Robin Hood

[Doctor Jones]

Because it's about Robin Hood before the legend and how he became an outlaw. I don't see how this is hard for people to grasp.

 

[DarkKnight88]

i read russell crowe saying this is a completely different Robin Hood, and that it pretty much has nothing that the other robin hood movies had..

You do know that Robin Hood doesn't come from movies, right? It's from folklore dating back to the late 13th century and his depiction changes from century to century depending on what is popular during that time period.

 

[Majik1387]

Yeah, and this depiction is one of the worst ones.

 

[Abraham]

This movie is an origin story for the magna carta with a quick twist ending where not even that comes through.

Should have edited the first 110 minutes down to a five minute opening crawl, movie doesn't start till the 110 min mark as is.

Now if you'll excuse me, Ive got a date with The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)

 

[DarkKnight88]

Yeah, and this depiction is one of the worst ones.

At least that's fair to say that you hate THIS depiction. But for people to claim that it's not really Robin Hood and inaccurate to the real story is kind of a stupid statement since many of the things we associate with Robin Hood stem more from the 1938 Errol Flynn film than the original legend, anyway.

 

[Rumpy Bulge Dubz]

Because it's about Robin Hood before the legend and how he became an outlaw.

and this makes for a good movie how?

 

[Doctor Jones]

Why not? What's wrong with doing something different? Opinion aside, I think it's kind of refeshing doing something new. Now I could have gone for those other ideas, but I don't see anything wrong with doing a new story.

You're saying this idea has no possibility of being good, when it wasn't executed in the best way possible, I admired the effort.

I don't see how this is a disaster. People are exagerating if they think so. Misguided I could see. But a disaster is an overstatement.

 

[Fanticon]

it was good. it wasn't terrible, but i have to agree that where Scott and Crowe may have failed here is by not giving us a familiar same old Robin Hood tale. I appreciate trying to place Robin Hood in a more historically accurate context was the goal and it was large in scope and gloomy but Crowe's performance really was a downer. He didn't ever really convince me he was the robin hood of "legend" as it has been told and passed on for hundreds of years. that part should not have changed. He was calm and collected and fought tough but his role as hero was forced and never felt like that reluctant hero who came to be. He and cate blanchett's chemistry was pretty dull but she was best when she wasn't around crowe.

+Big and epic like Kingdom of Heaven and Gladiator, Ridley Scott has proven he loves to show us the middle ages and he does it well.
-Crowes portrayal of the character brings the energy of the movie down unless he's fighting
+Every other actor especially the parts of Little John, Will Scarlett, Allan Dayle and Friar Tuck. The little parts carried the movie better than its main title lead.
-The love story between Robin and Marion felt forced.
+They've left it open...open to tell the familiar story with the next one.
-But if this one fails, sadly, I don't think we'll get the Robin Hood we wanted to see this time around.

7/10
did i wish it was a more familiar Robin Hood tale? sure. But going into it knowing it wasn't and that it was more about beginnings of the legend, then you can appreciate it better.

 

[Jochimus]

At least that's fair to say that you hate THIS depiction. But for people to claim that it's not really Robin Hood and inaccurate to the real story is kind of a stupid statement since many of the things we associate with Robin Hood stem more from the 1938 Errol Flynn film than the original legend, anyway.

Considering that the Flynn film doesn't really add anything else significant to The Legend beyond its portrayal of the Saxon-Norman struggle - which itself already had its roots in versions from 100 years prior - I think it'd be more apt to say that the elements that people normally associate with the Robin Hood story are elements that, while they weren't part of the original story, were gradually incorporated into The Legend over the course of time prior to Hollywood ever getting their hands on it: the Robin Hood with which everyone is familiar was already pretty much in existence by the mid-19th century, well before Flynn or even Fairbanks.

 

[Abraham]

Errol Flynn's gotta be the only actor to hold down the "best interpretation of a character" for this long, I mean every other character like this (with hundreds of film adaptions - the Dracula's, Sherlock Holmes', and James Bond's of our culture) is constantly being bettered by new actors/talent/ and creative teams. From Romero to Nicholson to Ledger. From Connery to Craig. Errol Flynn holds the Robin Hood crown nigh unchallenged.

 

[DACrowe]

every other character like this is constantly being bettered by new actors/talent/ and creative team...From Connery to Craig

Say what?!?! Connery is sitting pretty comfortably as the "Best Bond" in pop culture still.

But I'll give you two that outdate Flynn's considerable feat:

Bela Lugosi's Dracula (1931)
Boris Karloff's Frankenstein Monster (1931)

And we can count Prince John perhaps as still best portrayed by Claude Raines in that 1938 version. But I will admit...Alan Rickman as the Sheriff of Nottingham in the 1991 Kevin Costner Robin Hood surpassed the great Basil Rathbone, in my opinion.

 

[DACrowe]

every other character like this is constantly being bettered by new actors/talent/ and creative team...From Connery to Craig

Say what?!?! Connery is sitting pretty comfortably as the "Best Bond" in pop culture still.

But I'll give you two that outdate Flynn's considerable feat:

Bela Lugosi's Dracula (1931)
Boris Karloff's Frankenstein Monster (1931)

And we can count Prince John perhaps as still best portrayed by Claude Raines in that 1938 version. But I will admit...Alan Rickman as the Sheriff of Nottingham in the 1991 Kevin Costner Robin Hood surpassed the great Basil Rathbone, in my opinion.

 

[Jochimus]

But I will admit...Alan Rickman as the Sheriff of Nottingham in the 1991 Kevin Costner Robin Hood surpassed the great Basil Rathbone, in my opinion.

Basil Rathbone played Sir Guy of Gisbourne, NOT the Sheriff of Nottingham; the Sheriff in the 1938 film was a comic-relief character played by Melvin Cooper.

I admit I'm nitpicking, since the Sheriff is usually the most prominent villain in most other versions.

 

[Octoberist]

thats the one thing that i didn't like in Errol Flynn's Robin Hood; the bafoonish Sheriff. Hell, the Wolf Sherriff was more of a threat in Disney's Robin Hood (with them foxes)

 

[Rumpy Bulge Dubz]

Why not? What's wrong with doing something different? Opinion aside, I think it's kind of refeshing doing something new. Now I could have gone for those other ideas, but I don't see anything wrong with doing a new story.

I should've been more specific. That makes a good "Robin Hood" movie how?

and different and new doesn't always equal good. In this case, that's true

 

[Octoberist]

it's not so much a bad idea to do a 'prequel' but it's all about the execution..

 

[Infinity9999x]

Errol Flynn's gotta be the only actor to hold down the "best interpretation of a character" for this long, I mean every other character like this (with hundreds of film adaptions - the Dracula's, Sherlock Holmes', and James Bond's of our culture) is constantly being bettered by new actors/talent/ and creative teams. From Romero to Nicholson to Ledger. From Connery to Craig. Errol Flynn holds the Robin Hood crown nigh unchallenged.

Honestly Carry Elwes, had he been able to act in a serious adaptation of the character, would have been great.

I was talking to some friends about Robin Hood, and a lot of them were echoing sentiments that they were mildly interested in this one, but they would have rather seen a more swashbuckling take on it. One of them suggested Hugh Jackman as a swashbuckling Robin Hood...and honestly, I think Hugh could probably do a good job. He's got the right personality, and I'm sure he could crank out some wicked fight scenes.

 

[DACrowe]

Basil Rathbone played Sir Guy of Gisbourne, NOT the Sheriff of Nottingham; the Sheriff in the 1938 film was a comic-relief character played by Melvin Cooper.

I admit I'm nitpicking, since the Sheriff is usually the most prominent villain in most other versions.

Ha! You're right. That is the one thing about the 1938 classic I never cared for. In any case most people remember him to be the "Sheriff of NOttingham" and forget he was actually Guy of Gisbourne. Because "Sheriff of Nottingham" is just a way cooler title.

But you're right.

 

[Wolfwood]

The last arrow shot was ****ing beautiful. I just felt a strong need to say that. Overall the movie was okay, but I don't really feel ripped off. There were a few moments that came through really well that made up for the less then engaging parts for me.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I don't mind the direction they went in, it's just the execution in some areas. I didn't get the complete sense that he rose to infamy. It's an interesting angle I think, and I think they could have done that better.

 

[xwolverine2]

wow with a 200mil budget i think its safe to say this will bomb lol

 

[JTStarkiller]

It's already made $110 worldwide. Bomb in the US maybe.

 

[xwolverine2]

it has to make more than just 200mil back...

 

[Darkness Falls]

This movie is an origin story for the magna carta with a quick twist ending where not even that comes through.

Should have edited the first 110 minutes down to a five minute opening crawl, movie doesn't start till the 110 min mark as is.

pretty much sums up how i felt about the movie

good action sequences but disappointing to say the least
russle crowe as robin hood

4/10

 

[JTStarkiller]

it has to make more than just 200mil back...

So you're saying if a film costs $200 mil to produce and makes $200 mil, it's a bomb?