Robin Hood 2010

Critics score:
43 / 100

Reviews provided by RottenTomatoes

Amy Nicholson, I.E. Weekly: If 200 arrows fly through the woods, do they make a sound? Read more

Todd McCarthy, indieWIRE: The villains here chart new territory in one-dimensionality, the essential storyline is bereft of surprise and the picture ends where most Robin Hood tales -- sensibly, as it turns out -- begin. Read more

Christy Lemire, Associated Press: The world probably didn't need another version of this famous tale, even though it arrives with outstanding production values and an impeccable pedigree. Read more

Roger Moore, Orlando Sentinel: A dark and brawny version of the Robin Hood legend that anchors itself in English history and loses some of the merriment in the process. Read more

Rene Rodriguez, Miami Herald: Robin Hood achieves something you never would have thought possible: it makes you nostalgic for Kevin Costner and Bryan Adams. Read more

Kathleen Murphy, MSN Movies: The action's here, there, and everywhere... but all this to-ing and fro-ing fails to advance the narrative with the compelling force you crave in movies. Read more

A.O. Scott, New York Times: There is a whole lot of meanwhile in this crowded, lumbering film. Read more

David Edelstein, New York Magazine/Vulture: Robin and Marian are played by a scowling Russell Crowe and a grim Cate Blanchett, who has the face of a wooden squaw stained by decades of cigar smoke. I can't remember a more un-fun-looking couple. Read more

Joe Morgenstern, Wall Street Journal: It's an ersatz epic about men in fights -- grim fights, grinding battles, clanking combats that are repetitive and, in a movie that runs 140 minutes, all but endless. Read more

Moira MacDonald, Seattle Times: Robin Hood turns out to be, despite impressive battle scenes and countless horses, an actor's showcase. Read more

Keith Phipps, AV Club: While Scott is one of the few directors who could field-marshal this sort of spectacle and still deliver a coherent film, simply ending up with a fitfully engaging behemoth of a movie isn't accomplishment enough. Read more

Bill Goodykoontz, Arizona Republic: It's a little too obvious and ham-handed in places to be a really good movie, but any film that lasts two hours and 20 minutes without seeming like a long, hard slog can't be all bad. Read more

Ty Burr, Boston Globe: It doesn't breathe new life into a genre as did Gladiator, Scott's first pairing with Russell Crowe, but it's a brawny reimagining of a beloved old myth, a period popcorn movie turned out with professionalism and gusto. Read more

J. R. Jones, Chicago Reader: As in so many summer behemoths, the real stars are the projectiles-in this case, arrows with their own point-of-view shots, zipping through the air and finding their targets with pinpoint accuracy. Read more

Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune: I liked it. It's on a par with Scott's American Gangster: No revelations, but a satisfying, large-scale genre movie, toned up by its cast. Read more

Peter Rainer, Christian Science Monitor: We never even get to see Robin steal from the rich and give to the poor. That's because the film is a prequel in search of a sequel. With any luck, we won't get one. Read more

Tom Maurstad, Dallas Morning News: It's a resolutely grim and grubby lesson in 13th-century British history filtered through all the requisite trademarks of a summer blockbuster. Read more

Tom Long, Detroit News: If it's sword-on-sword with arrows-in-the-air action you want, Robin Hood delivers in a big way. Read more

Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly: I'm all for a new take on an old story. But Scott and his screenwriter, Brian Helgeland, work so mightily to turn Robin 
 into a stolidly noble, pre-notorious version of himself that they forget to make him at all magical. Rousing. A hero of the gle Read more

Laremy Legel, The film is pretty, and there are a few solid moments every hour. But considered as a work of cinema, with paid professionals involved, it's an extremely lackluster story. Read more

Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times: Simultaneously simplistic and over-plotted, revisionist and predictable... Read more

Randy Myers, San Jose Mercury News: In one unfortunate regard, Ridley Scott's grimy Robin Hood lives up to the actions of its legendary character: It, too, robs -- but just from richer movies. Read more

Anthony Lane, New Yorker: "And so the legend begins," the new movie tells us at the end. But it's too late. Read more

Joe Neumaier, New York Daily News: The problem with Russell Crowe's new take on the legend is that it has one muddy boot in history and the other in fantasy. The middling result is far from a bull's-eye. Read more

Lou Lumenick, New York Post: Robin Hood is head and shoulders above the sort of lightheaded epics Hollywood typically offers during the summer season. Read more

Steven Rea, Philadelphia Inquirer: Robin Hood boasts graphic battle scenes and ingenious intrigue, a sense of history that may not be accurate but feels authentic, and a love story that smartly plays with gender and Hollywood stereotypes. Read more

James Berardinelli, ReelViews: If this truly is Ridley Scott's preferred cut, he has proven unable to justify the existence of yet another Robin Hood film. Read more

Richard Roeper, Richard Yes, it's dour, but it's also gritty and not nearly as silly as most "Robin Hood" adaptations. Read more

Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times: Robin Hood is a high-tech and well made violent action picture using the name of Robin Hood for no better reason than that it's an established brand not protected by copyright. Read more

Peter Travers, Rolling Stone: What this Robin Hood lacks in fun it makes up for in epic sweep. Read more

Andrew O'Hehir, 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. Read more

Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle: Instead of the usual romantic adventure, Scott and screenwriter Brian Helgeland offer a gritty drama, using the Robin Hood story to depict the birth pangs of liberty. They ground the film in the details of medieval life. Read more

Dana Stevens, Slate: Pretty much ill-conceived from the ground up but saved by a couple of strong performances and a wealth of well-researched period detail. Not the most elegant defense, but like the movie, it'll do. Read more

Colin Covert, Minneapolis Star Tribune: Scott's films are usually high on technical polish but iffy in terms of emotional engagement. This one scores on all counts. Read more

Joe Williams, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: A lot of care went into crafting the handsome production but not enough into making the handsome hero come alive. Read more

Rick Groen, Globe and Mail: Damned if those dual spoilsports, the gladiatorial director Ridley Scott reteamed with his portly star Russell Crowe, haven't drained every drop of merriment right out of the myth. Read more

Peter Howell, Toronto Star: The swash buckles under the weight of heavy verbiage in Robin Hood, Ridley Scott's well-intended but weakly executed retelling of the ancient woodland hero legend. Read more

Tom Huddleston, Time Out: The endless plot twists may be perplexing, but they work to make the movie feel eventful and involving: after 140 minutes, audiences will feel like they've been somewhere, lived through something. Read more

Claudia Puig, USA Today: Perhaps the worst, and most shameless, aspect of this tedious affair is that it's essentially a prequel for the Robin Hood better known for his redistribution of wealth. Read more

Justin Chang, Variety: This physically imposing picture brings abundant political-historical dimensions to its epic canvas, yet often seems devoted to stifling whatever pleasure audiences may have derived from the popular legend. Read more

Karina Longworth, Village Voice: The directorial choices are, for the most part, so lazy, the blockbuster engineering so blatant, that Robin Hood often falls into self-parody. Read more

Michael O'Sullivan, Washington Post: The Robin Hood of myth and moviedom is for the most part AWOL. Why should we have to wait until the last five minutes to see Crowe crack a smile, let alone split an arrow? Read more