Most critics find Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood a competent, serious-minded origin story that is harder to enjoy than it ought to be. The praise, where it comes, goes to Scott’s robust handling of the battles, the castle siege and the climactic beach landing in particular, and to the supporting cast: Oscar Isaac’s Prince John and Cate Blanchett’s Marion are singled out more often than Russell Crowe’s Robin. The period production design and Marc Streitenfeld’s score also draw approving mentions.
The reservations cluster on tone and plotting. The reviews call it joyless and overburdened with set-up, short on the merriment and playfulness the legend usually brings, and several say the historical muddle leaves Robin without a clear purpose. Crowe divides them: some admire the physical performance, others think he is simply miscast. The spread is wide, from Empire, which finds it refreshingly grown-up, to Eye for Film, which thinks it need not have been made at all.
