The latest Robin Hood

Post Reply New Topic

The Robin Hood movie with Russel Crowe rocks. Cate Blanchet was marvelous as Marion and Max von Sydow was brilliant as Walter Loxley, Robin Hood's "dad".

If you like to see the long bow in action this is the movie. It had the best long bow shots since Henry V, with Laurence Olivier.

ruveyn

I really cant wait to get to see it

I may DOWNLOAD it if I decide I want to see it again. The copyright for the Robin Hood story expired many years ago, and I don't see the reason for paying for yet another remake of it.

I didn't like it. There were too many changes to the story. I liked the horse, though. Besides, when I went to see it, it was way too noisy, and even though it has very good actors, I didn't like the movie itself.

It was rather good, and I like the way that the movie left things open for a sequel. Then again, no sequel for 'Master & Commander Far Side of the World' ever appeared.

Vanilla_Slice

Forgive me for reviving a three-year-old topic, but I don't think my comments are worth starting a new topic over.

I just picked up this movie on Blu-ray because it was cheap and I figured that even if I didn't like it, Ridley Scott movies usually have terrific extras to make the special editions worth the price. And it had the Director's Cut, which is nice, since history has proven that Scott's movies are always better when he's allowed to issue a Director's Cut.

But I'm not here to talk about the movie itself. Let's talk about the bizarre, hypocritical way in which it was dismissed by critics.

If you read any of the film's many negative reviews, you'll see the same complaint, repeated over and over, ad nauseam: it's too dark and grim! Don't these clueless filmmakers know that Robin Hood movies are supposed to be lighthearted and cheerful?

Roger Ebert's ranting criticism in particular is hilarious. He spends his entire review weeping and moaning about how dark and grim the film is, sounding absolutely offended that someone had the audacity to make a Robin Hood movie that isn't a G-rated adventure for kids: "Must children go directly from animated dragons to skewering and decapitation, with no interval of cheerful storytelling?"

Maybe they should watch Star Wars Episode III instead, Roger. You gave that movie a very positive review. It's not like it has any skewering or decapitation. It's not like it has innocent children being murdered by the hundreds. It's not like it has a guy getting his limbs chopped off right before his face is set on fire.

Oh, wait.

And it seems like every other film critic out there joined Ebert in attacking Robin Hood for being dark and grim, which is funny, considering these are largely the same critics who gave Episode III its 80% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and spent the previous two years slobbering all over The Dark Knight.

Haven't extremely dark and grim versions of classic stories been the fad for the last decade or so, being celebrated and praised by critics and fans simply for being so dark and grim? You'd think Robin Hood would be right up their alley. Scott gave them exactly what they wanted, and they revolted like he had just insulted their grandmothers.

It's not a perfect movie by a mile, and I've got my own complaints about it. But none of those complaints have anything to do with the movie violating some kind of idealistic vision I have about what a Robin Hood movie should be, and I would certainly never attack it simply for being dark, any more than I would praise a terrible film like Episode III simply because it's dark, as so many of these critics have done.

Ugh. Rant over. I need to stop worrying about what snooty dips#!ts think.

Fresh take on Robin Hood, tying him in with the Magna Carta. Epic battle scenes.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer