Really surprised not to see a thread for this already.

Finally, a movie I was impressed with!  You know I don't say that lightly...or often.  

IMO, this movie rocked all the way around.  I watched the Director's Cut, and at 2 1/2 hours, wasn't bored once, didn't doze off to sleep, and continually said, "this is really good!".

What I liked the most was that the story itself was new to me.  The story is how Robin becomes Robin Hood. It has a wonderful look to it, great FX work, huge, grand battles, and likable, even believable characters.  It is also rather dark and "realistic" which may be the cause of the poor NABO.

I'm very surprised it didn't do better at the NABO, but luckily, the Overseas BO brought it up to a decent profit.

2 more things - the Director's Cut appears to be an R rated cut, or at least a very violent PG13, which is a good thing.  This isn't your Father's Robin Hood frolicking about in the meadow.  Also, the special features are amazing on the Blu-Ray disc, and go for about 2 hours.  Some cool deleted scenes with the editor telling what happened and why they didn't make either cut, and an awesome making of with all sorts of great info.

If you missed the theatrical release, do your self a favor and watch the Blu-Ray...cranked up loud!

One of the better big budget flicks I've seen in years.

Just for you American's who don't know, Robin Hood was not Irish, so why they chose an Aussie to play Robin Hood with a strange Irish accent is beyond me. It did ruin the film somewhat. Bad casting I think, there must have been plenty of English actors who could have taken this on.

Russell Crowe does not agree however, he walked out of an interview, this was funny...

I agree with Jeff on this film.
I was completely surprised by how much I enjoyed this film.
Solid pacing, editing, character motivation, choreography and acting.
I was never bored and it all came together in a nice package.
Is Russell Crowe a proper Englishman? Who cares.
I like his Robin Hood and this film was one of the few pleasant surprises of the summer.

E.D.

Felt unfinished when I saw it at the Cinema, like they had a release date and just pushed it out before they'd had time to properly edit it. The first twenty minutes in particular looked almost amateur and I couldn't quite believe I was watching a Ridly Scott film.

Even the Title Screens felt like they weren't finished. Overall you got thr impression that they were just doing it for the money and didn't really believe in what they were making.

Crowe's accent was all over the place, but those sort of things don't really matter.

What let the film down was the poor quality of the fighting sequences. Don't know if that's rectified in the Director's Cut. They lacked any tension and were very by the numbers.

It was the slow scenes that worked better, with good chemistry between all the actors.

Fell badly between two stools. It was not very realistic and downright silly at times in terms of history, but didn't have any real warmth or over the top action to make-up for it.

A misfire and I'm not surprised by the BO.

Wow...I'm shocked at your comments, Rick.

You say the first 20 minutes looked unfinished as well as the title screens...HUH?  The title screens, as well as the end credit sequence was awesome!  Extremely unique and in the vein of Ridley's Scott Free Pictures look and logo.

The first 20 minutes for me, had me saying over and over, "Wow, this really has a great look!".  What are you saying didn't look finished and what about it made you think that?  This was a $200 Million budget, and for me, it looked amazing.

In no way were they just doing it for the money, because if they were, they would have used a more audience friendly story, wouldn't have made it so dark, wouldn't have made it so violent, and wouldn't have spent the money they did to make it look so good.

The making of feature on the Blu-Ray disc really shows what everyone went through to create this flick and make it look the way it did.  Maybe it would alter your opinion a little.

I'm also shocked about your comments on the battle scenes.  Poor quality?  HUH?  What was poor about them?  The castle siege was awesome and so realistic, IMO.  They actually did burn a castle down to film that.

As always, to each is own.

Watched it in theatres and thought, meh. Wasn't bad, wasn't terrible.

Watched the directors cut on Blu ray and thought, as a whole, the movie was much better. Not sure what changed my mind, but definitely enjoyed it.

I liked the idea of it being an origins movie. Although Crowe's accent does change a little here and there, it never turned me off.

Now, here is a very interesting article about how one of the year's hottest scripts (Nottingham) became the movie we just watched. It's quite an eye opener:

http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/05/17/how-nottingham-became-robin-hood/

Stew

Maybe the Director's Cut is considerably different..wouldn't be the first time.

I thought it was common opinion that it was medicore at best. Certainly in the UK it seemed to be poorly received by almost everyone.

Rotten Tomatoes has it at 43% rating. I'm not claiming that that is particularly important in any way, but it's a very low rating....lower than the A-Team for instance (considerably lower in terms of audience reaction).

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/robin_hood_2010/

Most of the criticisms seem to be the ones that I made.

I had the same reaction as MacDuff and Rick.  Mediocrity.  For me, it just never developed into the rousing adventure I hoped it would be.  That might be because Scott had a decidedly different take on the Robin Hood legend.  He pretty much ignored the whole life in the forest, steal from the rich, give to the poor theme that every Robin Hood movie has had.  Kinda took the fun out of the movie for me.  That, and the Sheriff of Nottingham was an utter nonfactor.  Also, Crowe had zero chemistry with Cate Blanchette, IMO.  

Almost seemed like Ridley Scott was portraying Robin Hood as some pivotal figure in British history, as he demanded liberty for the people.  Now, that's revisionist.  

Quoted from Ryan1 I had the same reaction as MacDuff and Rick.  Mediocrity.  For me, it just never developed into the rousing adventure I hoped it would be.  That might be because Scott had a decidedly different take on the Robin Hood legend.  He pretty much ignored the whole life in the forest, steal from the rich, give to the poor theme that every Robin Hood movie has had.  Kinda took the fun out of the movie for me.  That, and the Sheriff of Nottingham was an utter nonfactor.  Also, Crowe had zero chemistry with Cate Blanchette, IMO.   Almost seemed like Ridley Scott was portraying Robin Hood as some pivotal figure in British history, as he demanded liberty for the people.  Now, that's revisionist.

It was basically an Ode to Freemasonry.

I suppose one can't really glorify a man who steals from the rich to give to the poor, when we live in times where the outrageously wealthy steal from the poor.

Quoted from Ryan1 I had the same reaction as MacDuff and Rick.  Mediocrity.  For me, it just never developed into the rousing adventure I hoped it would be.     Almost seemed like Ridley Scott was portraying Robin Hood as some pivotal figure in British history, as he demanded liberty for the people.  Now, that's revisionist.

Ridley Scott...revisionist? You don't say!

Relax. I agree with you. To a point. See, my rating score is far, far lower. I actually started to wish, about a half hour in, that they left the original script alone. Y'know- the one that focused not on Robin Hood, but the Sheriff of Nottingham and Robin Hood was more antag?

I found this picture to be a big snore. It deserved to die at the box office. This film was so inept I feel we need to apologize to Kevin Costner and Kevin Reynolds. That's how BAD I hated this film.

One of the worst films of this year. In fact, given that it is more high profile than the other horrid films in 2010  it is by far the biggest disappointment. Granted, it isn't what the masses expected. But, that said, I still wound up hating the film.

I love Cate Blanchett.
I HATED her in this movie.

Russell Crowe is one of the best actors around today.
I HATED him in this film.

With the possible exception of Kingdom Of Heaven, I liked or loved Ridley Scott's pictures. I'll be a fan of Blade Runner until the day I die. Gladiator is still awesome. Legend is still cool (at least until some joker remakes it)...
I HATED this movie.

Mediocre is too kind of a word.
I can't say for sure if the 'Nottingham' concept would have worked. That's hindsight. But I know what is on the screen didn't work.

I'm sorry people. This film was a lobotomy.
I felt like I was being lobotomized, near catatonic it drained two hours out of my life I'll never get back.

Junk .

WOW...again, literally shocked to hear such negativity on something that was so well done.

Guess I'm way out of touch with what works and what doesn't.

Oh well, there we go again...

Quoted from Dreamscale WOW...again, literally shocked to hear such negativity on something that was so well done. Guess I'm way out of touch with what works and what doesn't. Oh well, there we go again...

It may well be that the Director's Cut is significantly superior.

That was the case with Kingdom of Heaven.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films It may well be that the Director's Cut is significantly superior. That was the case with Kingdom of Heaven.

I much preferred the Director's Cut of Kingdom of Heaven.
At least it made some sense. Though they still kill all the cool guys in the first act.
I only saw the Director's Cut of Robin Hood.
I put aside any ethnic issues with Crowe and just enjoyed myself.
It was refreshing to have a villain in a movie and understand his motives.

E.D.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films It may well be that the Director's Cut is significantly superior. That was the case with Kingdom of Heaven.

Not this time. And Kingdom of Heaven's DC was an improvement as it helped cover several of the theatrical cut's plot holes and leaps of logic, but you can't erase Orlando Bloom's clunky acting and the revisionist history is still present.