robin hood

[kishnevi]

Here's an analysis of Costner's Robin Hood, courtesy of two bloggers who specialize in medieval topics
Part I http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/05/bad-medieval-movies-robin-hood-prince.html
Part II http://peromniasaecula.blogspot.com/2010/05/bad-medieval-movies-robin-hood-prince.html

[mc ukrneal]

I saw this movie (the new RObin Hood) on Friday. While some of the bits are fun, and some acting is good too, I thought this was quite disappointing on the whole. Few characters were fleshed out, many good actors simply didn't have very much of interest to do (so their many great skills were wasted), and the story was quite lumbering. And there were tons of missed opportunities as well.  I liked the scenes with Blanchet, Crowe and Sydow together the most.

As background, I generally like swords and scorcery type stuff, so I was ready to enjoy it. But I just felt it was lacking in too many areas.  Although the music was similar to Gladiator at times (was it the same composer?), there were no real similarities to Gladiator beyond some superficial ones (and of course that is has Crowe). On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd rate it a 2.5-3.0.

[DavidW]

I saw it as well, free ticket this evening.  I think the same thing uknreal.  The movie seems like a paradox-- the story itself (this movie, not the actual story) is infantile but it takes itself very seriously.  It tries to be a gritty drama but it became more and more absurd.  Finally at the end you realize that you're watching Braveheart!  Seriously he gives a speech about liberty to the king and a huge army and then they charge in for a huge battle and after that it manages to become even more ridiculous!

And another thing it was almost as violent as Braveheart, and yet it did not receive an R rating, in fact there were plenty of children in the theater in the showing that I went to.  I usually don't care about ratings, but it kind of annoyed me because how many think it would be like the usual Errol Flynn type movie and take their kids in for that?  I think that just a decade ago it would have been slapped an R rating.

[knight66]

I quite enjoyed the film and was happy that it did not dish up quite the usual legend. I wonder whether this is to be the start of a franchise? I hope not. I agree with David it was overblown; wedging Robin into playing a major part in history.

The aspect I found hardest to swallow was the impersonation of the son of the manor. Away for 10 years, Crowe took the place of the 'real' dead son of the sod and no one in the village noticed! I imagine that they were so deeply forelock tugging that they had never raised their eyes above the top of his boots....that must be it.

I would not want to see it again, unlike Gladiator which I am happy to see every year or so.

Mike

[DavidW]

If anyone is looking for another serious Robin Hood fix, I read a novel a few years ago that was pretty good.  Stephen R. Lawhead takes a different, unique approach to the story and I think it works.  I have to admit that I still haven't followed up to read the other volumes in the trilogy.



I didn't like it as much as his re-imagined Arthurian saga, but it's still pretty good.

[kishnevi]

I quite enjoyed the film and was happy that it did not dish up quite the usual legend. I wonder whether this is to be the start of a franchise? I hope not. I agree with David it was overblown; wedging Robin into playing a major part in history.

The aspect I found hardest to swallow was the impersonation of the son of the manor. Away for 10 years, Crowe took the place of the 'real' dead son of the sod and no one in the village noticed! I imagine that they were so deeply forelock tugging that they had never raised their eyes above the top of his boots....that must be it.

I would not want to see it again, unlike Gladiator which I am happy to see every year or so.

Mike

Not having seen the film--but people showing up who claimed to be X, when X had been gone a good long time and was possibly dead by now, feature fairly often in medieval and later European history.   In an era when it would take months, or even a couple of years, for a potential crusader to get from Northern Europe to the Holy Land, followed usually by a stay of at least a year or two, when long distance communications were primarily dependent on someone's cousin passing along a letter that he had been given by a neighbor because he was going to a city only a week away from the last known residence of the intended recipient's brother in law, or getting a letter aboard a Venetian galley that was homeward bound and hoping it would be forwarded from there--families often never found out what happened to relatives who went anywhere out of the normal travelling range until long after, and someone with enough local knowledge could reasonably pretend to be a long lost relative finally returned to the family hearth--especially if enough time had passed that a large chunk of the people who would remember the real person could be presumed to have died off (and, naturally, in medieval England,  the number of people who might die in a ten year span was much larger than it is now, per capita).

Famous example of a real person returning after a long absence and having to prove his identity (in his case, he was the actual person of course) would be Marco Polo and his father.

So that part is actually consistent with things that actually did happen in medieval England.  Robin Hood leading large armies, OTOH,....

[knight66]

Sorry, but I just don't buy any of that in this context at all. You would have to see it to grasp how poor that part of the plotting is.

BTW, if my memory serves me, Polo left Italy when he was about 16 and did not return for roughly 25 years. In this plot, a 30 year old man comes back after 10 years looking totally different....but it is just a sort of McGuffen to move the plot along, a very poor one.

Mike

[Josquin des Prez]

If you think this film is bad, wait until you get a load of the new Conan. They actually got an Hawaiian to play the lead, i shit you not. Somebody must have been REALLY itching for some multicultural propaganda.

[DavidW]

But that movie sucked-- why do they remake crap?  The only thing I liked about it was James Earl Jones snake obsession.  Snake arrows, snakes, turning into a snake...   I remember when they had Arnold as a slave turning a wheel, obviously a ripoff of Victor Mature doing it in Samson and Delilah, but in Conan IN WHAT IS IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE and it didn't make sense!  Here go to turn this wheel in the desert for the rest of your life, just because.

Oh well I looked it up since you mentioned it JdP and I remember that guy from that terrible Stargate Atlantis, and he's big enough for the roll (I don't think that he is as bulky as Arnold though) and in a made up fantasy world I think that a Hawaiian could fill the role just as well as an Austrian.  Heck it's better than Brad Pitt as Achilles, that was bad!

[Josquin des Prez]

and in a made up fantasy world I think that a Hawaiian could fill the role just as well as an Austrian.

You don't understand. Having Conan being played by an Hawaiin makes as much sense as having an African or a Chinese play a Viking. The hyperborean world created by Robert Howard is based on real pre-history, Conan physical countenance is essential to the story. To replace his character with somebody with a more tropical complexion is a slap in the face to the original stories and the decision is obviously political.

Oh well I looked it up since you mentioned it JdP and I remember that guy from that terrible Stargate Atlantis, and he's big enough for the roll

Not really: