“Robin Hood” Steals From Moviegoers, Gives to Studio Execs (Review)

Posted by E. Jaffe on 05/17/10 | Filed under Top Stories, Features, Movies

If this isn’t the most detailed review of Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood” that you have read all day then I apologize. The truth is: I don’t remember much about this film. I have a very vivid recollection of how the picture ends but very little of how it begins.

Now, I know what you’re thinking and the answer is no – I did not attend the film under the influence. I mean, c’mon, what kind of critic would I be if I attended screenings wasted? (That reminds me—don’t expect a review for Piranha 3-D. You won’t be getting one.)

The reason I don’t remember the film isn’t because I was drunk, it’s because “Robin Hood” is a complete and utter bore. This needlessly long prelude is missing the one thing that its epically-sized budget could never afford: its heart. "Robin Hood" is not the lovable cartoon of our childhoods. Rather, it is a Hollywood tragedy.

I mean no harm to the reputation of the great Mr. Ridley Scott. Even though “Robin Hood” is a complete mess in terms of plot, Scott’s direction remains the movies highlight. “Robin Hood” is superbly shot, the action sequences are solid, and, from a technical aspect, the film is top notch. Ridley is an excellent director. If you disagree, check out “Alien”. You won’t be disappointed.

The error here is not in the film’s execution but rather in its foundation. Lets be real; the story of robbing the rich and feeding the poor is without a doubt the most interesting aspect of Robin Hood’s legend. The reason no one has ever made a movie on the pre-outlaw Robin Hood until now is because his origins are, for lack of a better word, pointless. I guess Ridley didn’t get the memo.

“Robin Hood” works with the same formula that Scott had mastered with “Gladiator” only, this time around, the screenwriters remove the fun factor and substitute it with two-dimensional characters and a borderline-atrocious plotline that makes me reconsider my “Iron Man 2” review. “Iron Man 2”, despite being cliché, at least managed to hold my attention. I can’t say the same for “Robin Hood”.

Overall, Ridley Scott’s latest epic comes off as a setup for a far superior sequel. However, after this movie flops, that sequel will probably never be made. The film boasts some excellent action sequences but lacks depth and an interesting storyline. “Robin Hood” is a skipper.

Rating: 1.5/4
Skip It
Next Weeks Review: MacGruber

Batman “The Dark Knight Rises” Trailer Sets New Bar for Badassery (Video)

Which Is Worse, Watching These “Gang Of Roses 2” Clips Or Being Attacked By A Gang Of Pitbulls?

You Really Need to See ATCQ’s “Beats, Rhymes & Life” - Now (Movie Review)

Rihanna Featured In The Trailer For “Battleship” A.K.A. The World’s Most Boring Game (Video)

Almost Forgotten	I actually fell asleep so I don't remember the end. Hey, if we combine our memories, we could have a complete movie!
	Posted on May 17, 2010

SimCIty

Just because you don't have the attention span to sit through a movie that isn't completely about blood and guts, doesn't make the movie bad.. it just makes you look like bad as a critic. I think you should at least understand the plot before you condemn it. Every movies isnt for teenie boppers, or at least grown men with equivalent IQ's. If you know anything about medieval times, the crusades or england and its tyrannical past (and present) this movie is a gem. Maybe this guy should stick to writing reviews on material he can digest... I would love to read his reviews of saturday morning cartoons.

Posted on May 17, 2010

E. Jaffe

It's not an issue of not having an attention span to sit through the movie, I've sat through 4 hour films with no problems. "Robin Hood" is just a tediously long film with no redeeming values outside of cinematography.

As for making me look like a "bad critic", please turn your attention to:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/robin_hood_2010/?critic=columns&sortby=rotten&name_order=asc&view;=#contentReviews

When you do that, you will see that the film has received a 45% positive rating from critics nationwide. If you're familiar how Rotten Tomatoes works, you'd know that this means that, out of the 186 professional critics who viewed the film, only 45% found it to be enjoyable (84 people). While this statistic does display a divide between positive and negative reviews, it certainly seems more critics tend to be on my side than yours.

Allow me to grab some quick snippets of "Robin Hood" reviews for you:

"

England and France in the 13th century, a time of injustice and mud. It's the same message one can garner about feudal society from MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL in less time and with a great deal more entertainment value." - New York Times

"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." - USA Today

"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." - Roger Ebert

Sounds very similar to what I said, does it not?

Perhaps it's not me that needs to learn more about medieval times. Maybe it's you that needs to learn more about film making.

In addition, if you truly knew something about medieval times, you'd know that this movie is a work of fiction. Just because it takes place in medieval times doesn't make it a good film. Was "Alexander" a great film too because it took place in the Argead Dynasty?

This is why I write reviews and you just write comments. Have a good day.

Posted on May 17, 2010

Almost Forgotten	@SimCity I'm in the middle of getting my Masters as a Medieval historian.. Don't kid yourself. This movie is NOT all that historically accurate. Although, the WWII inspired landing crafts that the French used got a good el-oh-el out of me.
	Posted on May 17, 2010

Nathan S.

Love the dialogue here. I haven't seen the movie, so I'll have to withhold judgment. I can comment on the fact that the movie exists though.

Ridley Scott: "So Gladiator was a huge hit. Why don't we just do the exact same thing, only set it in the forest or something. Fuck it, how about another Robin Hood remake?"
Russell Crowe (dreaming of buying a new yacht): "Sounds good to me. Let's do it."

Sorry, but as an 80s baby I prefer the Kevin Costner version, even though it's laughably bad now. Nostalgia's a bitch.

Posted on May 18, 2010

SimCIty

All movies take dramatic license and my comment said nothing about the movie being fact based or about the movie being widely accepted by critics. The movie captured the spirit/climate of the times, and was an example of the politics of the day. It placed the story of Robin Hood in the most realistic terms possible... if I could happen.. it would have happened like this. Similar to the other hollywood reboots like batman begins or Casino Royale...that attempt to place our hero's in a realistic realm. And it doesnt matter if a million critics said it was bad.. the only ones that matter are those that can explain WHY it was bad. To do that you would have to first understand the movie.. if you fell asleep or couldnt keep up.. see the movie again or DONT write a review. I wouldn't take a test if I didnt study.. Just because you grab quotes from other critics to make your point for you.. doesnt help your case. Thats plagiarism and just shows you didnt have the chops to make your point clearly for yourself.

Posted on May 18, 2010

E. Jaffe

Alright, so having a similar opinion to some of the top critics in the country is plagiarism. That makes a lot of sense.

Your comments are based on the assumption that I did not understand the movie yet no where in my review did I claim I had difficulty understanding it. I claim it was boring and put me half to sleep. Is it not possible to find something boring and understand it completely? I fail to see the connection.

Your posts are just one huge logical fallacy. In what way did I not qualify my statement that this is a bad movie? I claimed it was boring, I claimed the characters were two-dimensional, and I claimed its needlessly long. Contrary to what you believe, I did see and I did understand the movie. I just didn't like it.

Opinions are like assholes - everybody has one. Yours is just a bit nastier than others.

Posted on May 18, 2010

LMFAO	lmfao at SimCity getting pwned by jaffe and almost forgotten. this movie sucked a big one. i walked out after 45 minutes. waste of my time. no where near as good as gladiator.
	Posted on May 18, 2010

LMFAO	ps. Sim City, why dnt u try to explain why the movie was good. you claim jaffe didn't do a good job but you said anything yourself. you're a hypocrite. also, don't put this in the same league as batman begins or casino royal. robin hood doesn't even compare. even the director will tell you that.
	Posted on May 18, 2010