Robin Hood Spoilers Discussion

Published 4 years ago by

robin hood spoilers Robin Hood Spoilers Discussion

While we have an Robin Hood review where you can leave comments, this is the place where you can discuss spoilers about the film without worrying about ruining it for people who haven’t seen it yet.

If you’re posting comments here, assume that anyone in the conversation has seen the movie – if you haven’t seen the movie, I would recommend you don’t read these comments here until you have. icon smile Robin Hood Spoilers Discussion

Discuss away!

[poll id="43"]

TAGS: iron man 2

10 Comments

Post a Comment

  1. It’s not really a review, but rather my scattered thoughts on the film.

    I really am not sure whether I enjoyed it or disliked it. It’s a film with two plots both of which had to be stripped down to accomidate the other.

    It took itself way too seriously, going full grimdark on Robin Hood? Really? Why?

    Russell Crowe, while doing a good job, was way too old to be Robin during that period of time too, the man is nearly 50 and looks it. I recall Christian Bale was Ridley Scott’s choice to be Robin originally, which to me would’ve worked far better.

    The Merry Men where great and played off each other very well. Cate Blanchett, Mark Strong, William Hurt, Max Von Sydnow and, in a cameo role, Danny Huston are all terrific actors and played their roles very well. I particularly enjoyed seeing William Hurt and Mark Strong size each other up in one scene.

    The action was a let down, it had to be toned down because of the rating so when you put it up against Kingdom of Heaven’s battles it doesn’t hold up at all. There’s no intensity in seeing a character plunge a sword at someone who’s just off screen or seeing a guy swing a sword and the other guy just falls down. I don’t think there is a need for an R rated Robin Hood movie, but if you’re going to go PG-13, make it the swashbuckling adventure film that it should be. If you’re going for a Medieval political war thriller with a story and tone aimed for adults, why pussy out for the action?

    Props for Godfrey’s death though, surprised they let that through, but it seems like an outtake they forgot in the film, Mark Strong started laughing about two seconds before the scene cut away.

    I can’t really blame the director for this film’s shortcoming. Ridley Scott’s visual flair is as strong as ever. He’s in his 70′s and can still undertake a project as large as this with confidence.

    • I think I could not have said it any bettr than you just did. 3 out of 5 stars for me. I was thinking how the rating hurt it and how Crowe is too old, yet I like him and enjoy he looks his age…just not the right part for him.

  2. All in all i thought the movie wasn’t really that bad other than being a bit lengthy but it didn’t really stand out in any other aspects either. I thought the story would have been a bit more personal rather than it being more of an epic with many large battles which is probably the biggest problem people will encounter.

  3. felt the movie lacked in huge areas.
    they are catholics (as evidenced by prince john crossing himself at one point), however allow for a switch in wives due to their being no heir? considering the whole reason the church of England was created was to allow henry the 8 to divorce and remarry it seemed inconsistent.
    then you have robin longstride vs robin/robert (i could never hear) locksley — very weird take on the parentage of robin hood there, and what was his background — his father was a mason and was beheaded for hiding/protecting the magna carta? who killed him? why did walter locksley say not dead not now — this seemed like a cruicial point in the movie as when walter and robin meet walkter keeps telling him he knows of his parentage, when they finally get to it, it seems glossed over and not well explained in the least. then their was the children outlaws, the sheriff (why even bother with either of these). the characters themselves had zero character development — you almost wish one gets killed, but realize you have no emotional investment in any of them anyway. it was nice to see will scarlett have red hair — for once (looking at you Christian Slater) and i haven’t seen scott grimes since party of 5 days so that was great.

    honestly feels like the movie should have 3-4 hours, been called a history of robin hood; the man and the legend and broken into two pieces (like che, and kill bill etc.) i think it might have gone over better, just too thick with it’s own plot points to do anyone any good.

    all in all i think it was a poor movie, entertaining yes, replayability no.

    • Can you settle our argument. Who beheaded Robin Hood’s biologicall father?

  4. I think the criticism about this movie is misplaced – as it is more about those who have a specific “desire” of what a Robin Hood movie should be in their own mind, rather than the creative license that Ridley Scott has taken to interpret some very novel and interesting twists that actually allow one to “retell” such a well known story, without simply “repeating” what’s already been done.

    Much was made by many critics about the many different places in the story, but in actuality, these were knit together well and made complete sense within the chronology of the story Ridley Scott chose to tell. It bears alerting everyone to the fact that Kingdom of Heaven and Gladiator were not historical docudramas either – they were fictional adventures, based within known historical periods – to tell a story, not to recite history.

    Much was made as well of the lack of an in depth romantic relationship between Marion and Robin… This makes complete sense in the context of one stranger thrust upon another – and the time it would take any two people to learn to appreciate each other.

    Could many things have been differently in the movie? Yes. Does this point diminish the movie in any way? Only if you were misinformed going in – Ridley Scott made no claims I’m aware of that presented this movie as a historical rendition. The twists he introduced made the story believable, and based on the length of time knights were away at crusades, and the story line developed among members of Lady Marion’s family, made complete sense. Anyone gone for 10 years on a crusade, handled out of dutiful fighting not passionate support, would certainly come back fatigued – appearing more to have “survived” than “flourished”. I enjoyed the movie, as I did Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven – for the same reasons – a good story, well told, with twists that were not predictable. Ridley’s best work? No. A Ridley Scott work worth watching? Absolutely.

  5. This film is not about Robin Hood. It is about the Anglo-French rivalry. It’s historical setting is all warped. King John DID sign the Magna Carta
    and Robin Hood was a character who robbed from the rich to give to the poor. Based on this film you’d think he was just a roguish swashbuckler out to teach the French a lesson. Perhaps Hollywood thought the idea of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor too controversial. Shame on Hollywood and our vapid culture which tolerates such trash.

  6. I was enjoying the movie until the last battle scene. Okay, it was easy to see that the writers didn’t do thier history or thier mythology homework for it, and that Robin Hood was 50 before the story even started, and it couldn’t decide if it was a historical drama or a farce… but I was rolling with it. I enjoyed the costumes and good performances of some of the cast.

    But then Marion rides out into the battle in full armor (no food, no money, nothing to pay her taxes with, but she does happen to own a form-fitted suit of armor made of valuable metal…for her farm work?) and purposely leads a band of little children armed with sticks into the battle. Against soldiers with swords. I gave up caring.

    And Godfrey is defeated by being shot in the back? I actually think that may be something that the trickster-thief Robin Hood would do… but they spend the whole movie setting him up as a stoic man of honor, and then that was his big moment?

    So much budget…so lame.

  7. One scene really bothere me in this movie. Why was Walter Locksley cremated? That would have been offensive to a Christian of the middle ages. Christians never fired their dead.

    Also a little bit annoying, at least to me,Richard the Loinhearted spent most of his life in France. Richard likely didn’t even speak English. The reference to the Stone mason(freemasons?), and the premature magna carta was also a tiny bit unhistorical. The comment of by Eleanor of Aquitaine, “do you think the pope is going to choose you over the king of France?” Well ideally, the pope was supposed to be impartial on matters of faith, which is more than I can say for the movie. I think it was a tiny ZINNNG of approval pointed at a mostly ENglish audience. IT was a thinnly disguised defense of King Henry VIII. Dear Henry of course started his own church because the pope wouldn’t grant him a divorce from his wife of 20 years. See Henry’s divorces and trumped up charges on several wives in any history book. Kind of pathetic that the English are still trying to defend that crazy King after all these years.

    I THINK that the portrayal of the church as being callous, in some respects, and some bad clergymen was acutally pretty accurate.

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

Be Social, Follow Us!!