Opiniones de usuarios

Where do you start with a version as original as this. A well known story concerning a hero figure fighting against the oppressive system. A well known story with multiple versions hitting the big screen. So how do you make "yet another version" that isn't compared to all the others? Easy, change the period or more accurately make the period different, introduce a bit of the Afgan war for younger reference, update the weapons, make the theat more Hollywood and yell ACTION. Sure, if you are a Robin Hood purist or history buff you might get upset but as a piece of cinema this is pure fun. A little odd in places (if you are English) but a good watch.

It's almost as much fun as reading some of the reviews complaining that it is not historically accurate or doesn't stick to the story of RoL. Which version exactly?! No, the clothes are not accurate, no they didn't have magazines loaded shoulder weapons or machine gun type long bows but which part of this story do you seriously consider accurate? Forget the versions that have gone before and enjoy it for what it is.

Not a bad movie in all honesty. Action was decent, the plot moved briskly and I liked some of the cheeky banter.

The sets were nicely crafted and the costumes were, albeit distracting at first, added to the atmosphere of this being a non historically accurate revisioning of folklore.

This I have to emphasise as it's what is stated in the opening monologue, but some hater's and purists out there just didn't seem to get the point.

At the end of the day, the story of Robin Hood has never been officially stated as true. Just enjoy the movie for what it is, which is an enjoyable and fun take on folklore.

We arguably didn't need yet another cinematic reimaging of the age old tale of Robin Hood and his merry band of followers, robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, but after the last big screen treatment faired so poorly in the form of the Russell Crowe/Ridley Scott version in 2010, I for one was totally up for another stab at the classic tale, aware that the material still has the potential to entertain now just as well as it first did many moons ago.

Sadly the new Robin Hood is frankly not that good, an often bizarre and mostly charmless affair that sees Robin of Loxley become some type of Assassin's Creed reject that also masquerades as a GQ fashion model, as debut filmmaker Otto Bathhurst gets caught up in the joys of slow-motion instead of getting caught up on making his characters more intriguing or his film more fun.

Unfortunately delivered in a mostly po-faced fashion that sits unevenly with how over the top and silly many of its big action scenes are (a machine gun like arrow barrage in Arabia or a horse chase along rooftops spring instantly to mind), Robin Hood wants to be taken seriously but it's impossible to do so, when the action and scenarios are all so off-putting and even if the action beats and slight thrills you get from some of these scenes make the film tolerable as such, there not going to change many people's opinions on the movie, feelings of which are likely to be largely negative when you look at early press and box-office results.

More comfortable with the action scenes than he is the character beats, Bathurst leads this negativity bringing Robin Hood down as he struggles to get much out of his capable cast, with Robin giving Kingsman breakout star Taron Edgerton his worst big-screen role yet, as the young performer struggles with making Robin a charismatic hero and has an equally hard time forcing any chemistry between himself and Eve Hewson as Marion, with the daughter of Bono fairing quite badly in her highest profile role yet.

Side players don't fare much better, with Australian tressure Tim Minchin fairing best with his role as Friar Tuck, while the seemingly constantly struggling Jamie Foxx as Little John and the charm free Jamie Dornan as Will add little to proceedings.

Outside of these unfortunate elements one of the most disappointing and eye-rolling aspects of this Robin Hood is yet another stereotypical shady bad guy turn from Ben Mendelsohn.

An unquestionably talented performer and one of our countries best acting exports, Mendelsohn delving into yet another villain role as the nefarious Sherriff of Nottingham after similar turns in the likes of Ready Player One, Rogue One, TV show Bloodline and The Dark Knight Rises begs the question of how hard the actor is trying at the moment, and while his turn here isn't "bad", it's certainly tiresome with all things considered, with the time now for Mendelsohn to break away from these type of roles.

Final Say -

With a handful of lively action scenes and some very brief snippets of fun, Robin Hood shows glimpses of what might've been, but with a lack of charisma, energy or smarts, this ends up being yet another version of the hooded hero that fails to hit the mark, with Robin Hood likely to be one of the year's biggest financial flops.

2 medieval Molotov's out of 5

It takes a lot for me to leave the cinema but this film achieved it. From the over the top bow and arrow fights that feel like something out of black hawk down to the bizarre mix of costumes it's just all wrong. I'm really not sure who thought 100 million budget was well spent making this steaming heap of a film.

This film is no Oscar winner. But it scratches the same itch that films like "A Knight's Tale", "Abraham Lincoln: Vanpire Hunter" and "Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters" scratches. As in it's a hell of a good time...as long as you don't think about it too hard. Keep that perspective and you'll have a blast.

If anyone reads this, it's likely because you're either reading a bunch of reviews because you can't decide if a ticket is worth it, or you hated it and are reading all the 1 star reviews so you can say "thank you" multiple times when you read a criticism you agree with. If you're the latter, welcome, you're among friends. If you're the former, I'm not going to tell you that you shouldn't see or love this movie, clearly some people do, I'm just going to lay out why I can't.

It's built on clichés and one-liners, and scenes seem to be written around setting that up, if they set it up at all. Even in the credits, next to the actors name and icon, the most dramatic quotes their character had is written next to them. Most of the lines are written to serve the drama as opposed to being substantive or sensible. There's even a scene with a mildly villainous character doing the maniacal laugher ended by angry scream with the dramatic music in the background, and it literally comes out of nowhere. There was no set up for that character doing that, and it made the whole thing feel silly. Imagine a play built only on the soliloquies of Shakespearean tragedies mixed with every cliché about love giving strength in despair, but lacking any real sense of plot or structure. That is this film.

Also, the action sequences are filmed like an over the top modern war movie. There's literally a slo-mo scene where some of the characters are driving away from an explosion. I'm not saying there's no place for that in a period movie, but it was executed lazily and without much thought about how to do that and do justice to the combat of the time period.

Basically this is just a standard subpar action movie with a Robin Hood skin. Splashy effects and dialogue with no effort given to make it cohesive or new or worthwhile. I'm usually the person in a group who's more forgiving of bad movies than others are, but I just can't with this one. I kept trying to enjoy it throughout the movie, and it felt like it was fighting me the whole time.

The trailer showed an action-packed depiction of a Robin Hood story. I walked into the theatre expecting no more. Just hoping for a nice action packed film in some alternate-universe-like Nottingham and Robin Hood as was suggested by interviews and the trailers.

Is it medieval England as we know it on film? Of course not! This movie poster and trailer never claimed to be that. And to enjoy this film one must really just let go of the Robin Hood stories we know and love for awhile and be ready for something new.

Is it going to be anything like the past Kevin Costner/Russell Crowe/Disney/Men in tights versions? Not really, nothing in the press material certainly suggested it.

Is it nonsensical at some parts? Of course! It's about this dude in a hood robbing the rich in an action film. I feel the film stretched logic to just the right amount, and not so bad that it was too nonsensical to be enjoyable.

In short I'm quite surprised at the negative reviews as I felt it was fine. I walked in not expecting "Gladiator" or LOTR material (legends, obviously), just merely to have a good time to sit back, shut my mind from outside, to watch some mad archery skills and action sequences - and I say it delivered what was on the cover, no more no less.

Went to see this today... and it was really bad. A real stinker. They have just 5 sets. The town, the church, a kind of bow and arrow Iraq war, the mine with random flares (what are they mining?) and a place for doing speeches to the peasants. The costume department clearly raided primark and you keep thinking how did a man with one hand get handcuffed twice in this film? And when are Blake's 7 going to turn up to ask for their footwear back. There is a scene with dialogue from most English speaking accents... Irish, Cockney, American, Australian but none of this is meant to be funny. The best bits are the super unrealistic close combat bow and arrow shooting... and then end after the excruciatingly bad "false ending". Help.

Though reviews were less than favorable, I love Taron and Jamie (both of them) ....so I went to see the film. Was it the greatest movie ever made? No. I liked the storyline and the over the top fight scenes. Every movie isn't for everyone, but this one was good for me.

This movie has ruined a whole generation of kids vision of Robin Hood. Just reissue the Errol Flynn version!

This is a mish mash of derivatives.....Zorro, Ben Hur, Batman, Hunger Games, Three Musketeers, but not Robin Hood.

Please, avoid this abomination.

I really enjoyed it. Lots of action and some cute stuff to. It's called Robin Hood but with so many out already they have to make theirs different from the others. If you go in with high expectations your just setting yourself up for disappointment. But got an open mind, up for some action, a training scene and happy ending (duh) then go for it. I did.

I had gone to see this film in the hopes that at worst it would be so bad it's good. Unfortunately, it careened past that point about 15 minutes in to it's so bad it's obnoxious. I managed to suffer through about 2/3rds of it before throwing in the towel. I saw nothing in that time that made me want to ever finish the movie.

I think the problem is the film couldn't decide what it wanted to be. A lot of it is super dumb action movie stuff, i.e. MTV style training montage, which can be fun but then the film injects political commentary to make it socially relevant., i.e. Robin is a Crusader and Little Jon is a Muslim. It all ended up being a mismash of tone, style and seriousness that grated on my nerves.

I also must say that the film had some of the laziest plotting in recent memory. At one point a character, and this is why I left, directly stated his nefarious intentions and plan in detail to Robin because one just vouched for Robin.

This film was a waste of time. I am not even made about the 7 bucks in light of the time sink.

Dont mess with history,loads of reviwers cry to this film, but behold everyone, the robin hood story are merely a legend, and therefore this film are no breech of history, its just a fairytail,and it has been and will be reconstructed hundreds of more times in the future. i think there are many similarities to our present way of life, with extreme financial and religous radikalism. the story gives you the opportunity to think, why not.....??

so please watch this flick as an alternative story about robin of locksley, well its a plot with bundles of flaws, but the acting are ok. though the technical quality of the visuall effects are rather bad, it will pass anyway because of the tight action from start to end.

its an uncut diamond still, i do understand that the sequel will come, maybe even better, because this crusade will travel along as long as mr locksley lives. its a recommended movie .

Reminds me of last year's re-imagining of King Arthur except a heist film this is not. Robin Hood gets his umpteenth retelling yet the film insists it's telling a new version of the story while also basically covering all you already know about the man himself. Steal from the rich, give to the poor; it's not complicated, and open to a million different interpretations of that core loop, yet here we are.

For a movie to tease some promising themes at the start (if you ignore the awful opening bit of narrative catch-up that mismatches the film's tone with twee voice over and the weakest relationship setup imaginable) only to glance over them for flat characters is a little mean, because it makes you think it might not be half bad for at least a half an hour. It could have opened with the first major action sequence, which may be the best part of the film, as it is a far cry from where the action goes from there. Robin, of course, is a man of great character, even before his transformation into a thief proper. Where the film immediately goes wrong is establishing a context to the conflict he is drafted into fighting, which clearly includes rampant racism, imperialism, and intolerance of ideology. Like I said, promising themes at first, but Ben Mendelsohn as the Sheriff of Nottingham is not a person you'll come to understand. He could hardly get more cartoonish, and during his growly monologues I wondered if this movie was actually intended for children.

I think it is and it isn't as it's suitably violent but without blood which in some instances appears to have been intended. Robin himself racks up quite the body count in his efforts to steal from the absurdly rich Sheriff, dragging presumably innocent lives into his own personal vendetta (which is fueled by Jamie Foxx, who goes back and forth between playing Jamie Foxx and Jamie Foxx's vague interpretation of an "Arab", quotes included). But because he gets results, the community rallies around him. Off screen, mostly, so that when it comes time to rally the town against the Sheriff (though one wonders why they never left if they were forced to give everything they owe to the war) they all get behind him.

There is a lot of conflicting or lazy character choices in the film, too many to get into great detail, but they keep resetting any feelings you may develop naturally when a movie is--how you say--consistent. On top of that, accents are a complete afterthought. The lead actress, an Irish actor, can't even keep an accent in her native tongue for more than a sentence every other scene she's in. The rest of the time she's speaking plain American English like everyone's afraid to remind her of her character's betrothal to another Irishman, Jamie Dornan. Oh yeah, he's in this, and his character's arc is, in order: nonexistent, then confusing and script-serving, then literally Two-Face from The Dark Knight in a categorically stupid franchise setup that promises to tell the exact same story again next time.

Any sort of personality or wit the film has is lost in the incompetent action scenes that are a complete joke. Its costuming is interesting, but feels weird and ultimately ephemeral. At times it was like a cross between Game Of Thrones and The Matrix. I also thought the film was going to end after a particularly large set piece (which includes a horse-drawn cart being driven through a wall) because the inane plotting felt sweetly dumb enough to be mercifully short, but it kept slogging on for maybe 45 more minutes. I wouldn't give this one its franchise money, if only so that Taron Edgerton can put his alright charisma towards something else.

I suppose if your 12yrs old or under you may like it, the acting was ok, but the plot is too PC , why is it most movies or TV shows now a days either have that stupid " metoo" slant or " poor muslims" as part of the story, this movie has the poor muslim slant, the quality of the acting and CGI is more suited for a tv show then a major movie, i was keen on seeing the movie after seeing the trailer, but, walked out very disappointed along with most other people, listening to their comments.

First of all if you are sick of watching Robin Hood moves than don't watch them. This is a fine movie full of action and great scenes. I cant believe that this move has almost the same rating as that boringly stupid IO. I get it its not a blockbuster made by Hollywood template, but it's worth a watch.

An unintentional parody of Robin Hood that is a failure in every way.

The cast is good, but everything else is a disaster. The costume design is hilarious, and the dialogues are comically bad.

The film would work well as a parody. Hairstyles and makeup are really hilarious, the plot is supposed to be medieval, and it looks like a movie about superheroes.

The script is so bad that it's almost unbelievable that this was filmed at all. Modern expressions and dialogues make this film even worse than its appearance itself. Most of today's film production is trash, but I still thought this film would at least be fun, but it didn't even succeed in that.

Viewers want fun, not cheap costume design and forced dialogues. The villains are a complete parody, but the writers obviously couldn't have come up with anything better.

I read that the film was a financial failure, which is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of the film, but in this case it is quite understandable why the film was a failure.

Watching this movie was a complete waste of time.

I wish there was a better way to rate movies. Some people compare every movie to Lawrence of Arabia. But, there should be a way to rate a movie against the kind of movie it's supposed to be. This is like Robin Hood meets modern action movie. It's not a movie with a lot of drama and period pieces and plot twists. But it's not trying to be those things. It's trying to be like a ?Vin Diesel vehicle for an old time story. Some will like it, some won't. The plot isn't very thick, but it matters where it needs to. The action is great. And the main actor did a great job.

I've been looking at each review and overwhelming do I see "Not Historically Accurate" first of all whenever was Robin Hood historical. If they are reviewing the archery being inaccurate they are wrong. The style that is used is called Saracen Archery which is known to be the most accurate, fastest, and deadly form of archery. It is possible for archers to shoot 2 arrows per second. However where the movie goes wrong is the script. They spent 3 years training the actors for archery combat but lacked in script. The script is my only criticism but overall a decent movie.

There are loads of Robin hood series and movies. This is the nr 1 for being the worst. When historical movies got political correct elements I always get a little bit cynical. I hoped that a great actor like Jamie fox could take that feeling away. This movie was really really bad. It 's Not only the political correctness the rest of the movie is even worse. In the usa this might be great but for europeanss this is is offensieve. The crusades where. Not africans.

It's not funny, it's not witty, just another rehash of a film done over and over with updated special effects (although some moments are questionable). Don't waste your time unless you want to have your ticket money stolen from you!