Robin Hood

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz



its really boring.

And a mess


if you know anything about the production (it was original going to be called nothingham and focus on the sheriff of nothingham) then you can understand why it's a mess, the plot dances all over the place constantly changing focus, numerous elements enter and leave the film with little or no explanation and its conclusion is laughably anti climatic.

The film also lacks any suspense any menace any emotion of life at all, its all very by the numbers with no attempt to make any of it exciting. We have a grand total of 3 *robin hood* moments (i.e bandits, ambush and bows) and only 1 of them actually involve robin hood, the other two involve the villians and some random kids (that are never really brought in the story narratively but somehow end up on the right side for no reason what so ever)

And for the Classical warfare Ridley Scott action play set that people enjoy (me included at times) they are the most bland battles he has done no where near the scale or impact of his prior films and worse of all the big finale is so unbelievable one sided in favour of the heroes that I fail to understand why it was being built up to be the climax.


So the film cuts rogueish fantasy hood story for one enriched in political drama, yet at the same time knows its audience consist of mainstream america, so naturally the political drama goes the way of the phantom menace which means its mostly irrelevent pompus bullsh*t about tax and liberty (the 2 things that seem to define politics to most people). Throw on top an insane over complication on Robin Hood's origin story that deliver's nothing despite throwing in stolen identities, rebellions and his father's murderer they outright fail to capatlize on any of these elements in any substantial form.



and thats just the plot.

moving on, the actors are for the most dull planks of wood, Russell Crowe being chief among them, he seemed to have forgotten that the word Rogue is very much associated with robin hood, here he plays Maximus with a cold, i.e he's the same moody sombre git but he has the sniffles so cant shout or growl so opts for grimacing and threatening frowns. Dont expect anything memorable to come from his mouth. In fact expect to be longing for kevin costner to come in and take over the role. Cate Blanchett takes Miriam as a role to be bitchy and sticks with it just swapping busy bitchy for smitten bitchy for angry bitchy and so on, their relationship seems to exist solely because thats what's expected. Chemistry nope nada none.

The supporting cast do the film a bit more justice, william hurt fits into the political side of things well as does a sombre danny huston as king richard. The merry men with as little time as they get in the film try to keep things light, but get shunted to the backrow far too much. The film's trio of villians (king of france, King john and sir godfry) are two dull sods and a gem. Godfry looks menacing but never capatilizes on it, in fact by the film's climax he looks incompetant then anything else and not the funny incompetant, King Phillip of France despite being the chief villian is absent.

But Oscar Issac has to be given credit, he plays a good king john and is probably the most entertaining character in the film, Credit is deserved, he takes a bit of Alan Rickman's sheriff to spice his scenes but keeps it mostly his own. So bravo.

So I mentioned Nothingham and the start, and thats important, because if the film focused on the sheriff of nottingham then the issues of dickish church behaviour, political drama and rebellion would all have firstly made sense from a character's perspective (robin hood traversing through these situations is very out of place most times) and secondly would have been interesting. Trying to juggle the noble image of Robin Hood with events that are predominantly grey on the map of morals does not work.

Throw in a few plotholes and wtf moments and you have a film with little or no merit.

Its not broken, its just bland.

I'm just back from the film and I enjoyed it a lot. I like the way they interweave the original of Robin Hood into real historical events. The action scenes were pretty impressive too.

I did find it strange that there was an intermission during the film as it isn't that long.

abouttobebanned wrote: »

Have Empire finally lost the plot?

Yep. Although they probably lost it years ago.

Just back from seeing it there, it was ok like, I was expecting worse reading the reviews.

The usage of the Orphans and Robin's backstory was ridiculous though.

Saw it last night - pretty average and dull

Some of the jokes are just ridiculous as well, right from the "Carry On" school of comedy

When to see it tonight,despite what the critics say,i liked it. Slowed down a bit in the middle but good overall.

Rumours are that this will be part 1 of the robin hood story with more to follow if it makes enough money.

Saw this last night.

I have 3 issues with it.

1. Marian 2. The could easily have had John bringing about some closure but they got greedy and set it up for a sequel.
3. Combat was a big step down from Gladiator, a 10 year old movie.

That said, it wasn't all bad and I did enjoy it overall.

I must echo what has been said already in this thread, Robin Hood was an overlong bore. Really there is very little this incarnation of robin hood has in common with the old story we're familiar with. The story suffers went in diverts away from the fable and sherwood forest and isnt helped by a poor script and hollow characters, chief among them Robin Hood himself. I think Russell Crowe is still dining out on Gladiator which was a terrififc movie and a great performance from him, and thats part of the problem with robin hood, there isnt that same emotional connection to be made with crowes character as was so easily done in Gladiator, instead we have a vacuous bow and arrow wielding robin hood who simply seems to be going through the motions... How could ridley scott and crowe justify bringing this nonsense to the big screen, i mean there is more drama in an average episode of fair city, i was also surprised at kate blanchette, normally a terrific actress who's script choices are in the main spot on, she was way off target with this venture. In fact I left before the end of the film, and i have done that several times this, year such has been the poor standard of films in 2010. Two films I did enjoy , Tilda swintons, I am Love, beautifully shot and acted, and The Disappearance of Alice Creed, sadly both were rare treats as far as my recent visits to the cinema have been concerned.

i got the impression it was a film that didnt know what it wanted to be if that makes any sense

it does when you consider it was original not meant to be about robin hood at all but about the sheriff of nottingham

first i heard what you say there then i heard crowe was supposed to be playing both characters

Nope initial script was focused on the sheriff (played by Crowe) and robin hood was while not the villian was to play a less virtous role (and was never casted)

(they must have been either supposed to be the same person or brothers, if the story is true at all)

When it was changed that it was to be about robin hood, they originally had it he became the sheriff very early in the film (sort of like how he became in the final film. Hence the confusion.


Either way, keeping on these plot elements and swapping out names is one of the film's major flaws.

yes but that means he was to play both roles in the film at some stage thats all i meant

sorry lack of sleep i thought you meant he was going to do an eddie murphy and play both roles in the same film