Please continue pre-release discussion here.

Movie:
"Robin Hood" (2010) (Starring Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Max von Sydow, William Hurt, Mark Strong, Oscar Isaac)

Release Date:
5/14/2010

Rating:
PG-13 (for violence including intense sequences of warfare, and some sexual content)

Running Time:
140min. (2h. 20m.)

IMDb Info and Rating:
7.2 (as of 5/17/10)
IMDb Link...

Rotten Tomatoes:
Fresh:84 Rotten:102 (45% as of 5/17/10)
RT Link...

Metacritic:
54 metascore ('Mixed or average reviews' as of 5/17/10)
Meta Link...

Trailer:
<object width="450" height="242"><param name="movie" value="http://www.traileraddict.com/emd/21921"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.traileraddict.com/emd/21921" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" wmode="transparent" width="450" height="242" allowFullScreen="true"></embed></object>

Poster Art:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/43737/robin-hood-2010/

Rotten Tomatoes:
Fresh:71 Rotten:82 (46% as of 5/14/10)
RT Link...

I thought it was decent but I'm sure somewhere Ridley has a 3.5 hour R rated cut lying around that is going to be the movie I actually wanted to see - hell, this movie actually sets up the movie I would have rather seen. Things just sort of happen without the audience really getting invested or giving a shit - and some of the moments in the last act are laugh out loud bad. If you like Scott's style, this is more of the same, not a whole lot new brought to the table and worth a matinee at best. I'll say 3/5 stars (more like 2.75) because I'm feeling generous, but I'm sure if there is a director's cut it could easily be a 4-4.5 star flick.... and be assured, those looking for a ROBIN HOOD movie will be disappointed - this is the ORIGIN story that sets up the movie we all WANTED to see (and the story we know).

I just got back from seeing ROBIN HOOD. It's a solid good movie. Nothing special, just solid. Nothing Oscar-worthy or at the level of Gladiator, just solid! I gave it 3 out of 5 stars or an 8 out of 10 stars. This is basically a great Robin Hood prequel which is serious, exciting, and has great characters even though they are 2-dimensional. I thought this was more like Braveheart Lite w/Ewoks (you'll know what i'm talking about when you see the film).

I actually dozed off during the Robin Hood/Cate Blanchett/Max Von Snydow second act scenes, but it picks right back up in the third act.

What hurt this movie most was Cate Blanchett. This was one of her ugly movies (she goes back and forth, but I think her last hot movie was Notes on a Scandal). She's a good actress, but she's cold, wooden, pale-face witchy, big-nosed actress that is not aging well. This is the same reason I can't watch Benjamin Button again.The movie would have been better with a hotter bustier actress, or even Rachel Weisz or someone along those lines. Everyone else was awesome especially the merry men, Friar Tuck, Danny Huston, Oscar Isaac, and Mathew Macfadyen. Russell Crowe was as good as he can be with a poorly written character, but he's certainly the most bad-ass Robin Hood I've ever seen. Mark Strong was decent, but he's starting to be overkill in movies already.

PROS:
1. 80 % exciting movie
2. exciting non-CGI battle scenes
3. all the actors were excellent except Cate Blanchett
4. Robin's merry men were awesome
5. Russell Crowe is buff and not fat
6. great direction
7. In his small role, Mathew Macfayden was practically doing a great impersonation of a young Alan Rickman (who was the Sheriff in Costner's Robin Hood film).

CONS:
1. 20 % boring ass movie (the scenes with Robin, Marion, and/or Max Von Syndow)
2. Cate Blanchett threw everything off, especially during the mouth-to-mouth resuscitation kissing scenes.

NOT SURE:
1. Ewoks (but they did kick ass in the final battle)

It's not a bad film as everyone says. I really think people's expectations were all over the place with this one. This is way better than the Kevin Costner film. I won't buy this on DVD or blu-ray, but if Ridley does a Director's Cut with this film, then I probably will buy it.

Nice review... but your rating system does not compute.

8 out of 10 would equal 4 out of 5 stars.
3 out of 5 stars would equal 6 out of 10.

So after averaging out your ratings you're actually giving it 3.5 stars or 7 out of 10.

I don't imagine this thread will be too active. I love Ridley Scott but this movie just doesn't have the "must see it now in the theater" feel to it. I'll see what some of the comments are here and maybe I'll change my mind.

something like that!

This might be the most inconsistant review I've ever read. How can a movie be solid, yet nothing special, but great & make you fall asleep? I guess I'm just weird and have a different meaning of what the word "great" means.

I hope you didn't drive home in your condition!

Overall, I found "Robin Hood" to be a little too drabby, but with its intentions to "keep it real" in the setting of the late 1190's, the look of the film would tend to have a faded out color palette. It's almost too dreary at times, characters have poor dental hygiene and big smiles at times, and the criss-crossing of character motivations is very bland and one-note, as well as the plot momentum sputtering and eventual climax of the final act not as satisfying as I'd hope for in this genre of movie. The script just isn't as economical enough.

I'd hope Robin's merry men had a little more to do, the film's midsection sags quite a bit for a film with a 140 minute running time, and it feels all of that amount of time by the end, all in an effort to set the table for the stakes at the end, but it never feels all that involving or entertaining. Not sure if I bought into the chemistry between Russell and Cate Blanchette as Robin Hood and Maid Marian, and that's a big chunk of "getting it right" when it comes to the Robin Hood stories, I think.

Direction-wise, Ridley Scott seemed much looser in shot selection, relied on the Gladiator-like action footage style for some degree in the battle sequences, but not as a crutch, but the scenes played out as awkwardly as he probably intended, battles were messy.

I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.

Reviews here have mostly convinced me I would be better off skipping this one. This gives off a Kingdom of Heaven Theatrical Cut vibe, which I found underwhelming.

Question for those that have seen it: I am a major Ridley Scott fan, and love to see his stuff on the big screen, and I will say that sometimes his work tends to polarize critics for not having enough character over visuals. However, I found some of his movies that got critical drubbings to be not too bad. I loved Black Rain, and thought Body of Lies wasn't that shabby overall, though not great. I guess what I'm asking is whether or not this movie is on the level of those movies. If so, I might still check it out.

http://movies.insidepulse.com/2010/0...n-hood-review/

Gave it 2.5 stars, but told readers that you should forget the origin and stick with the adventures.

I liked it, thought it was pretty entertaining... Was the first movie in this style in a while where I wasn't looking at my watch. Really enjoyed the final battle especially the last shot which was pretty entertaining. Glad it was a little different. Liked that it was more of an origin story (which when done with Alice in Wonderland failed miserably).

I like your take on the film; while there were certain aspects I didn't like; historical rewrite, Marion's martial ambitions, the fact it stopped right at the beginning of the legend... I still think this was a worthy addition to the overall body of work on the Legend.

Saw it Friday and one problem is that I feel that it's the lead up to another film where we get what we want from a Robin Hood film, which is the legend that we know.

I don't know if Robin Hood is on that level, because I'd need to see it again. And that's my second problem, as I wouldn't put it past Scott that there is a directors cut of Robin Hood that will be better than that theatrical cut. I remember seeing the TC of Kingdom of Heaven and really disliking it, then seeing the DC and wondering what the hell they were thinking releasing TC and not the DC to start off with because it's a ten times better film. And Black Rain as a police thriller isn't a bad film. There are a lot of people that forget that Scott made that film.

so ...hows russel crowe's irish accent in the movie????????

Saw it last night. It's competent, but someone like Ridley Scott should aim higher for that. It's basically two and a half hours of shit that you've already seen in other historical action movies. Storming of the castle, hero delivers boring, long-winded speech, archers line up and fire millions of arrows that rain down on enemies, etc.

It's biggest problem is that it isn't any FUN. Why make a Robin Hood movie if you're not going to have any fun with it?

Well I enjoyed it, a lot! JeffyPop, "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Gladiator" weren't "fun" movies either. And I liked both of those a great deal too. Actually think the DC of "KOH" gets better with each viewing. And is much much better than "Gladiator". Back to "RH", my only gripe is the length. It could and should have been trimmed back to 120 minutes, tops. But I'd give the film a 8 or 8.5/10

I don't have a problem with serious movies; it's pretty much what I expect from Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe. However, isn't the whole point of Robin Hood is that there's supposed to be some sense of fun involved?

Exactly. That's why I'm not bothering with this. The best Robin Hood movies are bright and fun.

Also, after seeing John Woo's Red Cliff a few months back, I couldn't help but think the battle scenes in this looked puny and underwhelming in comparison.

You just can't top Errol Flynn. 70 years on, that movie is still a hell of a lot of fun.

so how many more mediocre movies does Scott have to make before folks start to admit he's a bit of a one-trick pony and a hack? I'm more and more convinced he blew his load on Alien and Blade Runner and everything since has ranged from terrible to meh. I'm certainly not in the Gladiator fan club, and the only one i'd perhaps put above meh is Blackhawk Down, but even that has some serious issues. It's time people realized he's a lot closer to Michael Bay...except he likes flying historical dirt more than robots and cars.

Saw it, despite my better judgment. I have to give Ridley Scott credit, he can create a world for a movie unlike any other director I have ever seen. I have yet to see an epic by him that doesn't pull you in and entrench you in the story's environment. However, the story itself can sometimes leave much to be desired. Such is the case with this one. The first third and last third were impressive, and I really liked the closing credits sequence with the animation. But the middle of the movie was so boring that by the time something important happened I was confused because my interest had faded.

While I don't think this is a great movie, part of me wants it to do well enough to merit a sequel so I can actually see the movie I wanted.

On a side note, one could take Kingdom of Heaven, this movie, and 1492 for somewhat of a Crusades trilogy. (1492 occurs right as they are winding down after 400 years.)