Generate a number from 1 to 2999 via:
You can skip movies 10 times but never go back.
When soldier Robin happens upon the dying Robert of Loxley, he promises to return the man's sword to his family in Nottingham. There, he assumes Robert's identity; romances his widow, Marion; and draws the ire of the town's sheriff and King John's henchman, Godfrey.
There is no real historical or linguistic concensus on whether or not Robin Hood really existed, at least not in the way he was portrayed in early writings and in film versions. So, filmmakers can work with a blank canvas to paint their version of this 12th century Good Samaritan. And Scott's version tries to be as historically accurate as possible.
And apparently history is boring as hell.
While I appreciate a completely new approach to this character and it is difficult to fault Scott's aesthetics here, I truly cannot understand why they chose to still fall back on so many of the fictionalized elements made famous in various earlier interpretations.
Most of the versions of Robin Hood have one…
Looks like Russell Crowe is trying to rekindle the Maximus magic of Gladiator. I know people who hate the version with Kevin Costner, but its one of my all time favorites. The characters here are so unremarkable while lacking any memorable dialogue. Singing in a Robin Hood movie? Really? William Hurt is a great actor, but I don't even remember his character's name. Instead of Robin Hood's merry men we are graced with the Children of The Corn. Why were there children fighting? One of my favorite bad guys(the sheriff) is reduced to a punch line.
There were some things I liked even if they were minimal. Showing the various locations made the world of the film seem larger. Marion's character was a lot stronger than other versions and I liked that even if it was very unrealistic.
I'm going to watch the Costner version to remind me that there is a good version.
Robin Hood in Cinema Entry #27
"Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions".
What fascinates me about Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood is how the film started out as the inventive script titled “Nottingham”. The film would have starred the Sheriff of Nottingham as the protagonist trying to catch a serial killer and chasing an antagonistic, but ultimately innocent Robin Hood. What particularly interests me is that the film would have showcased the sheriff using actual 12th century crime solving techniques. But for whatever reason multiple rewrites were made and as a result the public got a completely different film. For a more in depth look read the Cracked Article 6 Famously Terrible Movies That Were Almost Awesome. It’s very…
It's the prequel to the story of Robin Hood nobody wanted to see. It is a humourless bore of a film with poor performances from all but the ever reliable, Max Von Sydow. I really have no idea what accent Crowe was aiming for but he managed to pretty much do a whistle stop tour of every regional accent in Britain throughout the course of the film. I don't mind revising a classic legend, and I was hoping it would provide an intriguing twist to the mix, but instead it just got the film bogged down in pointless politics with a bunch of characters it was impossible to care about.
They have removed all the fun of a traditional Robin…
To misquote Oscar Wilde 'The only horrible thing in the world is ennui, Ridley. That is the one sin for which there is no forgiveness'.
i.e. feck this was boring
Sir Ridley Scott rarely gets it wrong. The furore that followed Prometheus was quite frankly ludicrous. Unfortunately Sir Rid took it on the chin again for some dodgy accents in this a much maligned but hugely enjoyable epic.
So Russell Crowe struggles with a Yorkshire accent-so what. He has never been good at accents anyway. Did it really spoil the film? I don't think so.
Another terrific cast is assembled by Sir Rid as he brings together the likes of Mark Strong,William Hurt,Kevin Durand,Oscar Isaac and even Max Von Sydow as the elderly Sir Walter Loxley. Mark Addy pops up as Friar Tuck and Danny Huston has a fleeting role as Richard The Lionheart but the star of the show…
Was für eine einmalig vertane Chance...
I've never been a fan of the swords and sandals epics (even Gladiator bored the shit out of me), and this movie is no exception. It was so over long, boring, and with a story that was pretty generic. Even the protagonist, Robin Hood, seemed incredibly one-note, and it was impossible to care about his character whatsoever. The battle scenes were fine, but there are better action scenes in lots of other movies. Not everyone will dislike this movie as much as I did, as its not particularly terrible, but this movie wasn't worth my time, and I don't even know why it even needed to be made.
esta version me parece entretenida y con la calidad que solo ofrece Ridley Scott, un elenco de primera linea y una de las mejores interpretaciones que Robin Hood ha tenido en el cine a duras penas superada por la version protagonizada por Kevin Cosner en 1991, que si bien las comparamos nos dan dos historias completamente distintas a pesar que hablan lo mismo, esto es parte de la magia del cine!
Back in 2012, Lincoln Center hosted a retrospective of Sir Ridley's films to link up with and help promote the release of PROMETHEUS. I wanted to take that opportunity to catch up with some of his more recent, less generally well-received work that I had missed on the big screen. I nosed around, and it seemed like KINGDOM OF HEAVEN was the movie thought by the circle of internet, egg-head film buffs (of which I was/am a fellow traveler, if not a card carrying member) to be most deserving of reconsideration, so I went to see it there, a 35mm print of the "director's cut". It was, alas, a dud, or, rather, a slog. Shit-tier historical revisionism ("crusades wuz bad")…
It had the potential to be something special and intriguing but no... Instead of continuing with the fun and likable Robin, Scott makes it grim and bleak and somewhat boring... I understand, he wanted a different approach but it just doesn't hook you.
My second biggest dissapointment was the complete average acting of an otherwise great cast.
blue eyed oscar made me sexually uncomfortable
I only gave this 3 stars because I saw Oscar Isaac semi naked in it.
pipe down, why are you all whining in the reviews? this was great. the casting was great, the plot may have had historical inaccuracies but it's a fucking MOVIE. the cinematography, the costumes, the score, the scenery? all good. it was fairly entertaining even if it it's not scott's best work. perhaps as a lover of era films i'm biased, but you definitely all need to calm down.
also, cate blanchett in armor? 10/10
I have tried to limit this list to proper period dramas (no animated features or alternate histories) and arrange them…
All the way from 'The Land Before Time' to 'The Social Network'.
(Read notes for dates.)
Work in progress, will…