Robin Hood

→ in
Tools    





Sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand
Russell Crowe teams up with director Ridley Scott for the fifth time with Robin Hood. It’s difficult to forget the massive entertainment these two forces brought audiences with 2000’s Gladiator, and with similar promises of Crowe sporting armor and archery, bloody civil war battle scenes and a love story complete with Cate Blanchett, Robin Hood vows to be a timeless epic adventure.

Right…? Wrong.

The classic tale of Robin Hood brings to mind certain unalienable concepts. 13th century battles won with fiery bows and arrows. Robbing the rich to feed the poor. The dynamic between Marion and Hood. Ridley Scott’s version of the story dangles the Crowe-in-armor carrot in front of unassuming audiences this weekend, only for moviegoers to discover Crowe isn’t even playing Robin Hood.

Here Crowe is actually Robin Longstride, an archer in King Richard’s army who takes fate into his own hands after finding the king and some of his best men dead on the battlefield. Assuming the identity of fallen knight Robert Loxely, Robin and his friends deliver the king’s crown to Queen Eleanor (Eileen Atkins).

The film is more of a poorly guided history lesson than the justice-seeking, triumphant Hood tale audiences are used to. Newly appointed King John (Oscar Isaac) can barely contain his excitement over his brother’s death; now he can publicly blame mom for paying France a hefty ransom to get Richard out of jail that left England in debt. He can also pinky swear to his trusting subjects, led now by Robin “of the hood,” that he’ll sign a charter guaranteeing them certain rights if they all fight for England.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think audiences thought they were paying $10 to learn about the horrors of King John and the Magna Carta when they signed up for the director of Gladiator’s version of Robin Hood.

The film feels similar to Gladiator. It’s almost uncomfortable to watch Crowe’s scenes with Max Von Sydow, who plays Loxely’s father, Sir Walter. Audiences will remember Von Sydow’s crucial father-son-like relationship with Crowe in Gladiator, a bond mimicked throughout this film. The following of armor-clad citizens being led by Crowe to possible death is oddly familiar, but ever so much more dull and forcibly didactic with Hood.

Between sub-plots involving English traitors close to the king, Robin uncovering the meaning of his father’s death when he was a child, and a pretend-turned-(surprise!)-real relationship with Marion, it’s possible to actually miss the few Robin Hood-esque moments in Robin Hood.

Doze off for a second (and you might) in the first hour and you’ll miss one of the film’s two master archer follow-Robin’s-arrow-to-the-target moments. And there’s something to be said of the fist-pumping speeches given by this Robin. There are none, really. Only a short lecture the length of a Rhianna ring tone (and probably just as inspiring) describing a country’s need for equality of income to preserve honor. Honor schm-onor.

Whether it’s King John lying to England or Robin impersonating someone he is not, there are few honorable moments or storylines to follow here. Perhaps it’s fitting for modern audiences to watch someone masquerade publicly as a hero, promising citizens things they won’t get. Some might agree that Americans are fairly used to disappointment by now – they just didn’t expect it from Crowe and Scott.



i seen this last night and i thought it was great, not as good as gladiator and with the bad reviews its been getting i went to see it not expecting much but i really enjoyed it.



I plan to go see this. I enjoy alternative versions of old stories



Sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand
Let me know what you think. It's pretty long - weighing in at a heavy 2 hrs 20 mins. I was checking my phone on and off throughout, wondering how much longer I'd have to be taking notes in my favorite cheap and dumpy movie theatre.

I would've loved to watch Crowe shoot arrows for 2 hours and have more of an established relationship with Blanchett. Ce la vie.



While I firmly believe in everyone's right to express their opinions, it really irks me when people spend so much time trashing a film and don't even bother to get their facts straight about it. Max Von Sydow wasn't in Gladiator. At all. I assume the actor you were thinking of is the late Richard Harris, who played Marcus Aurelius in Gladiator. Not all white-haired actors are the same.

Also, this movie was deliberately made to essentially be a prequel to the Robin Hood legend rather than another retelling of it.



You know what I haven't done in a while? Pillage. Forget this gathering all my friends together at a bar for some drinks on the weekend. I'm sending out an E-vite tomorrow to about 100 people to pillage a wimpy suburb. It's so easy, and well, it just looks like jolly good fun! All we have to do is ride our horses into town and kill every human we see. Then we get to take their wallets and set fire to all inanimate objects!

Holy sh*t was there some pillaging going on in "Robin Hood". I estimate that 42,000 people were killed on screen. Ideally, this translates to zero people dead in real life, but you figure there's a 1% margin of error, so about 420 people died during the filming of this movie. That is an acceptable number of deaths in my book. No animals were harmed though. I read it in the credits. Needless to say, I completely underestimated this movie. "Robin Hood" was extremely well done. I wasn't blown away by anything in particular, but it was much better than I expected.

This is just another case of my dumb ass not doing my homework. Ridley Scott knows what he's doing, people. In my PRE-VIEW, I acknowledge that he directed this and list a bunch of great movies he's done. But since there was a single movie he did that sucked, I figured this would be dogsh*t? This reminds me of the time I bet against the Harlem Globetrotters in a parlay with the Kansas City Royals to win the World Series. What the hell was I thinking!!!???

Ridley Scott has definitely mastered putting together a battle scene where people fight with no modern technology. I can't believe the damage that can be done with a bow and arrow, a sword, an axe, some boiling tar and terrible B.O. I also can't remember the last time I left a theater thinking "Wow, the sound in this picture was top notch!" Every arrow felt like it was whizzing behind you as if it were a Clubber Lang right hook missing Rocky entirely.

Another mistake I made was not really having any idea what this was truly about. I assumed it was just another rehash of the same old Robin Hood story. Although I'm not going to be that hard on myself here. It was f***ing called "Robin Hood" for god's sake. However, this did not tell the usual story we have heard before. It's basically a prequel. Sort of like "Robin Hood Begins". I can't wait to see Robin Hood tangle with the Joker in the next movie. It was only when the movie was over that I realized this was the story of how Robin Hood becomes an outlaw. I kept thinking, "Why isn't anyone robbing the rich pricks?"

If there was a downfall to this movie, it was that there really aren't any likable characters. Russell Crowe was as boring as sitting through traffic school taught in a foreign language. Just about every other character was an a**hole. The primary villain was Mark Strong who was also the main villain in "Kick-Ass". He must be an a**hole in real life too since he keeps getting asked to be an a**hole. The king was a huge a**hole, but at least he showed some passion and anger. The Sheriff of Nottingham...a**hole. Even Friar Tuck was a little bit of an a**hole.

Cate Blanchett was not an a**hole. I'll give her credit, she did a good job since she was one of the few characters to show real emotion and acting skills. There are surprisingly just about no still shots of her from "Robin Hood" online, but after an exhausting search, I finally found one. Although it may be a photo of Bob Seger as well. I'm not really sure. As in most of her movies, they couldn't have made her look more plain. Apparently they didn't have tight jeans or push-up bras 800 years ago.

In summary, I swung and missed again. I thought "Robin Hood" would be a complete bore, but it definitely wasn't. I don't necessarily have to see this again, however it was a solid movie.

My conclusion: 4 stars (out of 5)

Robin Hood does not get laid. A terrible shame.



Here is my review for Robin Hood




Endangered Species
It always felt funny when people refers to characters by naming the actors/actresses who played them. Makes you sometimes wonder if they don't get mixed up when they meet their favorite stars later and think they are in the presence of heroes or something.

To address our subject of the day, I can imagine how disappointed people might be when they rush to see a "Robin Hood" movie without knowing it's a prequel. I guess this movie might have gotten better reviews with a more explicit title.

But I liked this movie. I always watch the making-of or trailers before I head out or play a dvd. And I try not to let myself get in the way of the story I'm watching.



Its a good quality film.
Indeed verry important to know that its a prequel.

(my perso minor point would be:
the amount of political/royal involvement he gets (before actually goes living in the woods)
You would expect that at the verry end of a Robin Hood tale...here its from the start.
but the good point of that bad point makes me verry curious to the sequel (?) AND its a verry nice variation on the known story...
Another minor point would be in the action scenes;the camera moving fast to get that action feeling without clearely seeing actual action (is there a term for this?if not there def. should be) nonetheless some excellent action scenes ARE included in the film.)

Ill never forget that last arrow in the head shot,superb.



Nothing special . Action is all over the movie. Good but not excellent.



Boring and joyless, felled by a convoluted, mostly inconsequential plot, as huge chunks of the movie are taken up by negotiations and gamesmanship between characters we don't care about.
__________________
Debts