Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Hayleigh Joseph This is ultimately a movie about the very bad things that can happen when we don't address our unease, when we just try to brush it off, whether that's to fit in or to preserve our self-image.

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

rikkybones-31257 Entertaining film which doesn't really stick to the original legend of Robin Hood. I mean the bulk of the film could have been written about some random person, and you don't see any of the tale of the folk hero until near the end. Having said that, it's not a bad film to watch but not as good as Robin Hood Prince of thieves.

saramgia Completely historically inaccurate. Should have been marketed as pure fantasy and not twisted events and used names of real people and defamed all those people. Even as fiction, it's stupid. Russel Crowe's accents (yes, plural) for the character are derisible.

cinemajesty Movie Review: "Robin Hood" (2010)An early-on World Premiere at Cannes Film Festival in its 63rd Edition, "Robin Hood" reinvented to a medieval-warfare-realism approach by director Ridley Scott delivers action-adventure-entertainment all around with a committed as matching leading couple portrayed by Cate Blanchett as Marion and Russell Crowe as Robin.If the audience expected witches at black masses, they are in the wrong movie. This "Robin Hood" comes closer to Ridley Scott's signature-defining masterpiece "Gladiator" (2000), which nevertheless shows the patience and pacing of a matured director in this one and only 130-Minute theatrical cut by long-term collaborator at Scott Free productions editor Pietro Scalia, sharing massive depth-of-field in fulminate-translated 200-Million-Dollar production budget towards green-dominated rural English landscapes, on-set location of taking action with hand, sword, bow and arrow, accompanied by down-to-earth convincing property as costume designs by Janty Yates.Director Ridley Scott convinced by shooting a Three-Camera-Capturing-System executed to full immersive states of tracking, pushing, pulling and booming camera angles of superior production values by cinematographer John Mathieson preaching utmost hyper-realism in elements of fire, earth and water; decisive moments when "Robin Hood" (2010) is able to exceed the further comic-beats-entertaining "Prince of Thieves" starring Kevin Costner, Morgan Freeman and Alan Rickman as Sheriff of Nottingham of summer 1991. This "Robin Hood" should have been a smash hit of Holiday Season 2010/2011, when a summer-leisure-seeking target audience of the young, beautiful adult identifying with supporting cast was not sufficient conviction in a nevertheless gripping screenplay by Brian Helgeland, blessed in ranging plot-interpretations from actor Oscar Isaac over actress Léa Seydoux to Mark Strong as menacing Robin's character nemesis Godfrey, when acting mastery by William Hurt and Max von Sydow brings additional calmly-received empathetic relations in constant-conflicting, fight-for-your-right characters translated into cold-winter-months pleasures and thrills of several-watches-possible, high-end motion picture entertainment.© 2018 Felix Alexander Dausend (Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC)

generationofswine What we have here is an Ego problem...and that makes Prince of Thieves look great in comparison.But I'll be honest, I can watch Prince of Thieves over and over again. It's a fun movie, so long as you only watch the Alan Rickman parts.But Rickman was kind of out there on his own for most of the film and able to do his own thing and cut loose...while poor Freeman was stuck opposite Costner in every scene and, being a generous man he stepped back and gave Kevin the opportunity to not even attempt to act.Here wen have, again, some pretty good actors and some pretty clever character actors...and Russel Crowe.My issue with a LOT of Crowe movies is that he's not generous like Freeman. He doesn't step back and let others do their thing so the movie will succeed.Crowe hogs as much of every scene as he can and, when he's not directly talking, moves, does things to draw your attention to him and not the other actors.Master and Commander suffered for it. He was probably too afraid to do it opposite Pacino in The Insider, I can see Bale being just as aggressive in 3:10 to Yuma...but in Robin Hood, Crowe is up to his old tricks again.So you have the Russel Crowe show once more and that gets tiresome. It gets tiresome fast.The rule, at least my rule for Crowe movies is simple, if it looks like he's going to be forced to share it will be a great film...if it looks like he can hog it, the movie is going to stink.Robin Hood Stinks