Robin Hood

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

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

he was pencilled in to play both roles at one stage, i followed the development of the movie fairly closely

one of the reasons i was a bit disappointed with it

heres one link in case youre doubtful, theres loads more as well but i wouldnt make it up haha

Mr. K wrote: »

No word yet, but it's doing pretty well at the box office; so a sequel seems likely. Ridley Scott is doing the Alien prequel, so he might not be involved.

It's doing ok but not great - $111m worldwide after it's first weekend. Typically a movie like this will gross a lot more from outside the U.S but I think word of mouth will be a big problem. Apparently the production budget ballooned to over $200m so I think if you factor in its marketing the studios won't greenlight a sequel unless hits near $500m worldwide. I just don't see it having those kind of legs

abouttobebanned wrote: »

How is this thing getting good commercial reviews?

It's pedigree - Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe together means critics might be willing to give them to benefit of the doubt even if it's just meh in their eyes. I'd reckon rubbish reviewers with no confidence in their ability to argue against something most likely assumed it would recieve good reviews and went along with it

Ridley Scott has a hard on for historical epics, but his tendency to attempt to make their plots topical are his undoing with this film.

His post 9/11 plea for peace with the Muslim world in 'Kingdom of Heaven' was simplistic, but it sorta worked (in the special edition), but here we have Robin Hood recast as an anti-establishment, 'burn the bankers and the elite' anti-globalization protester in a manner that is so painfully anachronistic that he might as well periodically check his digital wristwatch while reading the Socialist Workers Party newsletter.

The film also rather offensively re-writes history in a criminal fashion and has a plot that is heavily dependent on on some credibility stretching coincidences that the film, which starts out as an enjoyable enough romp, ends up as flat out laughable
I never thought I say this of Ridley Scott, but the final third of Robin Hood also suffers from seriously shoddy direction, and yes, Crowe's accent is all over the place, and in the first third of the film he does sound a bit Oirish.

4/10

indough wrote: »

he was pencilled in to play both roles at one stage, i followed the development of the movie fairly closely

one of the reasons i was a bit disappointed with it

heres one link in case youre doubtful, theres loads more as well but i wouldnt make it up haha

as the writer of the article said

I call bull**** on this one…

And a quick read of what ridley scott actually said, he didnt mean two seperate characters but that the character in the film trancend their traditional roles and the distinctions becomes blurred

a good old clever adjustment of characters. One becomes the other. It changes.”

Just usual internet hyperbole.

just like christian bale plays both bruce wayne and batman in the new movies

No because Christian bale's character strides to make a distinction between the two within the film, its a major element of the franchise's narrative and a major plot point in everything to do with batman (films comics and animated series).

Scott did not mean that Robin identified himself as *the Sheriff* and *the thief* he continued to identify himself as robin hood, but this robin hood is a made up of elements from the two characters. There is no distinction. Its nothing outright spectaculer, its done alot in adaptations and in script development. Characters get collapsed down from multiple roles to one that embodies a number of them.

For example the recent Iron Man 2 took elements from two iron man villians to make mickey rourke's character. He is never identified as either in the film he is only identified as Vanko but:

Mickey Rourke portrays Whiplash as Ivan Vanko in the 2010 feature film Iron Man 2. This version of Whiplash, though he is never actually referred to by this name, incorporates elements of fellow Iron Man foe Crimson Dynamo.

2 iron man villains...one new villian. This is common practice and it was what was meant and what somewhat ended up on screen with Robin Hood, except the sheriff elements were given a noble rub over by associating them with knights and lords rather then sheriffs and the law which ended up becoming a muddled mess.

spank_inferno wrote: »

I was galled at the ending though
I could hardly believe my eles,

Marion turns up with 7 or 8 pikie kids on ponies to charge the ranks of French heavy spearmen

Looking back this image may have spoiled the whole thing for me!

I was literally thinking this can't get any worse and then that happened.

I thought it was terrible, didn't read any reviews or or even see the trailer before i saw it so didn't know what to expect but i really didn't like it. I can't believe how hit & miss Ridley Scott can be.

Fighting Irish wrote: »

It might have been good if it was 'Gladiator in England'

Better than this cack anyway.

Someone please explain cus I feel dumb...the kid with the bag on his head..wat wa that about? Had he just seen Batman Begins as said "I'll have that". Plus i liked the way the underfed kids cud handle themselves pretty well in a battle with hardened french soldiers. Last scene sucked giant ass

edit...but that doesnt mean the rest was any good either

I am not surprised at all to find that the subplot with was a a hacket job from an earlier draft, it felt very forced and during the film

Corholio wrote: »

Did you just give away the ending?? :mad:

The entire premise of the movie is Robin Hood before he became an outlaw, so no.