I liked it. There was a lot about it that, while not your typical Robin Hood lightweight style, was quality movie. The actiing was very good by all the main cast. Some dumb plot holes, but hell not as bad as other movies that have received much better review scores (Avatar at 82%!?!). And there's the occasional accent slipage, I can certainly understand the natives cringing with the accent jobs, they should have just let Russell be Russell. Hell Costner got away with being an American accented Robin Hood (or at least the movie made pots of cash, which is what's really important), so why not an Aussie/Kiwi accented Hood. American's think Kiwis at least are English anyway (I think they know the Aussie accent now).

Personally I think it's pushing 7/10, but 6/10 is a fair score too.

I definitely think it was hard done by on Rotten Tomatoes. I often agree with the RT score for what are meant to be mainstream movies. But on this one, I very much disagree.

I hope the movie goers ignore the reviews and go see it. I think it could make for 1 or 2 decent sequels. They've definitely intended it to be that way.

RE comments about Shutter Island. I liked it up until the end. The end left me rather flat, though I'm glad the ending went the way it did once the truth was revealed.

A rumour I heard was that a lot of people “in the know” were very upset with Ridley Scott because he changed the premise of his Robin Hood movie in pre-production to become a much more generic film. From what I was told, he was originally going to make the movie and have Russell Crow play the sheriff of Nottingham, who was a man caught between a tyrant and an outlaw. If this is true, I could understand why reviewers would be disappointed (the other premise is far more interesting) and why Ridley Scott abandoned that approach (it would be difficult/impossible to pull off).

Did your daughter make you see it with her?