ModernChivalry.org
Main => The Library => Topic started by: Sir William on 2010-11-02, 19:59:12
-
Ok, so I finally got a chance to sit down and watch this and I have to say...I liked it. True to Hollywood form, much of it isn't what you'd call historically accurate, or even plausible in some cases ('help me with my chainmail' made me cringe, believe it or not- altho just a year or so ago I wouldn't have blinked, not knowing then that 'chainmail' is a 20th C term) but it was entertaining at times and I did like the action sequences, what there were of them. I watched the unedited version so I may have set myself up for the okey-doke in that regard (you know how they like to put in extra footage, but not always of a type that's worth putting in) but in all, I did enjoy the movie.
The characterizations weren't all bad...William Marshal portrayed as a stoic bastion to John's immature braying was adequate, although I wouldn't have chosen William Hurt for that part, he just doesn't evince the kind of bad ass the Marshal truly was. I would've chosen Liam Neeson for that part, personally...and I didn't care for Eleanor's portrayal as I always felt her to be of strong character, unafraid to speak her mind, etc...this one was portrayed as cunning but low-key. Maybe I'm wrong, but it didn't do it for me. I think the casting choices for Little John, Tuck, Alan Dale and Will Scarlett were good ones, and you can't go wrong with Cate Blanchett far as I'm concerned, always was a fan of hers.
I thought that the accent Crowe used sounded more Irish than English, but it didn't always sound the same either so who knows, maybe he got more into character as the shooting schedule progressed. I thought that Crowe put a little too much 'brooding' into this part and of all the characters, him being cast as Robin wasn't the best choice. Obviously the director likes him, and he's good on a horse and handy with a sword but I just didn't believe in him. Don't know how else to explain it.
Maybe I'll go back and watch the theatrical version, see if it makes it any better to me. All in all, I'd give this a 2 out of 4 stars w/regard to mainstream movies; as far as medieval movies go, I'll give it a 3 out of 4 since the production values were excellent, and I do so love that particular period of history so its a gas for me anytime it is featured.
Your thoughts, fellow knights? I know some of you didn't care for it, but didn't necessarily elaborate as to why.
-
i haven't gotten to see it. it's on my Christmas list if it comes out in time though
-
Its out on DVD if that's what you mean...think you can still get it at Target for like $15. I have a number of movies I need to acquire though, ARN being first among them. I have the Swedish version I got like two years ago but I want the official version.
-
I actually cringed at the "help me with my chainmail" part too. :)
I thought the combat was okay, but obviously had the hollywood "flair" to it, of course. I don't know why, but I had a hard time making sense of the movie.
*SPOILER ALERT**DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVENT SEEN IT**
Near the beginning when the king dies, my wife and I both said "wait, what?" because we haven't seen any other Robin Hood in which the king dies. Disney, Men in Tights .. the king comes back to put his brother in his place at the end.
I think they were going for some kind of link between Robin Hood and Masons/Freemasonry. I couldn't quite tell if it was intentional, or just clumsy coincidence. I never did figure out what they were trying to do with it, and again, I've never seen that in any other Robin Hood movie or story I've seen/read.
Marian getting stuck underwater towards the end was another thing that bugged me. The boats crashing into each other made no sense, and as somebody with an archery background, the whole shooting a wet bow and arrow that distance with that accuracy made my toes twinge. Wet fletching? Wet bow string? Wet wood? Guess there had to be a dramatic superlucky/superhuman bow shot in the movie somewhere, right?
Aside from those things, I felt that all of the "merry men" were woefully underdeveloped and unused in the story. They have always been a bigger part to the story, especially with the time they spent together "before" the movie timeframe.
In the end, I ended up googling Robin Longstride to see if there was some sort of basis to the movie. I admittedly didn't look for a long time, but I couldn't find any reference to it. I thought perhaps the movie was taking a more historical basis than the "fairy tale" version that is more popular, and in the end, not finding that to be the case, it made me think a bit less of the movie too.
Crowe tried, but he did a mediocre at best Robin Hood. Part of it might be my subconscious link to him being in Gladiator, so others might not be so critical.
-
Well, I think they were trying to do something else with the whole Robin Hood legend since, admittedly, its been done to death- so much so, everyone knows the core story by heart, right?
I liked that they took the Crusader part and made that integral to the story- besides, Richard dying paved the way for John to really mess things up. I liked how they portrayed him too...a little bit evil, but mostly just self-serving and immature, but not cowardly. I kinda liked him in spite of himself...he reminds me of many little brothers I have known over the years; impetuous, envious of the older (and usually better liked) brother, but in awe of him as well.
I missed the Freemasonry reference but I guess I wasn't looking for it so there you have it. I guess the Merry men could've been used more...but I felt they were represented well, seeing as they were all competent fighters who'd been at the same Crusades as Robin, made sense they'd be in the final battle. They did show one scene of them doing their Sherwood thing...figured it was their homage to the old R Hood movies of the past.
I didn't bother looking up Longstride...the name itself sounds facetious to me, but there's probably someone with that very name somewhere in the world, right? I didn't think Longstride was an apt moniker for Robin either, as he is neither very tall, nor is his stride all that long but what do I know.
I think you nailed it- the subconscious link to Gladiator prevented me from fully believing in him as Robin which is funny- because he's quite good at everything else he's done far as I'm concerned, he just didn't do it for me in this one. Too swarthy...I always picture Robin Hood as he looked in the Errol Flynn days...damn Hollywood. lol
-
ahhhhhhh i shouldn't have read, i shouldn't have read!
-
Oh, you read the spoiler anyway...you're no better than I- I do that all the time! LOL
By the by, someone liked this movie, since Aug 5 it has grossed over $300M USD- combined numbers from the US and abroad.
-
I skipped the spoiler. The warnings sometimes are quite useful. :) Now I just need to go see the darned movie. I keep waiting for Kat and I to have some time at my house, where I have the blueray player.
-
Yea, I haven't bought it yet...I'm not sure if I will. I caught it OnDemand- you might want to give it a whirl before purchasing just in case you end up not liking it for some reason.
-
Already bought it since some folks told me it was good. Just haven't had time for both of us to sit down and watch it.
-
Lookin forward to hearing what you think of it. At least it doesn't LOOK like crap!
-
If you take it for what it is, a Hollywood movie, then it was good and you won't be disappointed. If you expect complete historical accuracy in the weapons and armor, etc. then you will not like it. I appreciate movies for what they are, movies. I thought that this particullar telling of the Robin Hood story was very well done in that they tried to weave some of the various stories and legends of Robin into a historical background. I have heard several different versions of Robin Hood, some even older than the Crusades time period so trying to sort out the different stories is almost impossible and weaving them all together into one cohesive story that makes sense is just as impossible. The movies blending seemed to me to make sense and fit into the historic timeline they choose. I thought the acting was acceptable, not great but not terrible either. I'm not much of a Crowe fan, but I thought he did a passable job as Robin. I have not bought it yet, but I'm sure it will make it's way into my collection beside A Knight's Tale, Gladiator and The Last Legion among the medieval/rennaissance/ancient themed movies I have picked up.
-
I watched this for the second time last night. The first time I saw it, I hated it. A certain GLARING inacurracy with the timeline at the beginning of the movie just put me off for the rest of it. BTW, I am not a purist when it come to Hollywood flicks, but this would have been like watching a WWII movie where the atomic bomb was dropped before D-Day! Anyway, I watched it again, and maybe it was my frame of mind, but I enjoyed it. My advice if you didn't like it the first time, give it another look a little later.
-
I went back and watched it again this weekend as I was doing some other tasks. It was much more tolerable, I think in large part because I wasn't trying to make any sense of it. At pure entertainment and storytelling, it does do a good job when I wasn't trying to link it to everything else I've heard/seen about Robin Hood.
I guess it's somewhat like Lord of The Rings. I thought the movies were good, but I never read the books. My cousin read the books and said the movies were an atrocity that left out important parts of the storyline, some implied romantic spots, and a few things like that. Watching the movie again and taking it as just a movie, it was entertaining.
(spoiler, but it's a link - http://forum.mastermason.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=7341&title=masonic-robin-hood-2010 - that link tells the bits linking Robin to the masons in this movie)
-
Sir James, I categorically disagree with your cousin...having read the Trilogy at least 20 times since I first read it as a kid, I can tell you- yes, the movies did omit portions of the books but in doing so, they took nothing away from the overall theme or even the continuity.
***Spoilers if you've seen the movies but never read the Trilogy before***
Sure, no Tom Bombadil, it was really Glorfindel in his wrath as an Elven lord that caused the Ford to overflow and sweep away the Black Riders and it was Gandalf's magic that made the waters look like horsemen but in the spirit of the story, that didn't really matter. In the books, Eowyn meets Faramir in the Houses of Healing, they fall in love and marry w/Aragorn's blessing- but that was extraneous and took nothing away from the movie (or story) by not including it.
One part I wish they had included was the hobbits' journey back home...they deal with a new group of hardened men who have taken over the Shire under the direction of 'Sharku' (orc-speech for 'old man', a clue as it were)- it turns out they encounter Saruman again, and he's behind the destruction and disarray in the Shire only this time, Grima has enough of him and slits the old wizard's throat before fleeing.
There were other omissions but they don't come to mind immediately and I consider them small enough as to be inconsequential.
Back on topic, I watched the Costner rendition (again), Prince of Thieves yesterday...I must say, that one is my favorite Robin Hood movie of all the ones I've seen.
I find it funny that people look for the historicity in Robin Hood when it can't even be proven whether or not he actually existed. LOL
-
Back on topic, I watched the Costner rendition (again), Prince of Thieves yesterday...I must say, that one is my favorite Robin Hood movie of all the ones I've seen.
I find it funny that people look for the historicity in Robin Hood when it can't even be proven whether or not he actually existed. LOL
Right, just like the Arthurian stories, the Robin Hood legends are mostly stories as well. What has been passed down over the centuries are ballads and poems. And even if there's some truth to it, there's no real way to know if the stories are truly about the same person. Robin Hood was a common name at the time, and in fact was often used the way we'd refer to a "John Doe" or something like that when someone's real identity isn't known. Records show marriages, convictions, and the like of Robin Hoods in almost every region from back then. Even the supporting characters (Little John, etc) usually only appear in one story, or a small handful of them, which probably indicates that a lot of the stories originated separately. And like the Arthurian stories, later writers attempted to weave them together and make it coherent.
We finally had a chance to watch the movie this weekend. We liked it! Yes, lots of inaccuracies, big and small (out of period helmets, Richard the Lionheart was speaking English instead of French, etc). But overall we though it was a clever alternate origin story for Robin Hood and his men, one that was woven in with one of the existing legends (Robert of Locksley). I have to agree on some of the nit-picks of course, like firing that wet shot, the confusing uselessness of the boats crashing together in the climactic battle, calling the armor "chainmail", and so on. But there were nice little details too that they might easily have overlooked, such as cutting the wine with water at dinner. The year was correct for the death of Richard the Lionheart, and even the circumstances of his death, though historically it took a long time for him to die of his wounds.
It did seem odd, the whole "stone cutter" reference and the inscription hidden under the stone. Seems like a lot of trouble to go through for something that was a minor plot point.
-
Awesome....thought I was crazy for a while there because I liked it. lol
There were some nice touches that, now you mention it, really did add to it. The watering of the wine I took for granted, even tho I can't recall ever seeing that occur in a major film before, very cool.
-
I just saw "The Real Robin Hood" on the History Channel, and was going to post about it filling in some of the spots of the movie that didn't make sense to me. I did a quick search and found this thread (http://modernchivalry.org/forum/index.php/topic,557.15.html) about the show. For those that haven't seen the movie or that show, I'd suggest watching the movie first, then the show - as the show had clips from the movie and spoils a bit of the plot.
I may go back and watch the movie once more to see how it does or doesn't pull together, knowing the extra background on why they diverted from the "classic" tale, especially with "remakes" of old movies being such a popular thing the last decade.
-
Well, I've seen it again since then and I still like it...but I still stand by my earlier statement that it is not my favorite RH rendition, but as a medievally-themed movie from Hollywood, it was very good. I can't ever get enough of knights in armor clashing with one another.
I just got a bootleg of Season of the Witch...it was pretty bad but from what I could gather, I think I'm going to like this movie...if for nothing else, the fighting! It was hazy and not well rendered, but the action scenes I could discern looked exciting...and of course, woefully inaccurate or should I say, overblown? You'll know what I'm talking about when you see it, but I'm guessing it is for the wow element in action sequences, you know? I know I said wow. lol
I did not watch the whole thing because it was pretty bad and I want to see it clearly. Can't wait for it to come out on DVD. Ever since we've gotten that big screen, we've not seen the inside of a movie theater! lol