Not surprisingly, I completely agree with you. Also, to add another point or two to your overview/opinion/whatever of Robin Hood, I will say that 1. They should've gotten a younger actor to play Robin, though Crowe did an excellent job as always. 2. To reinforce the younger actor, the direction of the movie could've been differnent as well. Instead of being some old Robin Hood, maybe they could've went with a more prologue-ish approach and went with a scrip of how Robin became the Hero he was.
(SPOILER ALERT!!!!!)
In the movie, there was only one true part where Robin actually lived up to his name with the whole steal from the rich and give to the poor. That, in my opinion, is a bullshit move simply because the rest of the movie he could've been some other type of hero and not Robin Hood. I also would've been extremely satisfied if the newly crowned king had been socked in that godamn whiny mouth of his.
Crotch out.
(SPOILER ALERT!!!!!)
In the movie, there was only one true part where Robin actually lived up to his name with the whole steal from the rich and give to the poor. That, in my opinion, is a bullshit move simply because the rest of the movie he could've been some other type of hero and not Robin Hood. I also would've been extremely satisfied if the newly crowned king had been socked in that godamn whiny mouth of his.
Crotch out.
I havent' seen it yet, but it's also not at all high on my list of movies to see. There's been lots of Robin Hood movies and it was just never one of my favorites (well aside from the cartoon of Rocket Robin Hood... which I really loved as a kid!)
I'd watch it as long as it doesn't have that horrible hummy, vaguely latin sounding music that has been spammed in every historic action film from Gladiator through to 300. I hate that stuff.
But does the world really cry out for another interpretation of the Robin Hood story? My world certainly doesn't. You know what they should make a big budget movie of? Attila the Hun. I'd watch that. I saw a pretty average direct to TV version once, and its a pretty interesting tale.
But does the world really cry out for another interpretation of the Robin Hood story? My world certainly doesn't. You know what they should make a big budget movie of? Attila the Hun. I'd watch that. I saw a pretty average direct to TV version once, and its a pretty interesting tale.
@fightmejimmy
Attila the Hun would be good. or I was thinking of Vlad the Impaler. But not the ghouls & ghosts variety.
Attila the Hun would be good. or I was thinking of Vlad the Impaler. But not the ghouls & ghosts variety.
Just watch Men in Tights or the Disney one, at least those are entertaining. Oh wait there is the Kevin Costner flick with the laughable acting especially with Christian Slater.
Hm. Sounds like you recycled many other reviews I've read about the movie. I watched it today and actually enjoyed (gasp) it. Why do you let the jolly "popular culture Robin Hood" ruin it for you? Did it look from the trailers like a "jolly Robin Hood" movie to you? It looked to me like a bad ass Robin Hood's big adventure where he earns his outlaw status, and that's exactly what it was. Why would I want an exact retelling of a story I've read/seen/heard 18 times? This isn't the traditional Robin Hood (which is an incredibly unrealistic story), this is Robin Hood as he could have actually been, which is why it works (and is awesome).
@Geno27
You're right we don't want to see the same story told a hundred times we just want to see it told differently. When taking an iconic figure there are certain things you have to keep. Take the new Batman films for example. Batman is dressed up as a bat and fights crime. However this film is called Robin Hood and we never see anyone really act like Robin apart from one brief scene. The new Batman films are great because they tell a classic story in a new and interesting way where as here that opportunity is squandered.
You're right we don't want to see the same story told a hundred times we just want to see it told differently. When taking an iconic figure there are certain things you have to keep. Take the new Batman films for example. Batman is dressed up as a bat and fights crime. However this film is called Robin Hood and we never see anyone really act like Robin apart from one brief scene. The new Batman films are great because they tell a classic story in a new and interesting way where as here that opportunity is squandered.
Mmmm... see, I think I disagree with you there as well (and I do mean this as a peaceful, logical argument). I think the movie with the most similarities is indeed Batman Begins, which many have pointed out. And even in Batman Begins, he doesn't don "the batsuit" and go and fight crime until waaay on into the movie. For much of it, the "iconic figure" of Batman is dressed up like a ninja, training in some mountains to become a ninja himself. um, lolwut...? And yes, he does act like Robin Hood much of the film. "Stealing form the rich to give to the poor" isn't the only thing Robin Hood's known for. He's also a first-rate archer, which is plainly displayed the entire movie. He also falls in love with a Lady Marion. He also relies on his little gang (of merry men) (and in which Will Scarlet is brilliantly portrayed with red hair:)
And as for wanting to see the same story told differently, that's exactly what this movie is, only in a realistic manner. In Pyle's Robin Hood (which is generally considered the "canon" of the Robin Hood stories), Robin Hood's becoming an outlaw takes something like 3 or 4 paragraphs. He gets into an argument with some idiots about how good an archer he is, and he bets he shoot a deer crazy far away. He obviously does, and then they freak out and tell him that it was a "King's deer" and BAM he's an outlaw. That's it. That's also the most unrealistic, silly, and improbable way to become a hunted outlaw ever. But the rest of the book's that way too. And that's cool - for a fun, unrealistic book. But the story writers wanted something believable, and I for one am glad they did! It made me think, "If this Robin Hood fellow of legend really existed... this is totally a way it could have happened!" (in an entertaining way, of course)
And as for wanting to see the same story told differently, that's exactly what this movie is, only in a realistic manner. In Pyle's Robin Hood (which is generally considered the "canon" of the Robin Hood stories), Robin Hood's becoming an outlaw takes something like 3 or 4 paragraphs. He gets into an argument with some idiots about how good an archer he is, and he bets he shoot a deer crazy far away. He obviously does, and then they freak out and tell him that it was a "King's deer" and BAM he's an outlaw. That's it. That's also the most unrealistic, silly, and improbable way to become a hunted outlaw ever. But the rest of the book's that way too. And that's cool - for a fun, unrealistic book. But the story writers wanted something believable, and I for one am glad they did! It made me think, "If this Robin Hood fellow of legend really existed... this is totally a way it could have happened!" (in an entertaining way, of course)

surf dtoid with 

Rising (10+)
People you follow

send message
follow
followers


