Robin Hood - Grading & Discussion Thread (Spoilers)

[KB24]

Yes, this thread is really jumping with excitement, isn't it? The best thing I've heard about this one is that is is 'Gladiator 2'. But how can that be a good thing anyway? When it comes to netflix or tv and such I might be inclined to watch it, but otherwise, I'm more intriqued by renting Robin of Sherwood again.

I have to say 'The New Adventures of Robin Hood' and the recent series haven't done it for me either. With such bad luck, I wonder if a new Ivanhoe is due, with Robin Hood in his smaller role there. Why not make some of the classics that haven't had recent treatments or any at all? The Black Shield of Falworth or Quentin Durward again?

Since Black Hawk Down, I really haven't liked anything by Scott, and I haven't liked Crowe since L.A. Confidential! The Quick and the Dead he's good as well. After those he just got big and arrogant to me.

Pity though, as Blanchett, Mark Strong, and Matthew MacFadyen are also in this one.

 

[KB24]

Imperfect though it is, I did review Robin Hood Prince of Thieves last year

http://ithinkthereforeireview.blogspot.com/2009/03/robin-hood-prince-of-thieves.html

 

[galleywest]

I just can't bring myself to see it. Seeing medieval people talking about how they long for liberty...well, I just won't go in to it. HOWEVER, I would like to ask a question for anyone who saw it: is the supposed to be William the Conqueror/Norman invasion that I keep seeing in the commercials? Someone restore my faith in movie researchers and tell me it's not.

 

[Goliath]

However, for the life of me, I simply can't get excited about this one, and I honestly cannot pinpoint why.

Funny--that's how I feel as well.

 

[KB24]

Here's another review from MSN, also not pleased.

http://movies.msn.com/movies/movie-critic-reviews/robin-hood.9/?icid=MOVIES1&GT1=MOVIES1

Why did Crowe and Scott bother? Instead of all the modern and bleak changes, why can't they just tell it like it is? I've read young folks saying screw the Errol Flynn model. I disagree, but okay, let's forgo that version. You still have an entire generation that grew up on Disney's fox fun fest and perhaps read the juvenille Howard Pyle books. For some who haven't thought of Robin Hood since (skipping Robin and Marion or Robin of Sherwood) this one must be a serious shock.

I have Robin and Marion on my dvr now, so I may just rush my review of that one to the top of my list. Stupid Crowe and Scott.

 

[Base_Delta_Zero]

Wow, instead of all the moping about how some reviewer or another still has his head up his ass about movies, why not go see it at the matinee. It's an excellent film, taking the numerous versions of who Robin Hood could have been and how the myth got started and mixing them together to give the first half of a great medieval epic. It's essentially a historical fiction piece in the vein of Gladiator, as the events, characters, etc. are cobbled together from both myth and history and outright authorial fiction and presented in a realistic depiction of the time period (for the most part).

I've seen and read enough Robin Hood as simple takes from rich to give to poor hero to not want to bother with yet another film treading the same path. Yes, Prince of Thieves is cool, but it's more fairy tale than anything and you can like both. I do. Scott's Robin Hood told me a new story with some great, cool, realistic action, awesome sets and cinematography and an entertaining, top-notch cast.

It ended one complete story and set up the next, more familiar time period of Robin's life perfectly. Very much like Batman Begins in that respect. Batman versus the Joker in the first movie wouldn't have been half as cool without the setup we got with al Ghul. I left the theatre pumped to see the second part with Robin and his Merry Band versus Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham.

 

[Trekker4747]

It's essentially a historical fiction piece in the vein of Gladiator...

Precisely why I am not interested. The movie looks like the umpteenth clone of "Braveheart", of which Gladiator is one of those.

 

[Base_Delta_Zero]

It's essentially a historical fiction piece in the vein of Gladiator...

Precisely why I am not interested. The movie looks like the umpteenth clone of "Braveheart", of which Gladiator is one of those.

While all three movies are in the same genre, they're hardly clones. But if you're determined to not go see it, by all means, pop in Prince of Thieves ... again.

 

[DarthPipes]

Roger Ebert gave it 2 out of 4 stars, because he thinks of Errol Flynn swashbuckling when it comes to Robin Hood and was disappointed this movie wasn't like that.

If Quentin Tarentino directed it and started having Robin scalping people left and right, Roger Ebert would have had an uncontrollable, raging boner over it.

I saw it and wasn't expecting much but I really enjoyed it. It's a different take on the Robin Hood legend. More serious but to me it's still a fun and entertaining movie that serves as a compelling origin story for Robin Hood. I didn't get the reviewers that said it sucked all the joy out of the original. Sure, it's a more serious and grimerier version of the story but it's still entertaining. It sets up the Robin Hood we know almost perfectly and I'd love to see Scott and Crowe back again.

Ridley Scott has always been one of cinema's most effective visual directors and he proves that again. Most of what we saw in terms of the sets and battles was real and that gives a big-time edge over a lot of the CGI blockbusters that are out now. The acting was very good, with Oscar Isaac a standout as Prince John. The score was also very good.

My main complaint is a horrible tendancy by the cast to mumble a lot of the dialogue. This is a legitimate problem with the film. Also, while Robin Hood is definitely the main character, he appears with the frequency of a supporting character throughout more than half of the film. That complaint by another reviewer was valid.

 

[Dorian Thompson]

I thought it was great. I enjoyed the acting, directing and cinematography. As for the "middle aged people" crack, bite me. Give me Crowe and Blanchett over these vapid 20 somethings any day. Slim pickings in young Hollywood these days. It served well as an origin story. As one of the more appreciative reviewers said, at least everyone in 1099
England didn't have a Pepsodent smile.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed Prince of Thieves a great deal as popcorn entertainment, but that's all it was. Very enjoyable fluff. A good summer film. This was a real film.

 

[DarthPipes]

Yeah, I thought Cate Blanchett looked great. At least she was natural looking.

 

[Nowhere Man]

Imperfect though it is, I did review Robin Hood Prince of Thieves last year

http://ithinkthereforeireview.blogspot.com/2009/03/robin-hood-prince-of-thieves.html

That is the perfect review for that movie, which I actually love by the way. I'm a fan of Kevin Costner, yes Waterworld sucked and the Postman was too long, but you can't deny his acting skills and earlier movies. I don't think people would disagree with Dances With Wolves, Silverado, BullDurham, orA Perfect World. Not to mention some of his more recent movies like The Gardian, 13 Days and even Swing Vote(which I thought was really funny). Kostner has really only made a few shitty movies. I guess they were just so shitty that we forget. Anyway, I will wait to rent Robin Hood. i love the Robin Hood myth. but i'm just generally not exited about any movies this summer.

 

[KB24]

'in the vein of Gladiator' is not new, and Robin Hood-whether a rehashing or an origin telling- should never be in the same vein as Gladiator. Medieval and sword and sandal are just a little too different.

Prince of Thieves has its faults, but its not the best Robin Hood out there. This one may end up being a better picture, sure. But that doesn't mean that this is the best Robin Hood either. I just don't like the way Crowe and Scott bought someone else's script, completely changed it to their own ideal, and expect us to give them their millions. And this is the same reason I hate Kevin Costner. Waterworld, anyone (shudder)

I would have preferred to see the two unknown writers' script, with Nottingham and Robin reversed with a little mystery criminal investigation at hand. A little medieval spooky but family friendly perhaps like Sleepy Hollow. Someone new making something new in Hollywood. It's so novel it's scary!

I like Blanchett a lot, and I can't imagine how Sienna Miller would have fit in this part. I don't like any 20 something American actors out today, but its tough to do an origin story that you intend to be a franchise with a 45 year old in the part. Maybe Scott was biased in having his boy instead of looking at the local British talent. And no I don't mean Sean Bean, he's even older than Crowe. It would have been nice to have a younger Brit actor who was a little more infamous who could grow with the part.

Thanks for your thoughts about my review Hunter! I agree Costner is at is best in his earlier films, when he's not being a superstar. I feel the same way about Russell Crowe. As far as I'm concerned, The Quick and The Dead, LA Confidential, and Gladiator are his best, because he is in a part. Cinderella Man, A Beautiful Mind- they are 'Russell Crowe' movies. I know it sounds silly, but there is a distinction for me between the two.

I agree I'll probably rent this one or see it on TV eventually. Does anyone know about the Robin Hood movie with Patrick Bergen and Uma Thurman? I keep hearing about it and saw the first few minutes, but I couldn't get into it.

Up next, King Arthur starring Brad Pitt and Spencer Pratt! Produced by Ryan Seacrest. ;0)

 

[Captain Craig]

Just got back in from seeing this.

I guess I'll go with... B grade

So it's very clear this is a set up piece into the more common legend of Robin Hood. Did they sign on for more RH with Crowe/Scott?

Overall a good enough movie but I did feel it drag at times, something I didn't feel in Iron Man 2 but neither drop into average C range cause the rest of the movie holds up.

Didn't like the 'Longstride' designation but I get they are spinning the legend with lots of extra fictional liberties.

The men may never have been called 'merry' but it was on display.
A tad much on the swords for our archer of legend, but he redeems himself at the end on that point.

Not sure if I want to own it necessarially at this point. I may need to rent this when it comes out and see if it holds up. Frankly Prince of Thieves is good and I own it. Its way more fun just in a different way.

Robin didn't even win the weekend, got beat by Iron Man 2. May not bode well as the budget was big. Could be the first casualty of summer. The Prince Caspian of this year as it followed Iron Man 1, fair enough movie but not strong enough following IM to keep an audience.

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

Robin didn't even win the weekend, got beat by Iron Man 2. May not bode well as the budget was big. Could be the first casualty of summer. The Prince Caspian of this year as it followed Iron Man 1, fair enough movie but not strong enough following IM to keep an audience.

Not surprising, as Crowe's supposed star power hasn't yielded him that many hit movies.

There was a movie message board I used to look at. One topic was "actors who don't realize they are b-movie stars", and Crowe is pretty borderline.

 

[DarthPipes]

The film grossed $74 million overseas so they probably will make a lot of money there.

It is true about Crowe though. He's had a few box office hits. Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind. He was also in American Gangster but that was a Denzel Washington vechile. He's not a box office actor.

 

[Owain Taggart]

So it's very clear this is a set up piece into the more common legend of Robin Hood. Did they sign on for more RH with Crowe/Scott?

In a word, yes. There was an article I read that said they were all lined up for a sequel, and that they would all be back.

 

[scottydog]

^I read that the movie has to achieve a certain level of box-office success for a sequel to happen. The exact cutoff figure is being kept secret.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I'm conflicted. Usually I like everything by Ridley Scott, but this one leave me unexcited. I'm not sure I want to dish out the 8 euro to see it at the theatre.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Saw it tonight, and I liked it quite a bit. Sure, it might not be the Robin Hood story we all know, but I think it's the better for it. It gives us an angle that we've never seen before, instead of a movie that treads where all of them have already gone. I thought everyone gave a very good performance, particularly Marian's father. To everyone who says that Russell Crowe is too old for Robin Hood, I'll say this. Sean Connery played a much older Robin Hood coming out of retirement, and I don't think it's entirely unrealistic to have an older Robin here. In fact, it gives it a bit of authenticity; a Robin having come from the Crusades and gaining some experience to lead some men. We don't know if he's ever existed, and it's only conjecture that we have that he'd be younger due to different productions, and my opinion is that time isn't so linear for him. He can be younger, he can be older, depending on who's depicting the legend. The one constant we have is that he's Robin Hood.