I'm seeing this movie tonight and I'll judge for myself how bad or good this is. I'm a HUGE Ridley Scott fan, so I hope he at least tried to make due with what he was forced to change from the "Nottingham" script (Which I'm reading right now, and it's REALLY DAMN good so far!). Heck, I'm such a dork that I bought the 5-disk Blu-Ray collection of Blade Runner a while back that has all the different versions of the movie. Either way, I hope this isn't as ****** as I've been hearing...
I think it depends on profits. The U.S. numbers haven't been good for a project this size, but the international numbers have been okay. If DVD sales are strong though, a sequel could be possible. But as it stands right now, I doubt it. Especially with the beating that the movie took from critics.
When a film's box office is underwhelming and the critical reception is, at best, mediocre, a sequel is usually not going to happen.
I think it depends on profits. The U.S. numbers haven't been good for a project this size, but the international numbers have been okay. If DVD sales are strong though, a sequel could be possible. But as it stands right now, I doubt it. Especially with the beating that the movie took from critics.
When a film's box office is underwhelming and the critical reception is, at best, mediocre, a sequel is usually not going to happen.
Saw the movie last night. The critics can go jump off a cliff for all I care. It was actually a lot of fun! I knew Ridley Scott wouldn't let the studios ruin it. The action scenes were awesome, and Russell Crowe was surprisingly convincing as Robin Hood. Sure, it's not the version I was hoping for (i.e. the original "Nottingham" version), but this was fine either way. 8/10
The reviews I read mostly said that the film didn't work because it tries too hard to fit Robin Hood into important historical events when there's no clear-cut evidence that such a person truly existed. They also complained about Crowe's and Blanchett's age and about their lack of chemistry together.
I still have yet to see it though, so I don't know if their comments are accurate or if they were just dead-set against this movie to begin with. I meant to see it last weekend, but my plans got screwed.
Because of its box office and reviews. If this one did this bad, why would they even want to try a sequel? It has barely made 1/3 of its budget back domestic. This film will make a profit, but it will be small.
I am not saying this movie sucks, haven't seen it, but from a business stand point, there isn't any evidence to warrant a sequel with a budget that would be bigger than this one.
DVD sales aren't going to warrant it either. It isn't going to be a hit seller in the dvd department as there is no good word of mouth on it.
It's too bad Ridley Scott didn't change Russell Crowe's look for this one (the beard and hairstyle). He looked like Maximus in Medieval Times. As for the rest of the film? I loved it. If there are plans for a sequel they should do it soon. The leading cast (Crowe and Blanchett aren't getting any younger).
I liked the story, the music, the photography and the battle scenes. The only problem I had was with Crowe's look. He basically had the Gladiator haircut and beard.
I liked the story, the music, the photography and the battle scenes. The only problem I had was with Crowe's look. He basically had the Gladiator haircut and beard.
I thought I'd just drop by to say that I really enjoyed it.
Gripes:
- The pacing was a bit strange; I don't think it is a spoiler to say that the whole film is effectively "Robin Hood Begins", though to the extent that you don't exactly get to see Robin being Robin Hood as he is commonly imagined. That only really comes in the last moments of the movie, which really turn the preceding hour on its head without much storytelling.
- The final battle scene is faintly ante climatic.
The French never really establish themselves as a threat, and the cliche of a masked warrior being unmasked as a woman pops up yet again.
- There are a few niggling historical miss steps. An important character is cremated rather than being given a Christian burial as he would have been in c.1200, and the longbow was not then used in the advanced military fashion that the movie suggests.
Greatness-
- It is a surprisingly fresh take on the mythos, that reinvents characters while still keeping their spirit intact. The story builds nicely, and it was hard to pick my moment to go for a piss!
- Crowe and Blanchett work really well together. It is a very believable, slow-building relationship.
- 98% of the social/military history, and 80% of the political history, is pretty accurate. It's probably the best portrayal of medieval England I have seen on screen, and worth seeing for that alone. All of the major historical figures- like Richard I, Eleanor of Aquitaine, and William the Marshall- come across really well.
- King John is a really nuanced, complex character, brilliantly played by Oscar Isaac.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
It's temporary. Just to help a couple of friends win a challenge on the Hype's Survivor thread.
