"Robin Hood" a review

I usually like Russel Crowe movies but this epic lacked something. This was a big budget production that looked good but I found the story/script weak and consequently the character of Robin Hood, I found hard to care about. The supporting actors gave it their all, especially Kate Blanchett, but to me, It looked like Crowe was just walking thru the role with no passion.

I suspect they were shooting the sequel at the same time they were shooting this movie; Perhaps it will be more entertaining.

and I'm being generous.

If I see this movie it will be on DVD . Hollywood has nearly done Robin Hood to death and I just can't picture Russel Crowe playing the lead role of Robin .

Cheers xpert11.

he sounds nothing like a nottingham person would.

Bad attempt of trying to copy my accent.

I liked the TV episodes better.

reply to post by whaaa


I think the Warner Brothers movie classic "The Adventures of Robin Hood" starring Errol Flynn and in Technicolor is hard for any movie to live up to. It was made in 1938, and still is wonderful to watch every time it is on TV.

www.imdb.com...

Add to that the classic TV series "Robin of Sherwood" which did not only told the story but added many other elements to the legend.

www.imdb.com...

Now Universal comes out with another bloated remake costing north of $200 million plus marketing and distribution (it will need high DVD sales just to break even). I thought the Robin Hood movie with Kevin Costner was weak as he did not even attempt an accent. That movie will pull in more money domestically, even though tickets are nearly double the price as to what they were then.

I think Hollywood has run out of ideas, as this summer is almost all remakes and sequels. By judging the box office numbers, it appears I am not alone in this thinking. Only the movie Inception looks original.

Originally posted by kidflash2008

Only the movie Inception looks original.

"Inception" looks pretty good but original? To me it looks like they borrowed heavily from this old flick.


www.youtube.com...

Yep, I immediately thought of "Dark City" when seeing the trailer for Inception.

As for Robin Hood, it was really an unfamiliar take (and a mish-mash of various legends), that left most moviegoers going "I don't know what I just saw, but it wasn't Robin Hood"....

I'm with the above poster, Errol Flynn is still THE Robin Hood.


SPOILERS BELOW!!!!




I was really thrown by the "Normandy" WWII landing craft used by the French. What the heck was that? Then, the English have a line of archers on the high ground, and heavy cavalry approaching the French below. Do they wait, set a defensive line, and let the archers waste the French? No, the idiots charge into battle, basically making the archers (kind of the whole thing about Robin Hood) completely useless. And then the French, seeing that all is gone terribly wrong, KEEP LANDING? REAL French would be getting out of Dodge (and they'd be right for it).... Crazy...

reply to post by whaaa


"Inception" is a bit more original than the stuff coming out right now. It does deal with going into peoples' dreams, which is a little bit like "Dark City".

It still beats the two upcoming remakes and dozen or so sequels that will be playing this year.

That much is true....seems Hollywood is remake central these days...

Here is the IMDB search on Robin Hood and most of its movies and TV series:

www.imdb.com...

Talk about a movie being remade to death.

Pretty much defined a whole genre...."swashbuckling" movies, so not too surprised.

I even liked Costner's Robin Hood better than this recent one (mostly more for Rickman's Sheriff), and I despise Costner....

I was disappointed in the story too. It didn't blow me away like Kingdom of Heaven or Gladiator did. I was a little questioning and disappointed, but I DID like it. The sequel might be where the drama comes in. It was different, and I don't mind them doing things different - not every movie has to follow the formula - I sort of wish more movies and books did not resort to creating suspense EVERY time... and maybe gave the reader or viewer something deeper to come away from it with. This movie flirted with doing that I think, a proper introduction? But I'll forget the details of the story and characters (as they pertain specifically to this version) by the time the sequel comes, lol. But I did like it.

I watched some of it the other day.

Had to turn it off because I was soooo bored.

Hard to explain, but:

grey
slow
depressing
uneventful
zzzzzzzzzz

I think it must have been something from the subconscious side of the filmaking that isn't always evident, the editing, music score or something like that.

Ho hum...