"Robin Hood" is not a badly-made film.
"Robin Hood" is not an unwatchable movie.
"Robin Hood" is not a painful experience in a theater.
But having said that, I'm not sure "Robin Hood" is a movie anyone needs to see, or that anyone would have any reason to anticipate. It's a near-perfect example of what I've been saying recently about remakes and sequels and reboots and prequels. It is a fascinating miscalculation by smart and talented people, and it's the sort of film that must be frustrating to make, because there's no one way to fix it once things go as wrong as they go here.
I love "Gladiator." Unreservedly. I still think it's one of the best and most audience-minded movies Ridley Scott ever made. I think it's incredibly good at what it does. There's a tone, a style, a dramatic energy that the film gets just right. Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott are equally responsible for that film's success, and there's no way to overstate the importance of Joaquin Phoenix's performance as a very, very bad bad guy.
The thing that "Gladiator" gets right that "Robin Hood" misses completely is a sense of fun. Yes, there's a sense of tension and urgency, and the stakes in "Gladiator" are certainly personal and sad, but there's a sense of fun to the mayhem, a thrill. I think Scott has a tin ear for "fun" a lot of the time. He does somber well. He does moody well. He does atmospheric as well as anyone. "A Good Year," his comedy with Russell Crowe in the lead, is a good example of what happens when Ridley Scott does "funny." Maybe the lumps he took on that one explain the swing towards pure dour, which is what "Robin Hood" is, and it's a shame.