Robin Hood - Movie

[ekrem]

The movie tells the story of Robin hood before becoming an outlaw.
In the last 5-10 minutes of the movie, Robin relocates his life to the forests because of frictions between him and the English King. I don't know the historical validity of the story being told in the film, but it is a new approach to the whole "Robin Hood" saga.

The story relies on 3 major fundaments:
- The French
- The upper-class in England (nobles with King family)
- Robin's interaction with the above 2.

"The French" component was all-dominant in the story.
Allthough being a Russel Crowe fan, this movie is not his best.
It is a one-time watch in my opinion.

Edit:
Allthough telling different stories in different phases of the life of Robin, the Kevin Costner movie is definately better.

 

[Samson]

I admit that from a historical persprective, the movies is much less than accurate.


However, as entertainment, I thought it was terrific, and I'll see it again.


Pros:

1. LOTS of Violence
2. I thought this while I was watching the movie last night, and found the quote this AM: A 'Robin Hood' tea partiers can love. Obama = King John

when Scott and a series of screenwriters and concept men were struggling over drafts of "Robin Hood" in 2007 and 2008, there was no tea party movement. President Barack Obama himself was just an extra on the political stage. Yet a better gift for the tea partiers of 2010 couldn't have been dreamt up by Republicans, no matter how many flagons of Friar Tuck's mead they downed

3. Hawt, Sweaty, Turn-of-the-12th-century Wenches
4. SPOILER: Once again, the French Lose a War.

Cons:

1. Russel Crow mumbles through some lines.
2. Some lines are just stupid (mostly during the First meeting-of-the-spittle between King John and The Barons).
3. Not enough Octopron (maybe I'll see it the second time I go)
4. Back to the historial accuracy complaint: I thought it was minor, so I didn't include it in my CONS list. If you wanna know the history, the READ A FUCKING BOOK. Nonetheless, I was a tad shocked that Maid Marion wanted to plant corn around 1299 Nottingham.

A. No Englishman planted corn in England before they planted it in America

B. Corn would not grow in Nottingham

C. The English would eat wheat, or barley instead of corn.

 

[boedicca]

I thought it was a silly mess. The Howard Pyle story line is much better than the incoherent "Robin Hood's Dad inspired the Magna Carta" nonsense.

PJM's review sums it up pour moi:

he good news for Russell Crowe and Robin Hood is that it does remind you of one of the great movies about the Middle Ages. The bad news is that that movie is Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

This fantastically inept and bizarrely shapeless blob of a movie becomes laughable almost immediately, when Cate Blanchett’s Lady Marion steps up and fires an arrow hundreds of yards with blistering accuracy despite being approximately the weight of a longbow herself.

Russell Crowe’s Robin Longstride is a hazily defined figure who first finds himself fighting for a king he can’t stand, the crusader Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston, whose Pippi Longstocking/Robert Plant hairdo makes it hard to imagine anyone would be happy to go to war on his behalf), then (in what is played as a heroic moment) robs a dead knight named Robert of Locksley of his equipment and valuables, deciding to pass himself off as the dead man for as long as he can get away with it. Fully an hour of the movie goes by in which the major challenge is whether or not Robin can make good on his promise to the dying Locksley — to deliver his sword to his family up in Nottingham. Yes, this movie is about as exciting as a UPS run.

Meanwhile, Prince John (a whiny Oscar Isaac) takes advantage of Richard’s death to seize the crown — but he is even more of a jerk than his dead brother. He bickers endlessly with his mother and his chancellor (William Hurt) about taxation, finally deciding to send the evil knight Godfrey (the perpetually scowling Mark Strong, who was also the bad guy in Kick-Ass and Sherlock Holmes) to shake down the country’s landowners with orders to pay up or pay with their lives. Godfrey is secretly working for the French king, but why should we care? It’s not as though we’re given any reason to hope things work out for the mincing, duplicitous John, who is so foolish he actually seem surprised that this marauding psychopath is a double agent. “My friend Godfrey is not the friend I thought he was,” he muses. No kidding....

Pajamas Media Robin Hood: A Fantastically Inept Film


WTF was the deal with The French and then the inane "let's go live in NATURE" at the end? This movie was a hodge podge of epic cliches - the only things missing were giant birds for Robin, Marian, and the Feral Peter Pan Lost Boys to ride throughout The Greenwood with their faces painted blue (a combo of both Braveheart and Avatar!).

 

[Samson]

I thought it was a silly mess. The Howard Pyle story line is much better than the incoherent "Robin Hood's Dad inspired the Magna Carta" nonsense.

Yeah, its not a chix flix.

 

[Shorebreak]

To me, the movie was more like another hollywood bait and switch. I paid for tickets based on the impression that I was going to see a dramatic remake of a time honored Robin Hood story. But I find out that the story has absolutely nothing to do with Robin Hood at all, until the very end, when that is who the main character becomes.

The primary message that the movie delivers is that the directors are poorly educated and lack attention to detail. Some examples being gross errors in historic content, such as corn in the 1200's and fine crystal glasses in a couple of scenes. There's a lot more but those are the ones that stood out initially. The only other conclusion I can arrive at regarding these gross errors is that the directors didn't think the audience would catch the errors. That's an insult because they are so glaring that they eliminate much of the movie's credibility in the first few minutes. Corn in England in the 12th century is not a minor error.

The secondary message that the plot was trying to send is that individual liberty must be asserted over a government that increasingly taxes and increasingly expands it's control of the people. The plot clearly stated that national leadership who blames economic problems on the previous leader - and attempts to force more taxes from the subjects to finance the government - is corrupt and morally evil.

Not surprisingly, the film portrays the publicly acknowledged leader as the one who is running the entire show, and places all of the blame for national division on his shoulders. In the end, a common enemy of the King and of the people (an invasion by France) forces the King to promise he'll grant individual liberty to everyone. Once France is defeated, the King breaks his promise and declares Robin to be an outlaw forever, because Robin has sworn to follow in his fathers footsteps in pursuit of liberty.

Aside from demonstrating the ignorance of the production staff, the film basically says that big government who tries to control you and to increasingly tax you is evil and must be resisted, even if you must go into permanent hiding and conduct a guerilla campaign against them. The incorrect underlying message i that all of these problems derive from the public figureheads in government, and that by eliminating those figureheads the people will ultimate correct the problem.

An audience who is not schooled in political science and economics would probably walk away thinking "Yeah - Robin is doing the right thing. We need to be free people and when government takes advantage of us we need to stop them". The end result is that the myth is further permeated that our elected leadership are the actual policy formulators and decision makers, and that should our situation deteriorate, they should be the target of our anger.

In summary, the movie wasn't about Robin Hood at all. It was about blaming the head government officials for our woes when the tax and authority burden becomes more than we can stomach peacefully. It was a complete distraction from the reality that those public figureheads are nothing more than mouthpieces for the private interests who control the government. The film was only given the title "Robin Hood" as a means to illustrate to viewers that when the government becomes tyrannical, you should resist the public officials who lead it. A classic bait and switch if there ever was one, and a very bad attempt at propaganda.

 

[Ringel05]

I admit that from a historical persprective, the movies is much less than accurate.


However, as entertainment, I thought it was terrific, and I'll see it again.


Pros:

1. LOTS of Violence
2. I thought this while I was watching the movie last night, and found the quote this AM: A 'Robin Hood' tea partiers can love. Obama = King John

when Scott and a series of screenwriters and concept men were struggling over drafts of "Robin Hood" in 2007 and 2008, there was no tea party movement. President Barack Obama himself was just an extra on the political stage. Yet a better gift for the tea partiers of 2010 couldn't have been dreamt up by Republicans, no matter how many flagons of Friar Tuck's mead they downed

3. Hawt, Sweaty, Turn-of-the-12th-century Wenches
4. SPOILER: Once again, the French Lose a War.

Cons:

1. Russel Crow mumbles through some lines.
2. Some lines are just stupid (mostly during the First meeting-of-the-spittle between King John and The Barons).
3. Not enough Octopron (maybe I'll see it the second time I go)
4. Back to the historial accuracy complaint: I thought it was minor, so I didn't include it in my CONS list. If you wanna know the history, the READ A FUCKING BOOK. Nonetheless, I was a tad shocked that Maid Marion wanted to plant corn around 1299 Nottingham.

A. No Englishman planted corn in England before they planted it in America

B. Corn would not grow in Nottingham

C. The English would eat wheat, or barley instead of corn.

Corn was the generic European term for all grains at the time. It's originally how maize derived it's English name.

 

[Mr. H.]

We were excited about this one, but walked away thinking it was pretty lame.

As for Crowe flicks- Masterbator and Commander was much better.

 

[Ringel05]

Allthough telling different stories in different phases of the life of Robin, the Kevin Costner movie is definately better.

("I at least have an English accent." Men in Tights)

 

[sm232]

I thought this movie was a colossal waste of $10

 

[Samson]

I admit that from a historical persprective, the movies is much less than accurate.


However, as entertainment, I thought it was terrific, and I'll see it again.


Pros:

1. LOTS of Violence
2. I thought this while I was watching the movie last night, and found the quote this AM: A 'Robin Hood' tea partiers can love. Obama = King John

when Scott and a series of screenwriters and concept men were struggling over drafts of "Robin Hood" in 2007 and 2008, there was no tea party movement. President Barack Obama himself was just an extra on the political stage. Yet a better gift for the tea partiers of 2010 couldn't have been dreamt up by Republicans, no matter how many flagons of Friar Tuck's mead they downed

3. Hawt, Sweaty, Turn-of-the-12th-century Wenches
4. SPOILER: Once again, the French Lose a War.

Cons:

1. Russel Crow mumbles through some lines.
2. Some lines are just stupid (mostly during the First meeting-of-the-spittle between King John and The Barons).
3. Not enough Octopron (maybe I'll see it the second time I go)
4. Back to the historial accuracy complaint: I thought it was minor, so I didn't include it in my CONS list. If you wanna know the history, the READ A FUCKING BOOK. Nonetheless, I was a tad shocked that Maid Marion wanted to plant corn around 1299 Nottingham.

A. No Englishman planted corn in England before they planted it in America

B. Corn would not grow in Nottingham

C. The English would eat wheat, or barley instead of corn.

Corn was the generic European term for all grains at the time. It's originally how maize derived it's English name.

I considered that might be the case, but couldn't find evidence.

 

[JW Frogen]

I really do not think they should have cut the scene were Robin tells Little John "size does not matter, it is what you do with it."

I mean it was not a long scene.

 

[Sarah G]

I'll see it, we drove by a marquee I thought we should go but wasn't the right time.

I LOVED Kevin Costner and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio in Prince of Thieves though so it had better be good.

 

[Samson]

I'll see it, we drove by a marquee I thought we should go but wasn't the right time.

I LOVED Kevin Costner and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio in Prince of Thieves though so it had better be good.

I don't think You'll Like It.

Wait until they make a version of Robin Hood where he is a really horrible villian, refusing to fawn all over government authority, and you can cheer Danny Glover as King John as he raises taxes, grows government, and makes excuses to The French for English Transgressions.

 

[boedicca]

To me, the movie was more like another hollywood bait and switch. I paid for tickets based on the impression that I was going to see a dramatic remake of a time honored Robin Hood story. But I find out that the story has absolutely nothing to do with Robin Hood at all, until the very end, when that is who the main character becomes.

The primary message that the movie delivers is that the directors are poorly educated and lack attention to detail.

I see the primary message as being: Writers Matter.

It starts with a decent script: plot, pacing, dialogue, character development

All of these are sorely lacking in films today. Just compare the dialogue of any movie today to that of the beautifully scripted "All About Eve". It's like comparing a 20 watt bulb to the sun (or Truthmatters to Dorothy Parker). Today, every other word is a vulgarity - back then, they wrote Dialogue.

 

[Sarah G]

I'll see it, we drove by a marquee I thought we should go but wasn't the right time.

I LOVED Kevin Costner and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio in Prince of Thieves though so it had better be good.

I don't think You'll Like It.

Wait until they make a version of Robin Hood where he is a really horrible villian, refusing to fawn all over government authority, and you can cheer Danny Glover as King John as he raises taxes, grows government, and makes excuses to The French for English Transgressions.

That DOES sound like a good version.

 

[Samson]

To me, the movie was more like another hollywood bait and switch. I paid for tickets based on the impression that I was going to see a dramatic remake of a time honored Robin Hood story. But I find out that the story has absolutely nothing to do with Robin Hood at all, until the very end, when that is who the main character becomes.

The primary message that the movie delivers is that the directors are poorly educated and lack attention to detail.

I see the primary message as being: Writers Matter.

It starts with a decent script: plot, pacing, dialogue, character development

All of these are sorely lacking in films today. Just compare the dialogue of any movie today to that of the beautifully scripted "All About Eve". It's like comparing a 20 watt bulb to the sun (or Truthmatters to Dorothy Parker). Today, every other word is a vulgarity - back then, they wrote Dialogue.

I wrote a post basically claiming the same thing, but then I considered something: They didn't HAVE anything BUT dialog. As a result, there were a larger % of movies with great dialog, but there was also a lot of stinky dialog:

Greetings, my friend. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.