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.
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…
"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 well written and worth a look.…
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
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.
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…
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…
I'm not sure how they feel they can call this a Robin Hood picture. Don't you have to maintain at least a little something from the original story? Man, Ridley Scott is hit or miss these days.
I always wondered why they bothered to make a new Robin Hood film. What could this one bring to the table that the many before it hadn't already?
Turns out, what it brings to the table is a prequel story. A muddled, packed-to-the-brim, uninspiring prequel story. It's dark, dramatic, action packed, and devoid of fun.
Ridley Scott's Robin Hood wasn't able to hold my undivided attention, so I wasn't actually able to follow the entire story, because I didn't realize this would have more going on than a season of Game of Thrones. France vs England, England vs the king, the king vs Robin, Robin helping Marion because it's Marion vs a bunch of shit. That's not even everything, because…
(Original review outdated, re-evaluation required at later date)
AKA, Season 5 of Game of Thrones.
Remember the good ol' days of Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland?
Not as bad as you might think, but it builds to a very unsatisfying battle. For all that Ridley Scott does well, he can't direct/edit an action sequence. If you liked Gladiator, this is basically a retelling (in a different setting) with the same lame undercranked camera techniques.
Not a terrible movie on its own terms, but very disappointing considering the talent involved and the fact that...it's ROBIN BLOODY HOOD! The "prequel to the legend" take is interesting and fine, but Scott uncomfortably tries to cram the legend, the fable into revisionist history and it just doesn't really work. Robin and his men are no longer merry but utterly dour and downbeat. Can't remember Crowe ever cracking a smile. Blanchett is her typically stiff and affected self. Lots of historical-political padding and background which douse the joy and spirit and humour of the fairy tale. Still Sir Riddles can't make a bad film, and this is a decent movie IF you're able to remove all preconceptions of what Robin Hood should be. After Flynn, and Costner and especially that Disney Fox, unfortunately, I can't.
Vor allem am Anfang um am Ende sind die optische Wucht von Ridley Scott über jeden Zweifel erhaben. Aber dazwischen entsteht leider immer wieder einiges an Leerlauf gegen den auch Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett und Mark Strong nicht ankämpfen können.
Ridley Scott's 5th collaboration with Russell Crowe had a lot of potential to be a good Robin Hood story, but it turned out to be a very forgettable and boring journey that you'll probably won't remember in T-minus 1 day.
Sir Ridley Scott, you're up. 3 vote limit. Deadline is March 23. Next poll will be Wes Anderson (but I'm…
A list which includes a lot of period drama movies and TV mini-series.