Historically the movie was only somewhat accurate; more so as far as being aligned with period settings and wardrobe of the day. In truth, during the battle at the castle Limoges, King Richard I was actually hit in the shoulder (not the neck), with a bolt from a crossbow. He died rather slowly from infection over a period of 12 days. Also, King Richard I died long before the legendary figure “Robin Hood” was potentially even born. There is no real historical record of the legendary Robin Hood existing, only hints within written works. There is the potential based on recorded writings that Robin Hood was employed by King Edward II during 1323, long after King Richard I. However, there is no actual documentation to support this as being factual. So yes, there was some fabrication indeed added to the story for add excitement. However, it was far more believable than the Kevin Costner version, as exciting as it was. It’s a fun fanciful story designed to showcase the hero and his longing love affair with a madden who, in the story, needed no hero herself as she was a very capable woman on her own. She was only missing a man ‘worthy’ of her love. The subtle development between Russell and Cate's characters were heartwarming. Cate delivers such a regal presence no matter what role she plays. And as for Russell, you would have to be an absolutely horrible director to ever make Russell look bad. Russell, Cate, and Max Von Sydow are all that good as actors.

Love this movie. Wish there had been more scenes between Russell and Cate, I know there were several but an hour into the film they meet and their chemistry was great, would have enjoyed more romance and time with those two. The merry men and friar were well played and cast, the story was pretty good and a nice divergence from the typical Robin Hood story told many times before. Overall I enjoy watching it again and again when I want to sit back and relax.
As for the "unrated Director's cut" - I found the few extra scenes ok to watch once, they didn't add enough to the story to both with the extra time so after the initial viewing I just catch the theatrical version also offered on the disc.

It's hard to remember that Ridley Scott directed this, when in view of his disastrous remake of his Alien series. He should stick to historical fiction, he's so good at it. I've never saw any Robin Hood movies, so this one w/ Russell Crowe is fantastic. Crowe has such a commanding performance, like his Gladiator character. The only unnecessary part of the plot is really towards the end, i love Cate Blanchett, but her joining the battle on the beach wasn't really needed for the story...everything else, 5 stars!

I give this movie five stars, because it does try to take into consideration much of the history going on in England in 1199 and much that was known about King Richard and John and other historic factors to make the Robin Hood story more plausible. I think the effort was trying to emulate what was done in Braveheart. What this needed was atleast two more movies to round out the whole story. I felt there was too much detail crunched into this one movie and it would have done better as a trilogy or even a miniseries.

I have sot of a "Robin Hood" collection: this one, Errol Flynn, Kevin Costner, Disney, Men in Tights and will add Douglas Fairbanks, probably. I like this variation because of its attempt at being potentially more historically accurate, as to who Robin actually may have been. Russell Crowe is a good actor. The portrayal is real, human, nonfantastic, typical for Ruissell. his "mark" if you will. Again, the story is very different, but still hits on the key points of the typical story. I find the telling of the Robin Hood stories to be like Paul Bunyan stories, spun from anecdotes with a fresh twist and new and different details each time.

This should have been titled "Robin Hood, the Prequel". It tells the story of how and why Robin Longstride (or Robin Loxley) became "Robin Hood". It also gives the background of his relationship with Marion (whom he ultimately married, according to Wikipedia). This movie ends where all the others begin, and I think it is interesting and well-produced (typical of Ridley Scott).
My only objection to the Blu-Ray version is a plethora of previews which we must sit thru at the beginning, and it will NOT allow us to skip or fast-forward them. I recommend the movie, but suggest buying the DVD version.

The legend of Robin Hood evolves for each generation and medium. This version is a worthy entry in the chronicles of the outlaw of Sherwood Forest, both exciting and epic as it essentially gives a gritty account of the archer's origin. Robin is introduced serving in the Holy Land under Richard the Lionheart. The opening battle sequence is impressive, although certainly not unexpected considering director Ridley Scott's acomplishment with the Oscar winning Gladiator. It's the Gladiator himself, Russell Crowe, as Robin Hood and he does a great job of fashioning a version of Hood who is human, heroic, but at all times alert and ready to act in desperate means. The story has enough new turns to keep it fresh without feeling out of sync with the nature of the previous Hood tales. The Sheriff of Nottingham is really only glimpsed here and there's no hope for Richard's return. While perhaps not the definative version - for me that would be Flynn - it is a terrific film. Thanks to its mix of realism and adventure, it hits the target dead center.

Interesting redo of the story and probably closer to reality than some of the stuff Errol Flynn did. Although Errol was great in the sword fights with Bazil Rathbone. It is an enjoyable movie. Prince John is thoroughly a wretch as well he was in life. Good casting.