One thing I found with Chainsaw, is that it was scary because of the sound.
Not just the chainsaw itself, but the music (that violin sound), the laughing, screaming, the noise of that steel door Leatherface opens and closes... the ratting of the guy's feet after he's been hit over the head... even when Franklin is by himself talking to himself and whinging, then blowing raspberries, the tone of his voice and his mumbling, is disturbing.
It's like every noise, every sound, was cranked up to 11.
Probably the only movie that utilises source-noises and sound effects for horror effect.
I know! It's such a wonderful tactic, so why don't people do that?
Not many people are talented enough and there's not many studios around these days that will allow for a movie to be genuinely scary. Especially a movie that has little to no music, and uses sound effects alone for the scares.
Directors and studios now rely on jump scares for their horror. And backstory, lots and lots of backstory to "tell you why this thing should be scary to you. We know better than you what is scary to you. You don't know what you find scary".
And yet, only one horror movie ever managed to scare me: It. Seriously, even The Exorcist didn't scare me. It was a great movie, but these people don't know what I'm scared of.
Babadook was fantastic. Indie horror movies are occasionally the best because they usually aren't 5ainted with dozens of cruddy sequels, and they're exceptionally original.
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) - Directed by Kevin Reynolds
"Nobility is not a birthright; it's defined by one's actions."
My latest review for this Robin Hood week was for the 2010 Ridley Scott film. I chose that one as an example of a bad Robin Hood movie so I can compare it to Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, which is arguably the most polarized Robin Hood movie on Earth. While the movie's hella fun, it does have a couple of problems.
This epic version of the classic tales shows Robin of Loxley as a captured knight who joined King Richard in the Crusades. After escaping captivity with the help of a Moor, he returns home to find that the power-hungry Sheriff of Nottingham has killed his father and branded him a devil worshipper to justify killing him for selfish gain. Now with no home and no family, Robin exacts revenge on the Sheriff by stealing from his treasury and fulfills an oath to protect Marian, the sister of a fellow soldier.
One big criticism of the film is that it takes creative liberties. One big example is the absense of Prince John as a villain and character in place of the Sheriff of Nottingham. I say, let it take creative liberties. I WELCOME THEM due to there being so many Robin Hood movies out there. If you want to break conventions, at least make them good. And most of them were good. This is a version I enjoyed because it showed Robin Hood as a born leader who never really lost sight of his child-like personality even though parts of him were greatly maturing.
And one thing that makes this movie stand out from the rest of the Robin Hood movies (in a good way) is something that most if not all other Robin Hood movies severely miss: character development. After watching seven Robin Hood movies, one gets a little tired of seeing Merry Men treated like Flat Stanley's. This didn't happen in this movie. While there wasn't a lot of character development, there was enough to make the cast likable. This movie features one of my favorite versions of Little John and of Will Scarlet for the fact that there was more emphasis on them. The fight scene between John and Robin was a lot of fun, as usual in this film.
The story was also mostly well written. Instead of getting no backstory like some Robin Hood movies, such as the 1937 one or the Disney one, or entirely backstory like the 2010 version, or even mostly backstory like the 1922 silent film, we get just enough. We get to see Robin evolve in to the leader he is and we get to see enough of his wiles against the Sheriff and how he gains more followers. This is the kind of Robin Hood movie fans may have been waiting for for a long time.
Might I add that the direction was fine, and that the music was epic. The action felt right in place with a medieval fantasy, and didn't spend too much time trying to appear epic like the last Robin Hood movie and this new one coming out. The music was a lot of fun to listen to and properly emphasized the victories, distressed and action of the whole piece. Let me give you a random piece of trivia: Disney's using the theme to this film for their home video release intros.
Having praised it this much, this movie is not without a couple of glaring problems. First, I'll go with the less obvious one: the flaws caused by the political correctness. While I don't really have a problem making up a new character for the purpose of a token black character at all (and I don't really mind changing a character into a black one), why the hell is he so smart that he's carries inventions that weren't discovered until a century later? The kind of telescope he uses was made in the 15th century, and the powders he makes for bombs weren't in use until a century later. And let me also point out that everytime the evil priest does something, the camera zooms in on his cross. Newsflash, Reynolds. Hitler was an atheist. His friends said so, so don't be so quick to play the blame game. And finally, the kind of satanic items used by the witch weren't created until HUNDREDS of years later. So there's a problem.
And the most obvious one is the casting choices. While Alan Rickman was undeniably wonderful as the Sheriff of Nottingham, and we can always expect a great performance by Morgan Freeman, Kevin Costner's acting (which wasn't bad) seemed lame since he had to go head-to-head with them. he couldn't even get an English accent right, so he didn't even try. You could have gotten someone who was British, but NO. The hero should never have to fail in acting when compared to the villain or the deuteragonist.
Well, there you have it. Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is an epic movie with a lot of strengths, but two bad problems: casting problems and anachronisms. Lots of anachronisms based on political correctness. If you're looking for one of the greatest movies ever, this isn't one of them. But if you're looking for a good dose of epic fun, this is the movie for you because it's a lot of fun and never goes overboard with the action.
Recommended for people who just want something a lot of fun to watch.
Ah, the political correctness thing you mention with Azeem, wasn't really that.
Azeem, was a bi-product of misinterpretation on behalf of the writers.
The character was initially called Nasir, and was a Muslim, and was based on a character from the late 1980s BBC series.
However, it was a stuntman on the film who pointed out that, like everything else in "Robin Hood lore", Nasir was a total fabrication.
They decided just to rename Nasir to Azeem, and run with it.
And that's the while thing with Robin Hood, it's all make-believe. You can add or subtract anything you want.
You got me there, but that's not my problem. Hollywood's gotten into a bad habit of making white people look like idiots when a black person joins the cast. Socially, I'm pretty liberal. And I understand racism was an issue back then, but making the black guy the smartest person in the movie happens all the time in Hollywood to the point where it's obvious what they're trying to do. I welcome it if they mix it up between races and let everybody have a strong point, but it's as if people are ashamed to be white these days. I think America's learned it's lesson regarding slavery. I would've let it go for Robin Hood if Reynolds didn't make his political statement so glaringly obvious with the priest thing. Plus, Morgan Freeman was more of a hero in that film than Robin because they focused on him in that way. So the political correctness got in the way of the quality of the movie on several occasions.
Let me say I AM NOT, NEVER HAVE AND WILL NEVER BE AGAINST SMART BLACK PEOPLE IN MOVIES. I usually welcome it. Just don't make any political statement obvious, because this movie's proof that getting angry about politics just gets in the way of things. This is why my favorite political messages in movies are things like Star Wars and The Matrix because they're very obscure.
Jurassic Park (1993) - Directed by Steven Spielberg
"What's so great about discovery? It's a violent, penetrative act that scars what it explores."
Spielberg's a freakin' genius. I don't think I've ever seen or heard of a movie he ever directed that was bad. He's still directed fun movies like Ready Player One. What I find most interesting about Spielberg is that he had a second hayday. His first was in the 70's as one of the Movie Brats, and his second was in the 90's. And his most famous 90's film is likely the movie adopted from Michael Crichton's novel, Jurassic Park.
This roller coaster of thrills centers around a theme park where dinosaurs have been recreated for show. Even the movie dangerous ones have been recreated, like the t-rex. But the people hired to endorse the theme park are worried about the aftermath of the creation, and their fears are soon confirmed when the creatures are set free.
I'm getting this out of the way: it's not as good as the book. The book went into some incredible scientific detail that the movie didn't even bother with. Michael Crichton's a literary genius. But Spielberg's a cinematic genius, so I'm not selling this movie out short. The movie's a lot of fun. And the dialogue is extremely good. It has a good share of wit, relates the characters together well, adds to their development as well as the plot's, can emphasize the thrills and is heavily philosophical. There are a lot of good qualities, and good quotes, to take from this movie.
We have a great cast of characters who, while not as well-developed as they could have been, all have something enjoyable about them. This is especially true for John Hammond (played by the wonderful Richard Attenborough), Jeff Goldblum's memorable performance as Iam Malcolm the mathematician, and Wayne Knight's sleazy Dennis Nedry. They all bring a lot of life to this movie. Heh.
The thrills are phenomenal. This is one of the most exciting movies even elementary schoolers can enjoy, because it's not a terribly violent movie, unlike the novel which had its fair share. While the film suffers from a couple of predictable moments, the movie's thrills are made better by expert special effects from 1993. And the car chase scene is probably the best part of the movie. It's almost as good as the cart-riding from The Temple of Doom.
Jurassic Park is a lot of fun from start to finish. It's not very sciency like the novel, so it's more family oriented despite the PG-13 rating. But hey, what can you expect from the director who invented PG-13? (No, he really did.) The first in a series of thrills, Jurassic Park is easily the best of the five.
"Unlike some other Robin Hoods, I can speak with an English accent."
Well, I guess the 1991 Kevin Costner film, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves had a parody coming since there was a lot to make fun of. And leave it to Mel Brooks of all people to get behind the wheel (and play a rabbi who gives bargain circumcisions). This is what we get from him, folks. For better or for worse, there's no stopping him.
Robin Hood: Men in Tights, as the name suggests, is a humorous take on Robin Hood's incarnations with Kevin Costner and Errol Flynn as he returns from England to find his home destroyed, with the only survivor being a blind servant. Now aided with the medieval version of Dave Chappelle, Robin exacts his revenge by annoying the tyrannical Prince John and his spoonerism-spouting Sheriff of Rottingham as he gathers a new band of thieves to take from the rich and give to the poor: the Men in Tights.
Are we to take this Robin Hood movie that seriously? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. excuse me... HAHAHAHA. This is a parody. While it forgets itself as a parody to tell a story a couple of times, there are some things that are quite well made and done here.
For the best example: the acting. Cary Elwes of The Princess Bride fame shines as one of the best Robin Hoods since Errol Flynn, and makes a few shots at Kevin Costner. His cheesy heroic demeanor is perfectly suitable for the tights. And his sidekick Blinkin' is quite a sight to behold as his blind humor is far from dull. He's got some of the best lines in the movie. Amy Yasbeck was a perfect casting choice for Marian because her acting bears the right kind of "cheesy romance" delivery without overdoing it. And of course, we have the Sheriff spewing spoonerisms. Why spoonerisms? Because they're not DULL! You'll LAUGH more.
Of course, some of the actors are hardly utilized. Dave Chappelle is hilarious, and he hardly has any of the funnylines throughout the movie. He was severely underdone in comparison to his parody counter-actor, Morgan Freeman who played Azeem from Prince of Thieves. And Prince John, while he has some funny moments, is nothing but nothing when compared to other Mel Brooks villains like Dark Helmet or Hedy Lamarr (Sorry, that's Hedley).
Aside from that, there are a lot of funny moments, usually about Marian's chastity or about Blinkin the blind man, and Cary Elwes delivers every line of his with vigor, like he was born to be a Robin Hood parody in his own right. But a lot of the jokes have been done before. Sometimes, Mel Brooks just wants to make a funny movie. It's like an Eagles album. usually there are a few good songs, but there's also a lot of filler.
Robin Hood: Men in Tights is memorable in its own way (usually because of the cast), if not a passable parody in other ways. I'd say it's worth watching and revisiting if Mel Brooks is your kind of comedian. And classic Cary Elwes can be found left and right. Otherwise, it's an alright movie.
Last edited by KeyserCorleone; 11-17-18 at 04:19 PM.
Robin Hood (1973) - Directed by Wolfgang Reitherman
"We never rob. We just sort of borrow a bit from those who can afford it."
Ah, yes, Disney. Ever since Disney released their first feature film, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, in 1937, the reimagining of folk tales and fairy tales became a trademark for the company. And even today when they're focusing more on original stories (something they never did until 1994 came around with The Lion King), they still do it occasionally. But When Walt Disney died in 1966, the studio seemed to run out of ideas. They lost their heart and soul. And I'll bet Walt never wanted the Robin Hood movie that came out during the Dark Ages of Disney to come out the way it did.
This famous animated version of the folktale features Robin and Marian as foxes destined for love. And of course, Robin and his bear friend Little John are annoying the heck out of Prince John and his counselor, Hiss the Snake. But when they go to far during an archery tournament, the king gets MAD.
OK.....
WHAT THE HELL!? This is the worst main run Disney movie I have ever seen! Even Home on the Range is a better movie! There are so many things wrong with this piece of crap! I can think of MULTIPLE things seriously wrong with Disney's Robin Hood! And I'll list them all!
1. Reused animations and voice actors. We get it, Little John is practically Baloo, just like Terk and Tantor were basically Timon and Pumbaa. Don't believe me? Same voice, and he does the Baloo and King Louie dance with Lady Kluck. Their personality is EXACTLY the same. And the animations are taken from plenty of other Disney movies. The party scene in Sherwood Forest was horrible to watch because so much was taken from The Aristocrats, Snow White and The Jungle Book. The movie's plagued with these.
2. No originality. The movie starts out with Alan a Dale, or just "The Rooster," saying the animals of the forest have their own version of the story. Well, what's so different? The fact that the Disney comlany was trying to kickstart the furry community 20 years earlier? Seriously. It's got furry cosplay...
Furry bondage...
And to top it off, furry fetish.
The movie didn't accomplish ANYTHING except being underdeveloped and being cute.
3. The music is bad. These so called songs are nothing except filler for a Disney movie when nothing happens, and none of them are memorable. Besides, if this is medieval England, why are some of the songs done in the vein of Bob Dylan and Johnny Cash?
4. No character development. Robin and Marian hardly have a backstory! All they have is "they were kids and had fun together," and you don't even get to know what lead Robin Hood on his path to thievery. In Prince of Thieves, there was some revenge to it. And at least they gave some hints in the Errol Flynn film.
And where are the Merry Men? I get that Robin Hood movies don't tend to focus on them, but where's Will Scarlett? Did they take him out to make room for that annoying rabbit named Skippy, his pointless siblings, and that turtle who added NOTHING to the movie? And once more, all we get out of Little John is the re-animation (hah) of Baloo.
5. The movie isn't funny at all. We get a terrible habit of thumb-sucking from Pirnce John, which gets very old, very quickly. Even Hiss realized that the first time it happened.
And the cross-dressing humor at the beginning of the movie? Oh, please. I've seen better cross-dressing humor on I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry.
6. Where is the political intrigue? People seem to forget that much of the Robin Hood tale is scandal directly involving Prince John, the Sheriff of Nottingham and other characters. The early Robin Hood movies had a fair share of it, and the 2010 film with Russell Crowe has more than enough of it. The scandal usually deals with the debts caused by Prince John and even attempts at killing King Richard. But there was none of that here.
7. The action was LAME. Remember the fight scene in Beauty and the Beast between Gaston and the Beast? Action packed! Or what about the battle between Prince Phillip and Maleficent? Or how about Ariel vs. Ursula? That was good! This is just cheap cartoon action that doesn't even have a place in a Looney Tunes cartoon.
8. The accents. OK, I'll admit the actor for Prince John was a very good choice, but why does have the cast sound like their from Mississippi or Texas? You wanna complain about how Kevin Costner didn't have an English accent? Take a look at this movie. It's a black plague.
9. This one's pretty simple... why are rhinos, hippos and elephants in the forest? I can understand a lion since King Richard is the "lionheart," and I won't argue that. A dog for a blacksmith? Dogs go hunting in forests all the time. No complaint. But this doesn't even make any sense! What did Prince John have them imported?
And finally, 10. The villains are just annoying. The Sheriff of Nottingham was OK, but Prince John's just a whiny baby who can't get anything done, and his snake adds nothing except for cheap second banana humor. In fact, I can think of a very similar Disney villain that did everything Prince John did but better.
As for the little mistakes, there are too many to count. This especially happens in the first twenty minutes. Robin, in drag (which quickly BECAME a drag), snuck the ring off of Prince John's finger and kissed the hand, but later you see the ring's there without the jewel! Prince John even looks at his own hand and doesn't notice! And how was Little John able to sneak under the treasure chest carried by four giant rhino guards?
OK, I'm done with the complaints. There are a couple of strong points in the movie. The voice acting's good, it does a good job being cute, and the sentiment is very touching. The scene where Marian's playing with the children was a good scene.
OK, there's my Disney's Robin Hood shpeal. It's a bad movie. I'd say, how this got to be seen as a classic is beyond me, but I know how. It'll come as no surprise: it's a pre-2000 movie with the Disney label. This is not a good movie, and even the polarized Prince of Thieves puts this movie to shame. At least the sentiment and voice acting made it watchable, so it's not a total disaster for a movie, but as a Robin Hood adaptation, it's disgusting.
Last edited by KeyserCorleone; 05-18-23 at 09:14 PM.
Never been a fan of Disney versions of other properties, but yeah, Robin Hood is probably the worst... like how you point out the lazy animation as well. Drawing new costumes over existing animation cells is just a rip off on Disney's behalf.
The Lion King though wasn't even that original tbh, it was based on Hamlet, with Biblical stories of Moses and Joseph mashed in for good measure
I don't think any of Disney's stuff is original tbh.
Initially I thought Dumbo might have been, but even that was originally written as a book.
The Story of Robin Hood and His Merrie Men (1952) - Directed by Ken Annakin
"You're serving your king better here, Robin Fitzooth."
You probably didn't know that 21 years before the 1973 animated Disney version of Robin Hood, Disney made a live-action one, did you? Well, the funny thing is that this movie is quite obscure, like many live-action Disney movies from before the 90's. But unlike the animated version, this one's a good interpretation of the legend, and well worth seeing.
In this original Disney obscurity, Robin Fitzooth is driven to the woods after his father is shot after an archery competition for refusing to bow to Prince John as a king. And as Robin's antics annoy the Prince, he eventually incurs the wrath of his playmate, Marian... and then eventually her love.
It's a simple movie, so I'll keep the review simple. This Robin Hood movie was so much better than the animated one. For one thing, we actually get a backstory for Robin, even if it is simple and about 15 minutes. But it's a kid's movie, and this movie never once forgot that and still managed to appeal to adults. The sentiment between Robin and Marian is sometimes wonderful to watch.
The action/adventure felt real enough for a swashbuckler, but never once got too violent. It's Disney, after all. There was only so much violence Disney could put in a live-action movie while the founder himself was still kickin'. The story kept on going and it mirrored the old legends on multiple occasions, something the Disney movie never focused on.
The one problem I have with the movie is that, once again, the characters are very flat. Little John and Will Scarlet just seem there for the heck of it, and Alan a Dale isn't really needed there except to sing a couple of background songs you won't remember later.
Yeah, this movie deserves to be more famous than it's animated counterpart that any little kid could have written. The Story of Robin Hood deserves to be a classic, and it's a shame no one talks about it. We've got a good story, good actors, and similarities to the old folk tales. Give it a try sometime.
Francis Lawrence has always been a very typical blockbuster director. While he's not another Michael Bay, nothing he does is particularly spectacular, even when his films are sometimes brimming with potential. Still, he's consistantly enjoyable if you just want some fun action and a couple of decent plot twists. The start of this habit of his was Constantine.
This comic-based movie focuses on John Cosntantine, an exorcist trying to buy his way into Heaven after having killed himself and damning his own soul. When a woman's sister seemingly commits suicide, Constantine helps her reveal that her death was a part of a conspiracy that may birth a great evil which Constantine might not be able to exorcise.
For what it's worth, it's a decent ride. I do have my complaints about it, but I have some things I really liked. For example, the story was well put together. There were some good plot twists throughout, and they kept the story going. Honestly, I wouldn't mind if they remade the movie with the same story, because it deserves a lot more than it got.
The direction was good as well. For Lawrence's first full-length movie, he did a kick-ass job of directing it. Everything was put at the right placement, especially when push came to shove and it was time for some action on Keanu Reeves' part, and when it came to the twists.
And another serious strong point for the movie was the acting. Tilda Swanson plays a quite mean angel who's easily one of the best characters. It's a shame she only got about ten minutes of screen time, because they could have done so much with her. Keanu Reeves makes a great Constantine, and we get one of Rachel Weisz finer roles as the policewoman Angela Dodson, who is in search for the answers behind her sister's death. And of course, we have Peter Stormare of Prison Break and Coen Brothers fame playing Satan. This is one of the best Satan's I've ever seen.
But there are a couple of big problems. First of all, the action is severely toned. Most of the action scenes last only a couple of minutes and barely amount to anything. This is a serious problem because and action movie must be exciting.
This directly goes into my next statement: the movie isn't scary. While the movie doesn't fixate on the horror factor, it needed more focus. Constantine is a good example of how the point of a genre can be easily forgotten in place of the same typical cash-grab techniques we've seen plague the new millennium. The movie focuses on fighting demons, which is one of THE most badass things a person can do. You'd think the film would be more exciting.
In the end, Constantine is a well told story with not enough thrills to keep the ride going. If you want to watch this, be prepared for that. There are some great moments of true artist-hood here so it may not be a total bore, but the blockbuster vibe might turn you off.
The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) - Directed by Michael Curtiz and William Keighley
"I'll organize revolt, exact a death for a death, and I'll never rest until every Saxon in this shire can stand up free men and strike a blow for Richard and England."
If you ask any guy off the street what the best Robin Hood movie was, you'd likely be given the answers, "the Disney one" or "Prince of Thieves." But if you asked most Robin Hood fans what the best Robin Hood movie is, chances are they'll say The Adventures of Robin Hood, a 1930's film with Errol Flynn. I've been getting into 30's movies lately, and I checked this out so I could find a 30's movie to put IN my top 30 movies. And even though this movie failed, it came pretty close.
The best of the best Robin Hood movies featured Robin at it again, except now he's newly acquainted with Maid Marian, and directly confronting the Prince and Sir Guy of Ginsbourne. With his only motive being defending truth and honesty in Nottingham, little does he know King Richard is on his way home.
This movie was flat out the best of the seven Robin Hood movies I watched for this week. I knew I was gonna have a kick-ass time but it ended up being one of my favorite movies. It was mostly because of the action. I thought it was a little violent for a 30's movie, but there was no blood. The direction for the action was FANTASTIC. What do you expect from the director of Casablanca?
Errol Flynn easily makes the best Robin Hood seen in film, and his role continues to put other people who've tried the role to shame. His attitude towards people, blunt yet surprisingly civil, is the kind of Robin Hood other actors should have taken an example from, and yet they still can't even come close. Errol Flynn's charm is constant through the film, and he puts most of the cast to shame. This isn't to day the other cast members were lame. Olivia de Havilland did a fine job as Marian, really bringing the sentimental and romantic side of the story to life, and Claude Rains had the proper kind of, how do I phrase this, jealous brother sleaze a person like Prince John needs.
The movie makes the same common Robin Hood mistake of neglecting focus on the Merry Men. Occasionally the Merry Men felt like paper cutouts, but they had a fair bit to do with the action, which was nice. Still, I want to know more about Little John and Will Scarlett. Besides that, there's nothing that ruins this movie or tarnishes it.
The Adventures of Robin Hood is the best Robin Hood movie so far, and even if Hollywood tried it would be hard to make a better one. Errol Flynn's version of the character is one of the most enjoyable heros of the classic age, and the film overall is very family-friendly, action packed, heartwarming and stays very true to the stories.
Last edited by KeyserCorleone; 05-18-23 at 09:30 PM.
1. The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)
2. Robin Hood (1922)
3. Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)
4. The Story of Robin Hood and His Merrie Men (1952)
5. Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993)
6. Robin Hood (2010)
7 Robin Hood (1973)
So, which of these reviews did you like the most? Which ones were the most informative? And which movies were your favorites?
Reply to Topic
