Audio Reviews - Robin Hood Audio Review

Tags:  movie review, audio, spill, spill.com, robin hood, ridley scott, russell crowe, cate blanchett, brian grazer

• 
  

  August 22, 2010 at 4:18 PM, said ...

  low matinee, just my opinion but i did have very low expectations so i may have liked it less if i was more excited about it

• June 05, 2010 at 3:37 AM, Jacob Doan said ...

  Maybe it's cause I went into this wanting to hate this, but it wasn't that bad pretty good rental maybe a matinee.

  
  
• 
  

  June 02, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Jonathan said ...

  This movie wasn't that bad.

• May 23, 2010 at 10:12 PM, randy said ...

  THIS MOVIE SUCKS!

  
  
• 
  

  May 18, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Don Panini said ...

  @Fungusmonkey: Also: What´s with the new haircuts for the Crew?

• May 18, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Don Panini said ...

  @Fungusmonkey: "that just means it's a fad and that there are a lot of people out there with no taste", again, self-indulgent, not good. Here´s where I beg to differ: Ask one of the tween girls, or the twilight moms that made New Moon so sucessful(the intended audience for that movie) and they will tell you with a straight face, that it was the best movie on that year. A greatly effective movie for its intended audience. And despite of a big number of people that stated that Transformers 2 "raped their childhood", the vast majority loved it, and thought it was a proper and awesome tribute to the show they loved, even with the "negro-bots". Again, very effective to its audience. Now look at the Nightmare on Elm Street remake, it was intended for the people that loved the original and their children, yet most of the people on audience stated how the original was far superior. A non-effective movie for its intended audience.

  
  
• 
  

  May 18, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Fungusmonkey said ...

  @Don Panini - There's a vast difference between "successful" and "good". While movies like Transformers 2 and New Moon were financially successful, they were terrible films for the audience they were targeted towards and got the rating they deserved. Korey actually caught some flak for giving New Moon a "rental" instead of a "Some Ol' Bullshit", but that's because he felt that 14yr old girls (the audience it's meant for) might be able to find at least something likeable in the movie. Sure, it went on to make a gazillion dollars, but that doesn't make it a good movie - that just means it's a fad and that there are a lot of people out there with no taste. @Elyk - Yeah, 45% on Rotten Tomatoes is a pretty damning score. That puts it slightly above "Armaggedon" but lower than "Astro Boy". And that's with a lot of reviewers that love everything Ridley Scott does. If this was done by a less popular director like Michael Bay, it might be a lot lower score.

• May 18, 2010 at 3:29 AM, Sferzar said ...

  Actually for rotten tomatoes, that kinda is.

  
  
• 
  

  May 17, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Elyk said ...

  Wow, guys I think you went in wanting to hate this movie, cause it got much more favorable reviews from other critics, with a 45% on RT, that isn't as bad as you guys make it seem.

• May 17, 2010 at 8:35 PM, bsdark_02 said ...

  ROBIN HOOD MEN IN TIGHTS!!!! That is the #2 Robin Hood movie of all time. (Live Action Movie Of Course) The Cartoon one is in a league of its own.

  
  
• 
  

  May 17, 2010 at 4:26 AM, Don Panini said ...

  @Fungusmonkey: By that same token Garfield, the Toothfairy, Transformers 2 and New Moon deserved better ratings. They were clearly sucessful for the type of movies they were, and for the type of audiences were meant for.

• May 17, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Fungusmonkey said ...

  @Kevin - Thank you for proving my point. Cloverfield was easily one of the most creative and entertaining survivor/monster movies in the last decade and was brilliantly written. Plus, I think the word you're looking for is "antogonist", not "protagonist". And even then, you'd be wrong because it's a man vs. environment story that just happens to have a sci-fi bent to it. I would say that this movie is exactly on the same level as Garfield and Furry Vengeance (and pay attention because this is the part that most complaints on the site tend to miss) for the type of movie it is and the audience it's meant for. Every review is subjective. You can't rate films as films and leave them at that. Each film is different, and each review is different. For the type of audience that Garfield is targeting and the kind of movie it is, it failed and gets a "Some Ol' Bullshit". For the type of audience that Robin Hood was aimed at, and the type of movie it was, it failed and gets a "Some Ol' Bullshit". If this was made by some no-name director and had some no-name star in it, it'd be bounced out of the theaters by now. The only thing that's keeping it afloat is the fact that it's made by Ridley Scott and has Russell Crowe in it. With the terrible reviews it keeps getting, and the fan reception being generally poor, I doubt it will last long on the charts. Costing between 150-250 million to make, they barely scratched 40mil on it's opening weekend here in the states, and there little chance of it growing legs due to word of mouth because most of the word of mouth is indifferent or negative. I mean, people will like what they like, but you can't blame the Spill Crew for feeling the same way about a movie as a majority of the film-going public. They don't just rate a movie "to get internet hits" - they call 'em like they see 'em, and Robin Hood got a "Some Ol' Bullshit". That may be harsher than some of us would have given it, but they're not you. When you guys do your video reviews, you can rate it however you like.

  
  
• 
  

  May 17, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Mark Hazleton Jr. said ...

  this review was worth more of the Matinee price of admission than the actual movie when i saw it today. weird that yesterday, it was the 1st time in years that the movie completely messed up in the beginning of the movie (25 min into it), so i got back the refund...but went BACK TODAY.....for no reason because the movie was so boring. Some of the scenes DID look really nice (but it was the scenery and thats it), it looked good on the big screen, but about 75% of the movie suffered from DULLNESS and things we've seen in other movies but MUCH BETTER...this just wasted the audience's time. DAMN, even the painted animation at the end credits was more entertaining than most of the movie.

• May 16, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Haron Dick said ...

  I was hoping this was going to be better, oh well.

  
  
• 
  

  May 16, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Kevin said ...

  @ Fungusmonkey. Who is "us"? 12 year old kids who prefer a terribly acted blair witch project ripoff with the rankor from star wars as the protagonist over academy award winning performances and a well written script? I'm not even saying this movie is good, because it's not, but there reviews are certainly suspect and this movie was most definitely not on the same level as Garfield or Furry Vengeance.

• May 16, 2010 at 8:57 PM, David said ...

  This was a pretty decent movie. If you had any interest in seeing it when you watched the trailer, hey, go see it. You'll probably like it. Is it a great film? Not really. But it is well made and pretty interesting, definitely worth a matinee at least.

  
  
• 
  

  May 16, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Sferzar said ...

  @ Fungusmonkey. For. Real. Couldn't agree more with you.Maybe they belong to bizarro world or something.

• May 16, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Fungusmonkey said ...

  @Kevin - If you liked this movie and No Country for Old Men, but didn't like Cloverfield... you're right. You're not on the same planet as the rest of us.

  
  
• 
  

  May 16, 2010 at 5:34 PM, sinshenlong said ...

  LOL at Aaron i totally fkin agree man

• May 16, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Kevin said ...

  @ Don Panini I'd have to agree with you that this review is a rather obvious attempt to get internet hits, and less about the integrity of the movie. They almost did the same thing with the "No Country for Old Men" review. 2 guys giving it matinee and Carlyle giving it "some ol' bullshit", and then I look at "Cloverfield" getting unanimous "better than sex" ratings and I wonder if we are even on the same planet, never mind wavelength.

  
  
• 
  

  May 16, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Monkey_Has_Milk said ...

  Woah, look at all this hate. I just saw it and I really liked it. The story was very interesting, the characters were entertaining and the acting was great all-round (King John being pathetically hilarious), and the action scenes were awesome. I loved the dialogue, and everyone in the cinema seemed to be having a really good time, 'ooh-ing' when someone died from a vicious arrow to the neck, and everyone laughed at all the jokes in the film. I was never bored during the whole two and a half hours. And the posters and trailers clearly state that the film is a prequel to Robin Hood: "BEFORE THE LEGEND" So how are you surprised and angered by this, unless you didn't know that going in. But still, he was very much Robin Hood throughout the entire film. He was honest and brave, helping out the poor and hating the rich. He was also very skillful with the arrow and Will Scarley, Friar Tuck, LittleJohn and all the rest were along for the adventure. So I don't understand how this isn't a Robin Hood film. Anyway, agree to disagree.

• May 16, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Cetrix said ...

  I wasn't bored but that final action sequence made me dizzy, and yeah, this is not Robin Hood; I wouldn't mind a sequel since it would actually be about the Outlaw Robin Hood. I'd give it a very low rental.

  
  
• 
  

  May 16, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Andrew Willson said ...

• May 16, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Chi said ...

  Disney gave me my Robin Hood movie, many many years ago...

  
  
• 
  

  May 16, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Aaron said ...

  Jesus christ, you guys are making this sound like Medellin from Entourage. It's one of the worst movies ever made and Russell Crowe flies off to an island with his entourage and big bootied bitches. Defintiely passing on this.

Post Comment