Robin Hood - Spoilers
Posted: Fri May 14, 2010 5:28 am
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.
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.
