'resigning to spend more time with his family' when honest chancellor William Marshall (William Hurt, looking surprisingly like the director) finds himself out of a job.

There are more nods to James Goldman than Errol Flynn here: Eleanor of Aquitaine gets a few bits of Lion in Winterish sniping without the barbed wit (though John's retort "Spare me your farmyard memories, mother: they're not real and I don't understand them" comes close) while the film begins, like Robin and Marion, with Robin and Little John in the King's bad books for being a bit too honest as the Lionheart loots his way back from the Crusades. There's an even stronger element of Martin Guerre to the tale as well as it finds a plausible explanation for Robin's twin origins as the peasant Robin Longstrides and the dispossessed noble Robin of Locksley, doing a neat job of tying in the origins of the Magna Carta and civil disobedience to the legend in the process.

There's plenty of action too, ending with not one but two big battles, though the grand finale is a bit too Saving Private Robin at times and Cate Blanchet's presence leading a small band of feral children in the climax seems a clumsy contrivance to put her in jeopardy merely so she can be rescued (she's far more convincingly placed heroically centre stage in a raid on her village). Throughout, the money's on the screen, with little apparent CGI - the sets, while not extravagant, have weight to them - and if it could use a few more extreme long shots at times, it makes good use of the British landscape for once. Thankfully Scott doesn't overdo the stylistics or the MTV editing here, settling for good old-fashioned storytelling and even throwing in that long-absent favorite, the burning map montage sequence. As for Crowe, while his accent briefly makes a detour to Newcastle before settling in Barnsley for an initially ill-advised Michael Parkinson impersonation (so much so you almost expect him to say "So, Richard - this Crusades business. Bit of a lark or is there a more serious side to it?"), but luckily he grows in stature alongside the character. And satisfyingly, this film is a real journey, not just from France to England but from opportunist to idealist to legend as Robin's progress mirrors that of the character's evolution from the thug of the early ballads to the champion of the oppressed of modern lore.

While it isn't as good or as ambitious as Kingdom of Heaven, this Robin Hood is still surprisingly damn good entertainment. Unfortunately Universal have decided to treat DVD buyers as second-class citizens again in an attempt to get them to upgrade to BluRay, giving them only the extended (by 16 minutes) cut, which gives more time to the feral children and adds a brief action scene and a comic scene between Robin and Marion but offers no major structural changes as per the Kingdom of Heaven director's cut, and leaving the original theatrical version and the choice extras for the BluRay. Just to rub salt in the wounds, aside from the picture-in-picture featurettes on the theatrical version, the extras disc on the BD release is actually a DVD disc, meaning they could have easily included the 10 deleted scenes with introduction by editor Pietro Scalia, one-hour documentary Rise and Rise Again, 6 TV spots, teaser trailer and full theatrical trailer on a two-disc release. The BD also has a picture-in-picture series of featurettes and interviews running sporadically throughout the theatrical version of the movie.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


10 of 13 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Robin who?, 1 May 2011
By 
The Truth "How it is" (UK) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 500 REVIEWER)   
All in all, this was an OK film to watch. It fulfiled my craving for Knights and sword fights but what it failed to do was have anything to do with Robin Hood. I think Robin fired 5 arrows thoughout the whole film and the merry men where, as far as I could make out, a bunch of kids living in the forest.

However, we never find out because the story stops just as it gets going - and then all is revealed: these are the events that lead to the legend of Robin Hood. Oh... oh, OK then - But I wanted to watch a film about Robin Hood? In fact, I found it a slightly odd experience watching the film because I kept expecting certain things to happen but they never did.

Russel Crowe's accent was absolutely terrible (when he bothered to put one on) and there were cringe worthy attempts at commedy which appeared as randomly as Russle's accent - but all in all the film was quite enjoyable in Knights and armour kind of way... just don't expect anything to do with Robin Hood. In fact I'd have enjoyed it more I think, if they had just called it something else altogether.

All in all the film was nothing like I was expecting; in two ways. Firstly, it wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. And secondly, it had nothing to do with Robin Hood other than a few of the characters having names from the orignal tale. That, said though - bring on part 2, and it might get interesting. I would certainly watch a part two, so it can't have been all bad.

The Blu Ray was excellent quality, and I watched the director's cut which seemed to go on and on... and on... and then on some more (but not in a bad way), so you get your money's worth. My only complaint is this felt more like the 1st part of a Robin Hood trilogy.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


12 of 16 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Very bad!, 13 Aug 2012
It was an extreme let-down when I saw this - When you have a great director like Ridley Scott and a brilliant actor like Russell Crowe with a movie subject as rich and exciting as Robin Hood, you expect something at least entertaining. But this was like watching an over-long BBC TV serial - In fact I think the BBC would've made this better if given the chance.

This doesn't even have the usual Ridley Scott visual flair either - It doesn't hold up to his other movies (ALIEN, BLADE RUNNER, BLACK HAWK DOWN etc).

If you want to see some swashbuckling action try the Kevin Costner version which pre-dates this and has the amazing visuals and action you would expect from a Robin Hood movie.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


6 of 8 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Visually Impressive And A Nice Plot, But....., 27 Mar 2011
There are many things about this film to enjoy. The plot takes some nice turns and plays with the history in an engaging way. I liked it that Richard (one of the worst kings England ever had) bought it early on. I liked the Magna Carta idea and I liked the imaginative way in which Robert of Locksley became the outlaw Robin Hood. As one would expect from Ridley Scott, the film is beautifully shot and a very strong cast put in some notable performances. Max Von Sydow's portrayal of Locksley's father is touching and powerful and Oscar Isaac's John is more nuanced than many of those who have taken that role.
For all that, though, the film did not engage me as fully as it should have done, largely I'm afraid because of the two central characters. Russell Crowe is a fine actor, but here he just seemed to be going through the motions and wishing he was still in "Gladiator". This was not helped by the director's choice to use shots that echoed that earlier movie. In a similar way Cate Blanchett seemed to be reprising Galadriel, her face rarely allowing human emotion to flicker across it. Worse still was that there was no chemistry between the two of them. The pacing, too, needed more variation.

Incidentally, I was a little surprised that the barons were so ready to see off France in the name of "England" and that language was made such point. In 1199 most of the Barons were French and spoke French; as did everyone at the English court.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 236 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

This product

Robin Hood (2010)
Robin Hood (2010) by Ridley Scott (DVD)
5.16
In stock
Add to basket Add to wishlist
Only search this product's reviews