PDA

View Full Version : Robin Hood



Frozen_Feet
2010-05-30, 04:28 PM
So, anyone who watched Ridley Scott's recent version? :smallbiggrin: Discussion of other tellings is also allowed.

I liked the new movie very much. Basically, it grabbed tropes of the story by the nads, threw away the worst and silliest cliches, and then added awesome acting and staging to boot. Russel Crowe really shined as the title character, and all the minor characters were memorable and funny. The dialogue was also awesome; "We're men of the hood, merry on your expense." :smallbiggrin:

Of course, I would've bought the ticket just to watch Cate Blanchet for two hours. How foxy can a woman look?

Octopus Jack
2010-05-30, 04:38 PM
Yeah I went to see Gladia- Robin Hood twice. I loved it. Not sure what else to say...

Mathis
2010-05-30, 04:41 PM
Watched it expecting something along the lines of Gladiator. Was disappointed. Too many bad jokes and attempts at comic relief. Was left with a feeling that the movie could've been better if they'd skipped the bad jokes and went for a darker and more serious tone like Ridley Scott managed to portray in Gladiator.

Had I however walked into the cinema expecting nothing I'm sure I would've enjoyed it a lot more. The acting is great though, and some of the characters made me laugh, Mark Strong especially is really growing on me. Cate Blanchett is a beautiful woman indeed, but I couldn't shrug the feeling that the character was too young for her. Just so you know I still have a crush on her Galadriel.

For you who havn't seen it yet, this isn't the normal Robin Hood story like the Disney-version with archery-deluxe. The movie tells the story of what happened before what we see in the other movies.

Makensha
2010-05-30, 04:47 PM
I saw it, and really didn't like it. I can't explain why, I just sat there for two hours thinking, "I wonder if I should refill slushie? I don't want to miss something happening, but at the same time nothing interesting has happened recently. So does that mean something interesting will happen soon or nothing interesting will happen soon? And if I miss something important, will it be worth refilling my slushie?" I ended up refilling it once.

If just seemed really boring to me. The person I went with liked it, but I was sitting there waiting for something I cared about. It never did. Even the climactic battle didn't phase me, though I blame that on the close up camera shots, which got me lost in what was going on. I figured Britain was winning because the movies about Robin Hood, but I never really the fight, just individual sword swings from different cameras pasted together into a fight scene.

Then there was the thing about his father being a philosopher. I get what he was saying, but it took forever for the arc to come around, and it just felt like they needed a reason to make Robin of the Hood the "chosen one."

thompur
2010-05-30, 07:05 PM
Meh. The new one was o.k. but it lacked...IDK...spark. Mark Strong was good, and I liked what they did with Prince John. But there was no chemistry between anybody.
I would rank this as #3 in my list of favorite Robins hood.

#1 Errol Flynn (1938) Claude Raines, Basil Rathbone, Olivia De Haviland = Amazing cast

#2 Cary Elwes(1993) I know it's a parody, but it's so well cast, I could see them do a relatively straight version and do it well!

Frozen_Feet
2010-05-30, 07:13 PM
#2 Cary Elwes(1993) I know it's a parody, but it's so well cast, I could see them do a relatively straight version and do it well!

Ah yes, Men in Thights. :smallbiggrin: That's one of the most hilarious parody films I've ever seen. Must've watched it a dozen times or so. Oh, the memories.

The new film still outdoes it, in my opinion. Narrowly, but still. :smallwink:

comicshorse
2010-05-30, 07:13 PM
Posted by Thompur

But there was no chemistry between anybody.
Yeah that pretty much how I felt. It just seemed to lack some spark to make it come to life
Favourite Robin Hood is still 'Robin and Marian' with Sean Conery and Audrey Hepburn


Mark Strong especially is really growing on me.

Yeah with this Kick Ass and Sherlock Holmes he does seem to be on a roll

Tirian
2010-05-30, 08:06 PM
#2 Cary Elwes(1993) I know it's a parody, but it's so well cast, I could see them do a relatively straight version and do it well!

You're having us on. It was (mostly) a powerful cast, but so horribly directed that you could tell that they were having more fun that we were in the theater seats. The Disney movie was more enjoyable, and that was an extremely patronizing movie. And neither had this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6I_8HXcO54).

However, there can be no doubt that the best Robin Hood movie ever made (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWXcDZNgOWs&feature=related) didn't even have "Robin Hood" in the title.

Eldan
2010-05-31, 04:42 AM
I could post this in the "What did you just say" thread as well, but it also fits here.

Friend, after seeing the movie:
"Why the hell did Prince John invent Democracy in this one? I mean, that's just stupid. He was a tyrant, he wouldn't do that."

Delusion
2010-05-31, 05:22 AM
Kinda liked it, but I think I would have enjoyed it more if it hadn't been titled "Robin Hood" if you know what I mean.

And why does every single hollywood film have to have the mandatory FREEEDOOOM speech in it?

comicshorse
2010-05-31, 07:40 AM
I t wasn't really about Democracy or freedom, nobody suggested the peasnants got the vote. It was suggesting that they be protected by the law that would apply to all

Frozen_Feet
2010-05-31, 07:54 AM
Considering John torched the charter in the end, it's a moot point anyway. Besides, it was Robin's father who invented democracy. :smallwink:

AstralFire
2010-05-31, 08:06 AM
I haven't seen this movie yet. I will say I really liked Costner's "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" and Disney's Robin Hood. While I loved Princess Bride, I'm not sure it's quite close enough to be called a Robin Hood story.

snoopy13a
2010-05-31, 10:18 AM
I thought the movie was ok but it was too "English gladiator". Robin Hood movies ought to be silly and lighthearted with archery feats and swashbuckling swordfights. Plus, Robin and Marian are supposed to be foxes :smalltongue:

Stephanie04
2010-05-31, 10:20 AM
just hoping this won't be a big disappointment as Iron Man 2 had been
and hopefully this would surpass the first Robin Hood movies, i'm yet to see this
prolly right after watching Get Him to the Greek on friday - free on this day so i got plenty time watching several movies

OT: anyone from NYC seen the movie Get Him to the Greek, they say it was a successful one, how true?

AstralFire
2010-05-31, 10:21 AM
I thought Iron Man 2 was pretty awesome. o_O

SlyGuyMcFly
2010-05-31, 11:02 AM
Didn't enjoy it much. My main issue with it is that half the time it seemed that it was trying to be a gritty realistic telling of the story, while the other half seemed to be attempting a much lighter and humourous action flick. On the one hand Gladiator-esque dirty, bloody fights. On the other teenaged pony cavalry as reinforcements on the final battle. I seriously WTFed there.

Plus the "chosen one" angle with the Magna Charta was very much unneeded. Friar Tuck was pretty cool, though.


Plus, Robin and Marian are supposed to be foxes

Most certainly one of the best Robin Hoods :smallcool:

Philistine
2010-05-31, 11:51 AM
The pacing wasn't very good, and the movie was at least half an hour longer than it needed to be. Also, the final climactic battle scene was so full of Fail that my friends and I actually found ourselves laughing out loud in the theater.

For example: Invasion force landing at the base of the cliffs of Dover. Worst. Landing Zone. Ever. Any opposition at all could pin the landing force to the beach, and the only way out of the killbox is to charge straight uphill along the one path leading to the top of the cliffs.

For example: Saving Private Ryan-esque landing scene, with assault landing craft pulling up to the shore and dropping their bow ramps(!) so that the troops aboard could charge out into a hail of machine gun firearrows, complete with shots of troops sinking down into the reddening waves. Also, the presence of assault landing craft in the French invasion fleet ~750 years before they were invented.

For example: Extreme Tactical Fail on the part of the English, who almost entirely failed to take advantage of their much superior position on top of the cliffs while the French were trying to land at the bottom (see the first Example). Sending the knights charging down the hill into a melee on the beach was a terrible idea; sending the archers charging down the hill into the melee on the beach right behind them was even worse; but it was the charge of a couple of dozen Cub Scouts on Ponies that drew full-on belly laughs.

For example: French invasion fleet possessing FTL communications. Note that the invasion fleet turns away from shore literally the second their commander gets done speaking the order (you can see it in the background of the shot where the French Prince/King/whatever is giving the order). In unison, no less!

I could continue, but that should give you some idea.

Ridley Scott is a really incredibly good cinematographer, there's no question about that. I've long considered him to be rather subpar as a director, though, and this latest movie only confirmed that. IMO it's significantly inferior to Men in Tights, and roughly on par with (or perhaps just slightly inferior to) Prince of Thieves.

JonestheSpy
2010-05-31, 12:03 PM
Everything I've heard about the movie steers me far, far away from it. Robin Hood is pretty much my favorite character from folklore, and this film clearly gets absolutely nothing right.

Tirian
2010-05-31, 12:25 PM
While I loved Princess Bride, I'm not sure it's quite close enough to be called a Robin Hood story.

You've got a notorious criminal, aided by a band of superlative fighters, stealing the maiden out from under the nose of the evil and not really legitimate prince with an utterly ruthless assistant (two, in fact).

The difference is that the story is different, but to me that's the feature that makes it stand out. It's wearying to watch the same scenes re-enacted every ten years when, as others have noted, the movie was done perfectly before any of us were born.

Frozen_Feet
2010-05-31, 01:25 PM
Everything I've heard about the movie steers me far, far away from it. Robin Hood is pretty much my favorite character from folklore, and this film clearly gets absolutely nothing right.

Don't let them make you miss a goog movie!

Honestly, many flaws mentioned here are shameless nitpickery. The movie's anything but botched. It's a different take on Robin Hood than most, but definitely not bad. My personal opinion is it was better than the Gladiator, so if you found that movie watchable, your time and money wouldn't be wasted on this movie either.

JonestheSpy
2010-05-31, 02:46 PM
Don't let them make you miss a goog movie!

Honestly, many flaws mentioned here are shameless nitpickery. The movie's anything but botched. It's a different take on Robin Hood than most, but definitely not bad. My personal opinion is it was better than the Gladiator, so if you found that movie watchable, your time and money wouldn't be wasted on this movie either.

Oh, I've read plenty of full-length reviews by critics I respect and seens some clips, and it sounds (and looks) like the flaws are far more than nitpickery.

Gladiator was OK. I saw a chunk of it at a friend's, and was glad I didn't pay for it. Won't pay to see this one either.

Really, if you're going to do Robin Hood, I think you should, you know, tell a story about Robin Hood. If they want to do a movie about sieges and cavalry charges and stuff, they should remake Ivanhoe or something.

Philistine
2010-05-31, 05:50 PM
Ridley Scott spends far too much time doing his cinematographer's job, at the expense of his own (as a director, that would be Plot and Pacing, Story and Character). That's not a nitpick, that's bad filmmaking. What's worse, it's darned unprofessional.

For most of the movie's running time, very little is actually happening. When things finally do start happening, Scott does a poor job of clearly establishing what is happening. These are not nitpicks, these are examples of bad filmmaking.

The start of the Climactic Battle Scene was perilously close to being a shot-for-shot remake of the Omaha Beach landing scene from the opening of Saving Private Ryan. That's not a nitpick, that's bad filmmaking. Calling out the exceptionally poor tactics (from both sides!) and anachronistic technology on display... well, those are nitpicks, but not minor ones - they completely violated what suspension of disbelief I was still clinging to by that point. They're also entirely valid; and given the movie's shameless attempts to pretend to historicity (Magna Carta silliness anyone?), they're perfectly fair.

The Sheriff of Nottingham is one of several characters who appear on screen a handful of times but never actually do anything to advance the story. That's not a nitpick, that's bad filmmaking. Those roles should either have been expanded enough to make them relevant to the story or cut out entirely (and the movie's running time is already on the bloated side).

SlyGuyMcFly
2010-05-31, 06:02 PM
The Sheriff of Nottingham is one of several characters who appear on screen a handful of times but never actually do anything to advance the story. That's not a nitpick, that's bad filmmaking. Those roles should either have been expanded enough to make them relevant to the story or cut out entirely (and the movie's running time is already on the bloated side).

That was another that really bothered me. I mean, it seemed like they were setting things up for a sequel and all, but the guy did pretty much all of nothing. The only reason he was there is because, hey, it can't be Robin Hood without the Sheriff, can it?

J.Gellert
2010-06-01, 03:27 AM
Ridley Scott spends far too much time doing his cinematographer's job, at the expense of his own (as a director, that would be Plot and Pacing, Story and Character). That's not a nitpick, that's bad filmmaking. What's worse, it's darned unprofessional.

For most of the movie's running time, very little is actually happening. When things finally do start happening, Scott does a poor job of clearly establishing what is happening. These are not nitpicks, these are examples of bad filmmaking.

The start of the Climactic Battle Scene was perilously close to being a shot-for-shot remake of the Omaha Beach landing scene from the opening of Saving Private Ryan. That's not a nitpick, that's bad filmmaking. Calling out the exceptionally poor tactics (from both sides!) and anachronistic technology on display... well, those are nitpicks, but not minor ones - they completely violated what suspension of disbelief I was still clinging to by that point. They're also entirely valid; and given the movie's shameless attempts to pretend to historicity (Magna Carta silliness anyone?), they're perfectly fair.

The Sheriff of Nottingham is one of several characters who appear on screen a handful of times but never actually do anything to advance the story. That's not a nitpick, that's bad filmmaking. Those roles should either have been expanded enough to make them relevant to the story or cut out entirely (and the movie's running time is already on the bloated side).

I agree 100%.

Furthermore, one battle-ready Marian was too much for me, but when I noticed the thief-kids riding ponies against heavily armed and armored soldiers (and winning, no less!) I lolled.

I give it 0 for historicity, at least. I could go with some of the changes (Lionheart dying in the beginning) because the story was interesting at the start, but by the end it was just funny.

If they wanted a darker-and-edgier Robin they should have portrayed him as a thief, not a knight, and maybe go all the way to the end where he is killed - though I suspect that would be too much like Gladiator.

Greyskull
2010-06-03, 11:36 PM
I haven't had a chance to see it yet, but all the criticism I've read of the film makes me leery. :smallfrown:

I just wish that they had stuck to the originally planned Nottingham film, which was supposed to be told from the perspective of the Sheriff. :smallannoyed:

BlueWizard
2010-06-07, 05:43 AM
I liked the movie.... a little but Alan Rickman in Costner's Robin Hood made that one by far the best. Errol, Connery, Brooks, and Disney all included in that comparison.

My friend, a better critic, walked out disappointed. He thought Robin Hood should've been left out of the title. He felt he'd been had. He thought it should've been called Crusader Knights, then he would've saved his money. He thought Scott wanted to direct a Crusader movie, so disguised his Robin Hood tale within it.

I was okay with the goofy spin on history, but I saw my friend's point.

I really disliked the whole bull-crap with Robin 'Longstride' and his father as well as Robin Locksley's death cover-up. All those stories mixing up seemed forced, and even lost me after a while. The movie ends in the ONLY place it could, and redeems itself in my mind, setting up sequels.

Ecalsneerg
2010-06-07, 05:56 AM
Everything I've heard about the movie steers me far, far away from it. Robin Hood is pretty much my favorite character from folklore, and this film clearly gets absolutely nothing right.

He wears a hood at one point, and doesn't wear a green hat. That's more right than many adaptations. :P

Ossian
2010-06-07, 06:05 AM
Pretty....meh. Too many nods at too many other movies. And Cate charging on horseback, like a very unnecessary nod at "Elisabeth" (only, she did not go into battle then). Yeah, I get it, she is hot, and battle maidens are even hotter, but then how do youmix that with "this is gritty realistic and gory middle ages where death stinks". Very good potential, exploited very poorly. Cliché battle scenes just cloned off the Gladiator with one-liners a-la "Russel Crowe when he does something with Ridely Scott". Poor screenplay choices (because the MUST use Dover, right? Come on... pin them down from the 300 feet cliff , u' are lucky if 10 knights make it to the top). Tries to be epic and medieval, but fails at it.

Confusing flashbacks, Robin with PTSD, useless Sheriff of Nottingham. I kinda liked John Lackland, but there too, poor character development.

In short, I would give it a 5/10

valadil
2010-06-07, 03:40 PM
I heard that the archery was done correctly, which is a rarity in Hollywood. However, I'm not sure I trust the source. Can any playgrounders tell me if it was done properly, or will I spend 2 hours grimacing whenever a bow is drawn?

xelliea
2010-06-07, 05:38 PM
Yeah it was good and I enjoyed it, but some things were cheesey. :smallbiggrin: