and a lot of violence that caused their rebellion against the king, which should have enabled the French fleet to disembark and conquer London. The film is essentially an adventure film but it is also based on history and it respects that history. The way the King manipulates the rebellious barons to get their help in time to defeat the French on his own beaches is the perfect case of a liar that uses the belief in divine kings of the time only to seize more power and deprive others from any small piece of it. We know it will take fifteen to sixteen years for an alliance to be built between the barons, the church and the merchants of the City of London to force that king John to come to Runnymede and accept to sign the Magna Carta that will change the world, that represents the first step of that vast historical change that we call democracy. Fifteen small years in the heart of feudalism to achieve that phenomenal transformation. And that Magna Carta is so small when measured with our own values that we are amazed by the infinitely small in history. Robin Hood, who is not yet Robin Hood, since the film ends when Robin Longstride is outlawed by John Lackland, is thus only one small man among these men, and women, who made history then, or started to make history, though it seems fairer to say that they were those who finally brought England in the wake of the slowly moving boat of history. This action film only becomes that historical film I am speaking of if you know all these details of English history. Otherwise it will remain an action film. Ridley Scott just did a good film in both directions.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID

of that? Well Ridley Scott is an absolute master and auteur director for all things epic and large scale. For it's 2 hour 30 minute length, some viewers may be put off, but let me tell you not one second is boring or wasted, everything is put to good use. Robin Hood i think in many ways, be compared to Sir David Lean's masterpiece Lawrence of Arabia. It's the mass scale of adventure and gigantic set pieces that prove this, and then some

leader with the mask on? what's going on there? we don't know and the final battle is won before it even starts, so, no real suspense there.but guys, it exactly that quality that makes the movie great. it leaves the audience wanting more, instead giving them an overdose of action, drama or humor.perfect! i wish there were more movies like this, but the likes of clash of the titans, prince of persia, avatar !! proove that 'to much' is apparently the way to go.. pity!

and, for all the films many flaws for me, the biggest was the all over the map portrayal of the bumbling Satanist Sheriff which was far from Alan Rickman's finest hour it was fun in the same way the early "Batman" films were. So, you won't hear me make any references to how "unlike other Robin Hoods", Russell Crowe can speak with an English accent. I didn't find that all that clever when Cary Elwes first said it, and considering some of the dreadful accents Elwes has attempted in films like "Twister", you couldn't find a more outrageous example of the pot calling the kettle black.Second I can't believe I'm saying that after such a long paragraph , the common expectation that this is a "Gladiator" rehash is, while understandable from some trailers, off the mark almost entirely. Other than Crowe's appearance and an element of dramatic political machination, the two films bare no real resemblance. Sure, this owes something to "Gladiator" and "Braveheart" because they're the current standard for this sort of epic. But unless you think "Iron Man" is just "Spider-Man" covered in metal, "Robin Hood" and "Gladiator" are not the same film, for better or worse. "Robin Hood" isn't as good a film as "Gladiator" was. But, for me, it was easily more enthralling than the more recent efforts at sword fight epic genre i.e. "300" or "Clash of the Titans" .What this is is "Batman Begins" to "Prince of Thieves" Tim Burton "Batman": a more real-world take on the material, and really very much a prequel. This doesn't become the Robin Hood tale as we know it until the very end. Your like or dislike of the film may well depend on how well you respond to that fact.Crowe plays Robin Longstride, an archer in Richard the Lionheart's army who has deserted the brutality of the crusades, joined by his friends Little John, Will Scarlet, and Alan A Dale. On returning to England, a complex but easy to follow series of events leads him to assume the idenity of Sir Robert Loxley, a nobleman whose widow, Marian played by the incomparable Cate Blanchett , is unable to inherit her lands due to English law.Meanwhile, Richard's failure to return places his brother John on the throne. John, of course, is a bad King who overtaxes and brutalizes the people. John is also unaware that his trusted aid and friend Godfrey Mark Strong, Hollywood's latest villain of choice is conspiring with the King of France to invade England.Crowe, Blanchett and company all give strong performances, and Max Von Sydow and Eileen Atkins steal the film in supporting roles. Brian Helgeland's screenplay is a smart and literate sort of alternate history Robin Hood: the relationship between King John and his Chancellor William hurt echoes Henry VIII and Sir Thomas More. A proposed "Charter of English Rights" is essentially the Magna Carte. Helgeland has blended very different elements of British history into the most British of folk tales. It's a bold choice, and one that could easily become laughable. For some, it probably still will be. For me, it worked.It comes down most of all to Ridley Scott's ability to tell and pace a story, and to create stunning visuals. He may not be at the very top of his game here, but he's close. This is the most briskly entertaining film he's since "Matchstick Men".By no means is this the definitive cinematic "Robin Hood". If there is or can be such a thing, it's the Errol Flynn/Michael Curtiz classic, but even that version is hampered by the fact that Flynn was a better stuntman than actor. And certainly there are generations that argue the Disney animated film the first "Robin Hood" I knew or the Sean Conney/Audrey Hepburn vehicle "Robin and Marian" is the only true Robin Hood. For that matter, there are those who feel that way about "Prince of Thieves", "Men in Tights", or any of the various TV incarnations.For me, Robin Hood is the quintessential adventure story. I'm up for revisiting it any time someone has has a truly interesting or new take on the material, or just can tell it well. I believe that Ridley Scott and company have created a unique and interesting film that won't make anyone forget their previous favorite versions, but adds something to the history of Robin Hood on screen. And, most importantly, they've made a summer adventure blockbuster that's more satisfying than a lot of what has been out there lately.

retelling of Robin Hood is a joy to watch striking a perfect balance between humour and tragedy. Though Scott's master stroke is in the films scope, the sheer beauty and authenticity make for what is most certainly the best version of Robin Hood to date.Director Ridley Scott and actor Russell Crowe reunite for their fifth big-screen outing, a retelling of the Robin Hood legend featuring the Gladiator star in the titular role. A bowman in the army of Richard Coeur de Lion, virtuous rogue Robin Hood rises from an unlikely background to become a hero to the impoverished people of Nottingham and lover to the beautiful Lady Marion Cate Blanchett . Cyrus Voris, Ethan Reiff, and Brian Helgeland collaborate on the screenplay for a costume adventure produced by Brian Grazer Frost/Nixon, American Gangster .Refreshingly, this Hood ends where most of the tales begin acting as a prelude to the story we've come to love. It works tremendously and silences the only gripe I had before seeing the movie. We asked "does the world really need to see this story again?" and Ridley Scott gave his answer in the form of a new tales that's both epic and emotionally resonating. Die hard's will scoff but I won't hesitate to say that the story being told here is better than the one told in previous iterations. One sub-plot overstays its welcome and at times the film's tone can turn from dark to downright silly but the genius lies in the pacing! Throughout the entire film, not once did I find myself distracted, even for a second. This is a perfect balance of action and story that never lets up until the final curtain falls.Ridley Scott is an astounding director; he doesn't need to prove that to anybody! So it's wonderful to see just how much effort he has added to the mix here. From stunning scenery to startling landscape, it's hard not to gaze slack jawed at just how phenomenal everything looks. The action sequences are filmed to perfection just as they should and everything falls into place beautifully! I love spending 2 hours immersed in Scott's world almost to the point where I don't enjoy leaving, this master director remains the greatest director working today and if for nothing else I urge you to see this film for the direction.The acting is also astonishing in its breath and acts as the films shining point. Standout roles form veterans Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett are to be expected but it's when actors surprise you with their portrayal of historic characters that talent emerges. This man Oscar Isaac who is relatively new to the scene pulls out a tremendous performance as Prince John. There's little to say that's wrong with the acting, I can bet my bottom dollar that this will be up for some awards come Oscar time.The attention to detail is extraordinary, from the dialogue and the storyline to the myriad elements in production design, as the filmmakers create a convincing, raw, unjust and dangerous world - England as it might have been almost 1,000 years ago. Its staggering to watch these setting in action, its breathtaking. Scott's authenticity is what makes it so stunning to behold, to the point where I'd be surprised if they hadn't invented a time machine to capture such wonderful moments on film.Verdict: Scott's version of the classic Robin Hood tale is a joy to watch, from the staggering authenticity to just how entertaining the prelude to the well known story can be. He has created, as far as I'm concerned, the greatest adaptation of the tale to date. Scale, spectacle and heart make Ridley Scott's Robin Hood a heart-pumping and wonderful tale. I cannot stress enough the sheer amount of entertainment I get from Scott's world. Destined to takes its place besides Ridley Scott's other classic as one of his best films date.

and looting and the raiding the French as much as possible whilst on the way. Robin Longstride Russell Crowe and his friends are archers within the army. When Richard I died in battle they fled and Robin assumes the identity of a English lord who has been murdered in an ambush. Godfrey Mark Strong , an English knight and an adviser to King John Oscar Issac secretly meets with the French with a plot to make the new king unpopular and force the nation into civil war, thereby weakening England and making the kingdom easy to invade. Robin goes to Nottingham and gives the news to Sir Walter Loxley Max von Sydow and Lady Maiden Cate Blanchett that their son and husband has died. They suggest that Robin continues to pretend that he was really Sir Robert Loxley and as the man Robin becomes a leading figure to unite the kingdom to stop the impending invasion.Scott is one of the best directors around for historical film: he has shown a great skill for taking people back to another time and show what the period would have been like even if he has to take a few liberties to the historical facts . With Robin Hood he shows that the Medieval period was dark and dirty, even for members of the gentry. Battles are hard and brutal, though they is a lot less blood then there was in Gladiator, which is a shame. Scott, with his screenwriter Brain Helgeland, set out a more complex, balance picture. Richard I was not made out to be the great king people think he is because of his heavy taxation and ruthless nature. John was made out to be someone who was dogmatic and naïve, but not someone wanting to be a tyrant just for the fun of it. He was portrayed in a more sympathetic light to what has been shown in the past. It was Godfrey who was the main villain and in the Medieval period national loyalty was not such a big issue as it is today. This is all refreshing to see when most films just show a black and white world.Scott delivers some excellent battle scenes in this film during. But he slows the film down long enough to allow the plot to develop and adds a little bit of humour. This is however a less bloody epic to allow a slightly younger audience to see it. There is the theme of the idea of a king's right to govern, but this is mostly an action, not a historical film about Medieval government.Crowe and Scott reunite again and Crowe gives a solid performance as a rougher and tougher Robin. Blanchett too is solid as an older Maiden, showing she is a tough woman who also willing to fight: a woman that properly would not have existed in this period. Strong shows once again that he is a excellent villain, having stared in Sherlock Holmes and Kick-Ass, a man who thinks about his own self interest. Strong has been making a good career as villain for hire and he was the strongest actor in the film. The American in this English set film did well, William Hurt was very strong as the wronged advice in the King's court, whilst Huston seemed to be having a blast as Richard I and obviously shows he is not as noble he seems.Helgeland wrote a clever script, showing Medieval ideology and a complex political situation. His previous Medieval film was A Knight's Tale, which he wrote and directed. But with Robin Hood he seems to have grown up as a writer and gives this film a little more of a complex plot and shows a bigger picture. He also cleverly mixes different aspects about how the legend has changed, like how Robin starting as a commoner and pretends to be a higher ranked man. The film also covers its bases by showing the two sites places that claim to be Robin's home, Nottingham and Barnsdale. However this film felt like an origins story, a start to a new film series. This is Robin Hood that has not been seen on screen like this before. Hopefully if there is a sequel then Matthew MacFadyen as the Sheriff of Nottingham would get a bigger role. Robin Hood is also historically suspect, with events and dates being changed and made up, some ideas and culture also seems to be the victim of artistic license. But Scott knows that storytelling requires character development and show a more balanced picture, particularly with historically set films. At least this film does accept that it is a piece of historical fiction.An enjoyable summer flick.

but taking that Gladiator was a bad ass movie anyways its pretty reassuring that they put the same if not more, effort into making this as best as they could. I actually enjoyed the musical score in this movie it brings out a lot of the emotion and action Go see it, its a wonderful summer flick packed full of action and drama! 8 outta 10 stars!!

altogether in my opinion. Luckily the people used for comic relief are not the ones you'd expect.And the final battle which is a big part of the movie annoys me greatly in it's composition, and you will see why when you watch the movie.And what in the world *is* that weapon that Little John is wielding? Could they not come up with something more appropriate?