Robin Hood - Spoilers

[finn]

Saw this last night and I'm still not sure what to make of it. The Ridley Scott/Russell Crowe combo appeals as does a very solid and well respected support cast, but there seems to be more to come and I expected to see more of the story rather than a prequel. The feel is very Galdiatoresque and the researchers seem to have done a good job with the arts of war in the 12th century.

However for me the tale lagged and the overall road the movie took was laborious, ie it went a long distance to end up not very far down the road. I had a few qualms about the history side of what is after all historic fiction and I think they took a few liberties with places, times and protagonists to make what they wanted 'fit'.

As a prequel, the political backdrop of the time becomes important as the shaper of people and events, but I think they could have done a lot with a short introductory narration instead of the plunge in. In all history this time has some of the most complex interactions and alliegances and counter alliegences, marraiges and power sharing and clergy/noble rivalry ever. The power brokers were down played to play up the villains and the divide between commoner and noble was far greater than a chainmail shirt could disguise; Robin and his men would never in all liklihood, have been let aboard the boat.

The portrayal of the French was a bit 2D especially since anyone who rode a horse was probably still speaking French. Indeed "Good King Richard" did not speak English and despite being born in Oxford only spent some 3+months in England. Most nobles were French speakers and first or second generations carpet-baggers, mainly younger sons or bastards with no inheritance....John himself was called "lackland" as the youngest of 5 sons. As a King he was supposedly not as bad as legend tells, though his title (Lackland) was also a joke on the land and holdings he forfeited to Phllip of France.

Nonetheless a good, if not great romp through the Middle Ages and the French speaking issue was reasonably glossed over to avoid two+ hours of subtitles. There were some lovely moments especially with Friar Tuck led celebrations where the bawdy Englishness that Chaucer penned came through. The capriciousness of kings and nobles played well, but lacked I thought real input from Eleanor's character who was a far more powerful historic figure.

Some real excellence but a few disappointments and I'm trying now to work through which was which! But worth going to see, tho' but be prepared to leave wondering what story was being told.

[Montresor]

I saw this today. I enjoyed it, but felt it added absolutely nothing to the old story. Scott should have stuck to the "Nottingham" script, instead of rehashing Hollywood's take on the Robin Hood myth yet again.

That said, there were some very good sequences throughout and good, but not great performances.

King John stole the film whenever he was in it. And Mark Strong seems to be making a habit of playing cardboard cut-out villains.

Overall, I'd rate this as worth seeing, but pretty forgettable.

[Fist and Faith]

I can't believe they felt the need to make another Robin Hood movie.

[Menolly]

Is it based more on Lawhead's interpretation of Robin Hood? The King Raven Trilogy? If so, I could see justification for attempting to put that on film, from what I have heard of the series...

[Montresor]

I can't believe they felt the need to make another Robin Hood movie.

I'd like to see one done either from another perspective (as the script for "Nottingham" is), or told in the style of the tale before its late 14thC revisions. Robin Hood actually started out as an outlaw who robbed from the rich to give to the . . . rich. He based his own brand of altruism on who he thought was the most honest man. Interesting tales.

Is it based more on Lawhead's interpretation of Robin Hood? The King Raven Trilogy? If so, I could see justification for attempting to put that on film, from what I have heard of the series...

Not familiar with those at all. The new film is a very straight re-telling of the most well-known versions of the tales.

[Tulizar]

However for me the tale lagged and the overall road the movie took was laborious, ie it went a long distance to end up not very far down the road.

I agree. Seemed like there was too much story being crammed into too little time. Half way through the movie I wasn't sure where things were headed. By the end I was simply waiting for the dreaded good guy v bad guy fight scene.

I enjoyed the performances of the cast. Especially William Hurt and Oscar Isaac (John). However, at movie's end I wouldn't have cared if any of them died. I thought Mark Strong did a good job as an evil Godfrey, but for some reason I wasn't cheering Robin Hood on to eliminate him---and I think think I was supposed to. I don't know if it was the pace of the story or the script, but the characters simply moved along without me rooting for the good guys.

I loved the portrayals of everyday life for both commoner and royalty. Seemed pretty accurate to me. I also thought the machinations of war were right on.

Definitely had its highs and lows. Worth seeing, just wait for DVD.

[finn]

Some real excellence but a few disappointments and I'm trying now to work through which was which

However, at movie's end I wouldn't have cared if any of them died.

Good post Tulizar, that's exactly what I was grasping for.......... I had no emotional connection to the characters and it was as if I was outside looking in, not inside with some emotional flesh in the outcome.

As an aside, I DID hear an Irish accent at one point. For the most part RC was doing a passable Northern English accent but it definitely shifted to and Irish lilt a couple of times....probably a thing only the English would discern tho'....

[Montresor]

As an aside, I DID hear an Irish accent at one point. For the most part RC was doing a passable Northern English accent but it definitely shifted to and Irish lilt a couple of times....probably a thing only the English would discern tho'....

And the folk song they played in the dance/feast sequence was "Women of Ireland" which was . . . a strange choice.

[finn]

Saw the DVD of this last night and its a different movie!

Once again Ridley Scott proves that a bit of extra time and care, plus of course, audience feedback, critical review and Russell breathing down his neck to edit the brogue, will produce a superior movie. This is by far and away better than the big screen version (its a Director's Cut) and the added scenes fill in the head-scratching blanks that made the cinema showing so remote.

Suddenly with a bit more information added, the movie comes to life. The gaps filled were not mysterious or the province of cult following, they were simply gaps in the telling of the story and once rectified we have an excellent adventure film.

It's probably fair to say too that they may have needed to set up the next movie and the changes in this cut do fill out areas of the plot and sub plot that were previously vague and presumably better allow the next screenplay to exploit things, such as the "merry men of sherwood" (the forest children) and the emnity for Robin held by Prince John.

The Irish lilt was gone, though the forest boy has a clear and markedly Irish accent. RC is far more a standard Northerner except for one point where he raises his pitch, question-like; a very Australian (and Irish) thing to do, but not the dour mono-toned Northern English speech pattern.

Worth getting the new version but put in on early, its 2hrs and 20+mins.

[Tulizar]

Good to know. I wasn't going to give this one a second chance, but sounds like the Director's cut will be worth it.