If you owned your very own movie theater and got to program the films it exhibited as you desired, what…
Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions.
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.
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.
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…
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
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…
Everyone has a favorite version of one of the many Robin Hood adaptations that have hit the big screen. We've had Errol Flynn and those tights back in 1938, the revisionist take of Richard Lester's Robin and Marian in the seventies, Disney's cunning little animated fox in 1973, and even Kevin Costner sporting a mullet in 1991's Prince Of Thieves. Sir Ridley Scott's version from 2010 however doesn't seem to be anyone's favorite take on the infamous folk hero, but it's still an impressive piece of film-making.
The legend of Robin Hood is a well loved English myth. Historically the tales of Robin Hood are mere speculation, unless you're actually from Nottingham. Several different historical figures have been painted as…
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…
It didn't have to be this way.
It could have been fun.
astounding: two and a half hours, zero content
Nothing Special Here.
I like that the movie tried to remain as historically accurate as possible with some deviations to try to create an interesting story. No one needs a pure historical telling around the tale of Robin Hood. The idea was to make a gritty Robin Hood movie founded in some realism. The changes in the historical record were not offensive or overly contrived.
The portrayal of both King Richard and Prince/King John as people seem to be pretty accurate. Certainly the tension during the Crusades-era in England during the reign of the Plantagenets/Angevin kings is present here (the film blending England's lost of a continental foothold in Europe as well as John burning what appears to be a…
This is an origin story that nobody really wanted. We don't care about how Robin Hood became who he is, we care for what he is. An outlaw, the Prince of Thieves. I've read they planned a sequel that was scrapped because of a poor box office showing. They should have made that sequel instead of this and given us the more traditional story of Robin Hood.
This isn't perhaps as bad as it's reputation gives.
Começa mais ou menos. Mais lá pro meio do filme fica muito bom, vc sabe o que esperar mais isso não estraga o filme. Recomendo
Ridley Scott's adaptation of the early years of the legendary character we know as "Robin Hood" (before he became the stuff of legend) suffers only from a somewhat muddled script. The film powers through the somewhat meandering script in the final act with a spectacular battle sequence and an ending that is satisfying even if it tries a little to hard to set up the Legendary Robin Hood.
Russell Crowe is one of the best actors working in this kind of role, and he's supported by an excellent cast that includes Cate Blanchett, Max von Sydow, Mark Addy, and Mark Strong (in a villainous role--one that he excels at, as well).
"Robin Hood" is by no means a perfect film, but one that delivers enough excitement and adventure to be worthy of its legendary title character. Scott knows how to make consistent, eminently watchable, if flawed, cinema.
Not particularly standout in any way.
A little better than I remembered it being, though it is still annoyingly long, and Robin's merry men are all but indistinguishable. They don't seem to have much of a purpose after the beginning of the movie. All except for Friar Tuck, who at least has the decency to stand out as being fat and brewing honey beer. The entire rogues gallery combine for maybe a paragraph of dialogue during the last hour and a half of the movie. Which basically leaves Russell Crow and a bunch of political "intrigue" that is actually quite boring.
I really wish Scott would stop mudding his plates with such total tripe. Here the attempted repackaging of Robin Hood to be tough enough for Crowe to star; makes you wonder if Flynn in revealing tights might actually be the preferred option
Sir Ridley Scott, you're up. 3 vote limit. Deadline is March 23. Next poll will be Wes Anderson (but I'm…
Thanks for your help, Lily!