Download, Watch online Robin Hood Movie.

James Verniere 18 May 2012

In a partial attempt to relive the glory of "Gladiator" (2000), director Scott and star Russell Crowe reunite for another go at the period action-adventure with this reboot of the tale of Robin "the Hood" and his "merrier" men.

davideo-2 17 May 2012

More historically accurate, but dull latest adaptation of folk legend

STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning** Sunday Night * Monday Morning With well known franchises being the in thing in recessionaryHollywood, there couldn't have been a better time for the release ofRidley Scott's latest, his take on the Nottingham legend that hasinspired tales for centuries. With a lavish budget and epic scalebehind it, it's the type of thing with clout that ensures a more thanmodest take at the box office and, since he's a director they warm to,maybe a chance at the Oscars. Reuniting with frequent collaboratorRussell Crowe in the title role, Scott's version delves deeper into theworld surrounding the legendary hero, with a mounting tension andthreat of invasion with France, a treacherous servant of the crown(Mark Addy) and a philandering, arrogant upstart Sheriff of Nottingham(Matthew McFadyen.) Actually, the story's too complicated, with toomuch going on and too much information trying to be processed, so it'snever that easy to follow and at well over two hours a bit of a choreto sit through once the gist of things has lost you.On the plus side, it all feels like it bears more reality to the timeand place it's set in, everything feeling more authentic and realcompared to the most recent depiction in the shape of Kevin Reynolds'scorny 1991 offering, with Kevin Costner keeping his American accent(?!?) and Brian Adams's laugh worthy Everything I Do (I Do It For You)hitting the top of the charts. By contrast, lead star Crowe is amongmany in the cast to display a fine linguistic grasp of thenorthern/midlands dialect of Nottingham. Those looking for fine periodsetting and historically accurate description won't be disappointed.The trouble is, none of it is any fun, and it all feels too dull andheavy to entertain. Once again, Scott hasn't done things by halves andhis typical grey, humourless style is in evidence, making it all evenmore boring. It's like Gladiator on tamazepam, the same team but aduller, flatter result, for all it's battle scenes and jostling, mostlyjust of interest to history buffs with an affinity for an old style ofcinema. **

Steven D. Greydanus 16 May 2012

I'm just so sick of this. This grim, joyless, faux-realist medieval world … movies in this King Arthur / Kingdom of Heaven mold that seem almost entirely lacking in sympathy and affection for their hero's world.

16 May 2012

I think Spielberg must have been paid off...

This review is from: Robin Hood (Unrated) (Amazon Instant Video) Why three stars, & not two? Really, because I have come to expect nothing more from Hollywood. I paid 99 cents to rent this for two days. I seriously doubt I'll watch it a second time. This film has many problems: Conflicting sub-plots & conflicting character portrayals are but two of them. The real killer is the Normandy beach invasion. They stole virtually everything but the lines from the opening scenes of Ryan. Higgins boats that defy all known laws of physics... I was howling watching that. Russell Crow played his only main character: Gladiator/Lucky Jack/& now Robin Hood. So what? This film didn't do well in the box office because of this. Russell is capable of acting. I've seen films where he does a good job of playing different characters. It's a poor reflection on him to keep taking these same parts. Not_fer_nuttin, but he has already poorly reflected upon himself enough over the years... I paid 99 cents for the imagery. I usually don't write spoilers. This pic is so predictably bad, though. That, in this case. I don't give it the respect of not doing so. Thanks for letting me watch it cheaply, Amazon.

Gordon-11 12 May 2012

An epic tale falling flat

This film is about the life of an archer Robin Longstride, and his epicjourney to stop the french from conquering England.I have always thought that "Robin Hood" steals from the rich and giveto the poor. Apparently he does not, but instead helps a poor Englishnobleman from having his fortune confiscated. I think the story tellingin "Robin Hood" is rather inferior in the first half in the beginning.So many events are poorly explained, and characters are not wellintroduced and developed either. The amazing battle scenes at the endof the film do not marvel me, and they do not make me grasp for breatheither. In fact, I don't find myself care for any of the characters orevents. As a historical epic, "Robin Hood" fails to captivate, and doesnot attain an emotional highpoint that is critical for its success.

12 May 2012

Honest and Insightful

Ridley Scott has once again shown his mastery at laying down historic based fable in an artful and honest manner. The Robin Hood story has never been told so truthful and with such humanity. If your not familiar with Ridley Scott's work its time to invest.

bocafan 06 May 2012

The Next Remake of Robin Hood....he's a tranny.

Once upon a time when boys played with cap guns and girls played withdolls, there was a TV show that came on around dinner time..."TheAdventures of Robin Hood" starring Richard Greene. Robin Hood was anarcher who was the leader of his merry men....running around the woodsshooting arrows and doing good things for others. We all loved it.Fifty years later, we came to this Robin Hood. Wow. Robin Hood is animposter. Maid Marion not only is a great archer but has her own set ofchain mail. Whoever wrote this has to be a member of the NewCastrati....what's next??? Robin Hood is a tranny???? I don't even wantto address someone's idea of the Magna Carta.

06 May 2012

Too old for Robin & Marion?

This review is from: Robin Hood (Single-Disc Unrated Director's Cut) (DVD) By now you have no doubt read all the comments stating that Russell Crowe is too old and fat to be Robin Hood and Cate Blanchett mis-cast as a middle-aged Maid Marion. For those that are bothered by such things as this, I suppose these are valid reasons to criticize the movie. On the other hand, if you are a movie viewer whose main incentive to attend any movie is to see a good tale, well told, then this movie is for you. It is a wonderful story best described as a prologue to the legend that we know so well. It takes nothing away from the legend but adds much. Ridley Scott produces marvelous images. His films are always visually arresting. "Robin Hood" is full of beautiful scenes and even the brutal battle segments are eye candy. There is not a poorly acted character in the movie. Crowe and Blanchett are superb in their parts and Oscar Isaac is a truly nefarious and duplicitous King John. For those that complain about the length, I can only say that their attention span must be compromised. I was sorry the film ended as it kept me enthralled for the entire run time. Highly recommended.

05 May 2012

Robin Hood: The Official Fanfiction in Movie Form

I give this one out of two stars for the gorgeous visuals, and the other star for Oscar Isaac's performance. Both managed to save this movie from getting a 0/5.But today I went to go see the movie, especially after months of hype; it was directed by Ridley Scott and had Russell Crowe, and it was the long awaited Robin Hood. When I saw the ad with on the Superbowl, I got all hyped up and excited. It looked like it was going to be an awesome reimagining of an epic.Instead... we got basically a very derivative and boring movie about some emo dude named Robin Hood. That's basically about it.First off, WHERE IS ROBIN HOOD??? Robin Hood should be fun, adventurous, he's basically the James Bond of the 12th century. Prince of Thieves did a way better job at portraying the character. Instead we get a whiny and angsty emo guy named Robin Hood who grumbles his way through the movie.Second, there's way too much going on. There's at least 30 different story lines, like... well, the king dies, the new King John has been appointed the throne, Robin has managed to flee back to England, the French are planning an invasion, etc. Yawn. There's so much going that it's hard to keep track of what goes on. Too many subplots, too many characters, etc.Also, the movie is very derivative. Let's see: Where did the landing on the beach towards the end as well as the battle come from? Oh that's right! Saving Private Ryan. Where did all those pre-battle "speeches" come from? Oh that's right! Braveheart. Where did the so-called Robin come from? Oh that's right! Gladiator! Huzzah for recycling!!! Cause after all, movies are environmentally friendly too!The action scenes were very poorly done. It seems like Scott went to the team: "Oh yeah, so ya know. Shake the camera, splash water everywhere, throw some fake blood everywhere, have people jump around clanging their swords, and stuff like that." "Cool, nobody can see what's going on!" Most importantly, the movie was just plain... too long. I have indeed seen longer movies but seriously, this is just long. At least 30 minutes should be trimmed. There are tons of scenes that don't have anything to do with the plot and even more importantly, too many subplots and characters, half of which could be cut, and the end, the movie is just forgettable to the point where you won't even remember how the movie opens.In short, this movie was an utter disaster on Scott's part, and was in general, frustrating to watch. I still can't get over how frustrating it was.

Red Rat 05 May 2012

No problem for the lawyers

ROBIN HOOD This review contains a spoiler.As I sat down to watch this film, my first thought was; 'why wouldanyone remake Robin Hood?, after all it's been done 100 times already,what is there you can possibly do that's different? If anyone can bringsomething new to the story then I guess Ridley Scott can".In many ways I was right, Ridley Scott did indeed bring something new,and at the same time there is nothing you can do to the story of RobinHood. Perplexing? The film itself is a good film. The set and costumedesign is fantastic carrying the audience back to the middle ageswithout being all 'middle earth'. The pace at first is quite slow butinteresting as Scott reverts back to the long lost art of storytelling, beginning in France at the tail end of a crusade he does pullyou into a fabulously woven story. There's a wonderful scene where thelead character and his band of men are rowed down the Thames to anunknown palace to present the crown of King Richard the Lion Heart toQueen Eleanor. Then we are whisked away to rural Nottingham andintroduced to it's citizens including the blind but deft Sir WalterLoxley. Adopted by the elder man as his son, Robin becomes part of thecommunity and when the barons of Northern England are called together,Robin attends on behalf of Loxley. The film which had very much been apreamble through the open fields of England suddenly takes a turn.Robin, a lowly archer is now in command of an army, and speaking toKnights and Lords as their equal, even interrupting the King in public.As the French attempt to invade, an immense battle takes place on thebeaches of southern England, hand to hand fighting, wielded axes cutthrough chainmail, arrows pierce the air, one man, possibly Harold,takes on in the eye, horses buck and their riders fall to the bloodiedsand. The English occupy the high ground and despite charging onto thebeach beneath their own archers arrows, battle is a slaughter, theFrench turn and retreat, England is saved.Finally when the dust has settled, the peasants and surf returned totheir villages, the Barons and landed gentry meet with King John at ..(Runnymede possibly.. We're not told) to sign the Magna Carte, at thesame time, the Sheriff of Nottingham pins a note upon an ancient oaktree, that Robin Longstride is an outlaw and abruptly the film ends….And so we are told, the legend begins….For the most part a well told story, and as expected from Ridley Scotta wonderfully shot film. However… the story told is nothing to do withthe actual legend of Robin Hood, whilst the main body of the film wasgood, until the rushed and ridiculous fight scenes at the end, you justspent the entire film thinking 'what does this have to do with RobinHood?" Then to end it with a closing shot of an old hand calligraphedparchment saying .."And so the Legend begins" is not just absurd, butinsulting, yes 'The legend" the 'real' legend of the real RobinLongstride, known as Robin of the Hood. Isn't that what we sat down towatch? Not some made up fictitious nonsensical film which serves onlyas a 'taster' for the inevitable sequel. Talk about a scam.. Gettingripped off. This film is the celluloid equivalent of being sold swampland in Louisiana.I would expect a director to start with a 'fill in the background'story tracing Robin's steps from the Crusades back to Nottingham andexplaining what drove him to become the outlaw he did as that is anintegral part of the story, but Ridley Scott could have told that in 20minutes, and should have told it with historical accuracy. What wedidn't need was an entire film to be a fictitious background story.Clearly it's made for the US audience who in general can probably sitin large numbers and watch an epic tale of olde not noticing theinaccuracies. Nor are they likely to notice that Russell Crowe's accentis that of a relatively unknown regional dialect from midway betweenthe Lancastrian town of Annoy and a small Northumbrian village calledDistract. It is in fact a mix of an Annoying and Distracting accent, amasterful interpretation by Crowe.For us Brits though from the beginning to the end you can pick bothhistorical and geographical faults with this film, and that wonderfulscene of Robin rowing down the Thames to present the crown of the deadKing Richard to his mother, do we really need to go into that? It issimply pointless mentioning any of the inaccuracies as the entire filmis so outrageously far fetched that honestly Ridley Scott would havebeen much better off just inventing a lead character's name, 'SirEthelred Longshadow' and calling the film "A Tale of Ye Olde MiddleEngland" perhaps. That way without preconceptions or any subconsciousassociations to factual history I probably would have enjoyed the film.At the end, 2hrs and 29mins, during the end credits it said 'Thecharacters and events depicted in this photoplay are fictitious, anysimilarity to any persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental' …well luckily for the lawyers, even though Robin Hood, King John et alwere real people, in this film there was no similarity.3/10

kleinjoeng 02 May 2012

strange experience

What an abomination. This was the greatest disappointment in 5 years Igot from a movie I was eager to see. Some critics I respect said nicethings about it, I guess this makes it kinda weird. It was terrible.Gruesome even. Can't understand how so much money was obtained to makethis film. The beginning, is quite alright. But as the films growslonger, you're staring to wonder how the people in this movie arefeeling. There are no characters. None. Even robin stays as shallow asan ashtray. The biggest disappointment is that there are only two partswhere robin actually shows any bow-skills. The ending reminded me ofwarmovies representing d-day, but it didn't make any sense. There isalso a particular scene where a french soldier holds a torch against awooden column supporting a house and it lights up in flames like if itwas drenched in gasoline. It does make you realize how hard it is tomake a good movie tough. Which is why I gave it one star.

JeffersonCody 02 May 2012

Rather disappointing.

"Robin Hood" (2010): (Rating: An extremely generous 6 out of 10)."Robin Hood" plays like a supposedly commercially cunning stylisticcross between "Gladiator", "Saving Private Ryan" and "Batman Begins".Okay, so it's a prequel, an origin story and Sir Ridley and Russellobviously hope it will be the first part of a trilogy. Shame on them.Do they need the money so badly? Ignoring the heart and soul of anenduring and inspiring romantic legend, these buggers have aimed theirarrows squarely at the wallets of the mass market and gone for thelowest common denominator. One film pleases all, so to speak. Andsadly, a lot of undiscriminating modern cinema-goers will enjoy whatthey have served up.The new "Robin Hood" was, for me, a bitterly disappointing film and,with a running length of nearly 150-minutes, a sometimes boring onetoo. It's big and sprawling, and, with Sir Ridley at the helm, it iscertainly well made on a technical level. But does it have heart andsoul and emotion and a stirring story? No ways. After about 120 longminutes we get the French invading Britain in an expensive, GGI-ladenaction sequence which seems to have been inspired by the Normandylanding scenes in "Saving Private Ryan". What it is this? Sir Ridley'shomage to the Spielberg flick. Only, instead of machine gun bulletstracing through the water as soldiers stumble across the sand at thebottom of the sea trying to avoid a rain of death, it is arrows.Then, five minutes before the picture ends, the story I wanted to seefinally arrives on the screen. But shorty after this, the words "And sothe legend begins" appear, and the movie ends.I'm a fan of Russell Crowe and I thoroughly his performances in filmssuch as "Romper Stomper", "LA Confidential", "Gladiator", "Master andCommander: The Far Side of the World", "Cinderella Man", "The Insider"and "The Sum of Us". Hell, i even enjoyed his work in "State of Play"and the remake of "3.10 to Yuma".But his surly Robin Longstride, the man who will perhaps - if thispicture makes enough money to allow the sequel to be made - become theRobin Hood we know and love, is not one of his finest screen moments.The character is merely another figure in a sprawling cinematiclandscape created by Sir Ridley. He never registers on an emotionallevel, and Crowe,IMO, despite looking fairly buff, is too old for thepart. What a waste of a good actor.Blanchett, who I also enjoy, fares slightly better, but she is miscastin an underwritten role. Her Maid Marion is an interesting creation,but we never get to now her well enough. Even the Sheriff of Nottingham(an ineffectual Matthew Macfadyen - looking like a chubby version ofDermot Mulroney) is a minor character in the picture.In the supporting cast, Mark Strong - as the wicked Godfrey, and MaxVon Sydow as the blind Sir Walter Loxley, have their moments, andEileen Atkins is good in her few scenes. Then there are Mark Addey(Friar Tuck) and Kevin Durand ( Little John) who are, I presume,supposed to be the comic relief. Not that I laughed much. Danny Hustondoesn't exactly shine as King Richard the Lionheart either. And WilliamHurt is wasted as William Marshal.I saw "Robin Hood" in South Africa. The cinema was surprisingly fulland the multiplex mob seemed to enjoy the film. But I found it an utterdisappointment, It didn't stir me, it didn't amuse me and it didn'tthrill me. And I'm usually quite easily to please. "Robin Hood" isnothing more than an expensive attempt to steal from the poor anddesperate (cinemagoers), who will go looking for spectacle andexcitement in all the wrong places. Isn't a film like this supposed tobring joy to the poor and downtrodden.It seems as if they wanted to pull in the "Gladiator" crowd. But thatwas silly because this film suffers hugely by comparison, as doesCrowe's performance.Watching this version of the tale, only made me ache for Errol Flynnand Olivia De Havilland in "The Adventures of Robin Hood", now that wasa Robin Hood picture. "Robin and Marion", the Lester flick, was alsomore romantic than this current version. Hell, even the Costner versionwas more fun. Boo.While I didn't enjoy "Robin Hood", it still looks likely to pull inabout $300 worldwide, so sequels could still be on the cards. In myheart of hearts, however - and it pains me to say this, I hope it doesnot do sufficient numbers to generate sequels.I saw "Robin Hood" a day after watching Miley Cyrus in "The Last Song".So I thought, how bad can it be?" Sir Ridley, Cate, Russell in warriormode. it can only be an improvement on The Last Song". Sadly, itwasn't. At least "The Last Song" was shorter.If anybody with a passion for cinema lusts to see this film, I wouldsuggest they wait for the DVD release, and then approach it with lowexpectations. Very low expectations! I suppose the upside is that Ididn't have to pay to watch the film. But even that brings me littlecheer.

Tom Huddleston 25 April 2012

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.

24 April 2012

A more realistic Robin Hood

This movie is an excellent rendition of Robin Hood. Russell Crowe is excellent as his usual rugged, stoic, tough guy image. The story line is quite different yet shows a truer picture of 12th century existence. When comparing this to previous iterations of the story, keep in mind the time period/ story of this movie predates more familiar versions. When this movie is released on DVD it will take its place alongside other Russell Crowe classics that have become favorites: Gladiator and Master & Commander. Robin Hood sits comfortably alongside those classics as films well worth watching.

suzanne-maeker 20 April 2012

Don't miss it!

Thought it was excellent. Am not so picky about accents and RussellCrowe was a gladiator again! Went to see it with others who alsothought it was a really good movie. All the characters were wonderful,especially a sad and funny Sir Walter Locksley and a feisty MaidMarian. This movie was more historically correct and did notromanticize the lives of the people of the time. This story was thesame in some ways (with all the familiar characters)but very differentin other ways. Thought it had just the right balance of battle and plotscenes. Liked the way it started and also the way it ended. So muchbetter than Iron Man 2....ugh!

pcgray77 20 April 2012

....wait for this one on a pirated DVD...you ought to be PAID to watch it.

I have been a confirmed RS fan since Blade Runner. His ability todepict alternate places and times, and make entertaining action filmsnot devoid of intellectual content is refreshing. With Robin Hoodsomething went terribly wrong. The movie appears at first be going intothe backside of the legend. Recall Richard comes back to England, andthen promptly goes on another Crusade from which he doesn't come back(with zany consequences....Magna Carta). From the point at whichRichard is killed, the plot falls apart. The only thing I can think isthat because of the high dollar talent something happened with thestudio. The fact that the storyboard images shown during the creditscontain content not contain in the film itself might be a clue. Thewhole film gives one the feel of having been painted into a corner.

ishjtar 17 April 2012

A missed chance

I went to see this movie in the hope to be immerged in the medievalatmosphere for a few hours and to see a story combining intrigue andepic battle in a historical setting. Alas, I was to be disappointed.(1) The battle scenes failed to satisfy my hunger for blood. The siegeof the castle was well portrayed by alas too short. The final battledid not come across very epic and missed a tension bow. (2) I do notoppose to humor in a historical movie but here the writers made truecaricatures of the sheriff and king John. (3) Lady Marion was clearlyinspired by LOTR. A strong woman okay, but actively participating inbattle ? Come on, that's just not believable. (4) The philosophicalintermezzo with father stonemason being the mind behind the magnacharta was just not believable and plain boring. It should not havemade the final cut. (5) Some scenes are not believable. Child warriorsriding ponies ? All nobles immediately agree to have an unknown manlead their army ? A bowman who wields the sword as good as a trainedknight ? (6) The ending of the movie is too Hollywood perfect andtherefore lacks dramatic strength. (7) Lastly, because for most readersprobably least important : Historical flaws : King Richard took anarrow in the shoulder, not in the throat, and he died several daysafter, not immediately. In middle ages by superstition people sleptsitting instead of lying down. Therefore Marion's bed was too long.Etc. In conclusion : With the same budget but a more intelligent scripta far better movie could have been made. A missed chance.

17 April 2012

Good acting, But lakluster acdtion

This review is from: Robin Hood (Single-Disc Unrated Director's Cut) (DVD) There have been si many robinhood remakes, this is one of the best. It beats the Robin Hood with Kevin Costner hands down. With Russle Crowe as Robinhood and Katr Bachette as Mariam, they seem to blend well in this film. What a great ensamble of top notch actors, that made the film work, however, sadly the action scenes fell flat. It was very interesting take on Richard the LionHearted, howeer the action was slaow and tedious. I felt the movie was worth buying, just beacause I like the actors. but for action it was dissapointing. The merry man were actually merry, but it was a tempered merry. They sujng songs and danced. I thought one part of the film were the introduced some youngsters as thieves was reminiscience of the planet Ewok, from Star Wars.....Yuu'll know the scens that I am talking about when you see the movie........ Rent it first to see if you like it....I found it to be just ok...........

Keith Cohen 13 April 2012

The cast of veteran actors do their job in a workmanlike manner and maintain the serious mood. Other strengths are the medieval costumes and...

Simon Miraudo 12 April 2012

Scott's adaptation ... [is] about separating the legend from the man; it's about bringing Robin of the Hood out of the stratosphere of adulation and presenting him as a regular, human man.