The untold story of the man behind the legend.A thrilling action adventure with Academy Award® winner Russell Crowe and director Ridley Scott at their most entertaining since Gladiator."
© 2010 Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.
- buy from $7.99
- rent from $2.99
special offeraction sale
Big bow-and-arrow action in powerful redo of classic tale.
what parents need to know
what families can talk about
Tomatometer®reviews counted: 30see all Robin Hood reviews
Top Critic Reviews
Rotten: There is a whole lot of meanwhile in this crowded, lumbering film.
- A.O. Scott, New York Times, Friday, May 14, 2010
Fresh: Despite its abundant flaws and historical howlers and generally dimwitted tone, Robin Hood is a surprisingly enjoyable work of popcorn cinema, if you're willing to take it on its own terms.
- Andrew O'Hehir, Salon.com, Thursday, May 13, 2010
Rotten: Its $200-million budget is on the screen. This is a big-scale ambitious period epic in the 60s grand tradition. It seeks to retell a well-worn tale, to put old wine in a shiny new bottle.
- Anne Thompson, indieWIRE, Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Where Michael Curtiz' more famous version was long on the fable of the forest outlaw who shook up the reigning powers-that-were, Ridley Scott injects his version with Middle Age facts and realities making for a grimier fable, more muscular. A lot of the fun is here too, the Merrie Men bawdier, the women lustier, and the politics probably, more accurately, bloodier.
- ApeneckFletcher, Friday, May 11, 2012
Robin Hood is a huge miscalculation from director Ridley Scott. It is a pompous and loud film where every character feels like a caricature without any depth or emotion. One of Scott's biggest flaws in filmmaking has often been style over substance. His films usually look glorious but they lack good screenplay. Only films like Blade Runner, Kingdom of Heaven or American Gangster has matched Scott's visuals in terms of screenplay. With Robin Hood Scott has made a film which is not only lacking a depth but also his visual eye. It feels like a film made by any average director. Gone are the stunning images or his ability to capture light and shadow. It actually makes you think if it were directed by Scott at all. It is like a film assembled from the leftovers of other epics like these. Even the climatic beach battle turns out to be cliched slow-motion stuff full of pointless quick editing and herky jerky camera. This is a film that makes me wonder that what the hell happened to that good old Ridley Scott who made films like Blade Runner, Legend and Kingdom of Heaven. Robin Hood is Scott's worst film among his own Matchstick Men and White Squall.
- emilkakko, Sunday, March 4, 2012
An English archer returned from the crusades adopts the identity of a fallen nobleman and becomes embroiled in the prevention of a civil war to unite against a French invasion. Little did I know that Robin Hood was not in fact a fictional highwayman who lived in Sherwood forest, but actually the inventor of the Magna Carta who single-handedly repelled a French invasion. I feel positively educated. It's a shame the script of Robin Hood degenerated into theme park history absurdity because for the first half of the film it struck just the right balance of plausibility and adventure. Of course it takes Braveheart style liberties with history but it stayed just the right side of willing suspension and the likeable performances and gritty action sequences made for rousing medieval adventure. Unfortunately, as the plot gets more and more preposterous it overshadows everything that's good about the film. It's still a very well made film that is certainly a far better interpretation of the legend than has been attempted for decades but it falls well short of delivering on its early promise. not bad but it could've - and should've - been so much better.
- garyX, Wednesday, February 1, 2012