Insiders say Ridley Scott's "Robin Hood" is dead serious

[august]

From assorted press releases:

Before “Robin Hood,” there will be “The Real Robin Hood.” Ridley Scott, director of the upcoming “Robin Hood” movie starring Russell Crowe, will produce a two-hour special for the History Channel about the origins of the English folk hero. Slated to air May 11, tied to the May 14 release of the movie, “The Real Robin Hood” “will distinguish between historical evidence and Hollywood fiction, and seek to create a realistic portrait of the mythical hero” who in fact is a composite of several historical figures whose exploits date back to the age of the Crusades. And yes, it will feature clips from the movie too. Scott Free is producing.

Scott Free - wasn't that Mr. Miracle's secret identity?

[Michael]

At least now we know where he went after the comic book was cancelled.

While channel surfing last night I caught glimpses of promos for the Russell Crowe movie in-between scenes of the BBC series (not my cup of tea, actually). Looks like a suitably action-filled Russell Crowe movie.

[dasher]

Originally Posted by Zagor

Waterworld is one of my favourite films. It's like a more fun Mad Max - on water! What's not to like?

I like Earp too - it's just twice as long as it needed to be.

I, too, have to say that I really liked Waterworld...the premise was fascinating and really scary to me.

I'm bucking the trend of this thread, anyway, because I've never been a Robin Hood fan. This is the first RH movie that piques my interest. I'll probably go today, and will report back.

[BeardofPants]

What?! This isn't Men in Tights?! I want a refund!

[Zagor]

Saw this film yesterday and there are actually quite a few jokes in it (though most are fairly awful). In fact the whole film seems unclear what it wants to be: dead serious one minute, silly the next. Sometimes it looks like it's trying to be reasonably historically accurate and other times it's historical nonsense that the writers of Prince of Thieves would blush at. It has a few impressive action scenes, but it's certainly no Gladiator nor even a Kingdom of Heaven.

Oh, and Crowe's accent is just bizzare.

[dasher]

I have to agree, Zagor. The film was all over the place and it never really
settled down...pleasant enough while watching it ( I guess ) but instantly forgettable. The score was horrendous, which never helps...derivative to the point of being irritating ( the one tiny bright spot was when Alan A'Dayle
went a little Celtic punk, a la Al Barr of Dropkick Murphys ).

It did have more of a "Robin Hood feel " to it than I thought it would have, but the insiders who say it was dead serious must have watched a different cut of the movie. Alas, save your money

[RobRoy]

This is unfortunate, but makes me glad that I opted for Iron Man 2 rather than insisting on Robin Hood. I'm still interested in seeing the movie, but I can wait for the DVD.

[dasher]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

This is unfortunate, but makes me glad that I opted for Iron Man 2 rather than insisting on Robin Hood. I'm still interested in seeing the movie, but I can wait for the DVD.

Good decision, RobRoy... Iron Man was way better than Robin Hood. I was grinning like a kid when I saw the suitcase! The cgi was great, and that soundtrack kicked some major #$%.
( I've already seen Iron Man a second time !)

[Zagor]

Actually I'd have to say of the two I preferred Robin Hood. IMO Robin Hood was underwhelming while Iron Man 2 was just plain poor.

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by Zagor

Actually I'd have to say of the two I preferred Robin Hood. IMO Robin Hood was underwhelming while Iron Man 2 was just plain poor.

Would you mind going into more detail on your opinion?

[EDSEL_PK]

The History Channel aired a 2-hour special about Robin Hood, showing the historical accounts upon which the Crowe film was based. It also discussed the weapons, politics, and social issues which are integral to the story.

Look for 'The Real Robin Hood' in your TV listings. It's quite good, I thought.

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by EDSEL_PK

The History Channel aired a 2-hour special anout Robin Hood, showing the historical accounts upon which the Crowe film was based. It also discussed the weapons, politics, and social issues which are integral to the story.

Look for 'The Real Robin Hood' in your TV listings. It's quite good, I thought.

I'll have to look into that! Thanks for the FYI!

[august]

That special wasn't bad at all. (As opposed to the one on vampires and werewolves meant to tie in to the first Underworld film, where fake "scholars" from fan conventions were pretending that there were legends of "lycans" rebelling against vampire overlords, probably in return for some advance t-shirts and posters.) Lots of legit references to specific examples where phrases like "he's another Robin Hood," or "a thief in the vein of Robin Hood" were used, examples of low-life thieves calling themselves Robin Hood, and some actual historical criminals with similar names, like "Robert Hode."

[Zagor]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

Would you mind going into more detail on your opinion?

Robin Hood's tone was confused, but it did feature some strong performances and a nice battle scene or two.

Iron Man 2 was awash with pointless characters (Nick Fury, Black Widow, John Favreau's spectacularly unfunny chauffeur and worst of all:

To view, use your mouse to select the text:

that SHIELD agent who is meant to watch Tony, let's Tony just wander off, then shows up again to say he's going on holiday or something

- why? Why was he there?!). And yes, I know they're setting up The Avengers, but that's no excuse. I hope all the forthcoming Marvel movies aren't going to be like this.

The plot was unclear:

To view, use your mouse to select the text:

How did Tony work out how to make a new element by looking at a map (especially after his annoying robot buddy told him the element could not be synthesised). Who was in the wrong between Tony's dad and Rourke's dad?

The action scenes were short and anticlimactic:

To view, use your mouse to select the text:

It took Tony and his pal about 5 seconds to beat Whiplash in the end. And there seemed little point fleeing from those Hammerbots when they could be all taken out with one laser. I did like the fight between Iron Man and War Machine but it did seem to blow up from nothing.

So yeah, I'm not a fan

[RobRoy]

Sorry, I didn't mean Iron Man 2, I meant Robin Hood. I've seen Iron Man 2 already, but wanted your take on the other film. :BG:

[Zagor]

Ah sorry.

Well, as I said the performances in Robin Hood are all pretty solid - I particularly liked the portrayal of King John. Less keen on the Merry Men, but I think that was a fault with the script rather than the actors. As I mentioned above, the tone is pretty un-even (the middle section feels like Ye Olde Rom Com) and there is some waffle about taxation agreements that is fairly dull, but thankfully it doesn't slow things too much. There are also a lot of contrivances about Robin's past that I didn't buy.
The final battle is very good though the set-up is a bit silly. The ending was a bit annoying - turning things into the beginning of a franchise rather than allowing the film to satisfy in it's own right.
To be honest I found it a perfectly so-so film. It didn't bug me like Iron Man 2, but I certainly wouldn't call it a must see unless you're a particular fan of Crowe or Scott.

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by Zagor

Ah sorry.

Well, as I said the performances in Robin Hood are all pretty solid - I particularly liked the portrayal of King John. Less keen on the Merry Men, but I think that was a fault with the script rather than the actors. As I mentioned above, the tone is pretty un-even (the middle section feels like Ye Olde Rom Com) and there is some waffle about taxation agreements that is fairly dull, but thankfully it doesn't slow things too much. There are also a lot of contrivances about Robin's past that I didn't buy.
The final battle is very good though the set-up is a bit silly. The ending was a bit annoying - turning things into the beginning of a franchise rather than allowing the film to satisfy in it's own right.
To be honest I found it a perfectly so-so film. It didn't bug me like Iron Man 2, but I certainly wouldn't call it a must see unless you're a particular fan of Crowe or Scott.

No worries, and thanks. This is exactly what I was looking for. Out of personal interest, how did you find the archery in the film? I don't know how much they attempted to portray Robin/Crowe as an archer, or his Merry Men either, so I'd like to hear.

[august]

And at any point did anyone channel Mr. Worf and say "Sir, I must protest - I am not a merry man!"

[Zagor]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

I don't know how much they attempted to portray Robin/Crowe as an archer, or his Merry Men either, so I'd like to hear.

Actually archery got quite a lot of focus. It was made abundantly clear that Robin, Alan A-Dale and Will Scarlet were all archers and there was quite an emphasis on how important archery was in warfare. There wera also a few cheesy impossible shots though not quite as ridiculous as those in Prince of Thieves

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by Zagor

Actually archery got quite a lot of focus. It was made abundantly clear that Robin, Alan A-Dale and Will Scarlet were all archers and there was quite an emphasis on how important archery was in warfare. There wera also a few cheesy impossible shots though not quite as ridiculous as those in Prince of Thieves

So Robin at no point rips off the side fletches of two arrows with his teeth - never minding that string, in addition to glue, helps bind fletching, and likely would have torn off all the fletches - and is then able to shoot two soldiers side by side? Do any arrows have the capacity to knock a man backward several feet when hit?

It’s good to hear that they applied some level of realism to the archery. I don’t mind limited, “impossible” shots, as those add to the flair and fun. But I recall being greatly disappointed in Lord of the Rings when Aragorn ordered his archers at the Battle of Helm’s Deep to “fire” rather than to “loose”. With all the attention to detail in weapons, armor, I was certain this Hollywood anachronism would have been caught.