FAQ   Search the Forums   Log in to check your private messages

Recent Headlines

Recent Reviews


Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
Forums Index -> Out of Genre Experience -> Robin Hood
Terminal
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 4:19 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 8052
Location: Bronx, New York

Scott is yet another director in painful need of something fresh in his plate. He's in a slump like Allen, Burton, and Scorsese.
_________________
----------
"We are bad guys. That means we've got more to do other than bullying companies. It's fun to lead a bad man's life."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Floydian Trip
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 4:21 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 10 Aug 2008
Posts: 6478

nonserviam03 wrote:
Floydian Trip wrote:
If people want him to be a tight-wearing fruitcake who hides in trees then great there are plenty of movies like that. I want to see a badass version of Robin Hood that decapitates people and enjoys it. And of course lots of battle sequences.


Then why bother calling it Robin Hood? If you want a badass character that chops people's heads off then just create a new character. It's not Robin Hood.

Also, instead of paying attention to any one critic in particular... I'm just gonna say that it has a 45% on Rotten Tomatoes.


Robin Hood isn't a real person Non. None of it is based in reality although I gaurantee that this Robin Hood is far more historically accurate in the details of any Robin Hood movie 'cause that's how Ridley likes things.

Another hysterical thing about that ChUD review is how Devin goes off about his age. I'm 39 and I wasn't planning on checking into an old folks home next year. What? Once you hit 40 you're too feable to do great things anymore. History differs on that quite a bit. But then it's Devin and I expect nothing but idiocy from him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Terminal
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 4:22 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 8052
Location: Bronx, New York

Floydian Trip wrote:
nonserviam03 wrote:
Floydian Trip wrote:
If people want him to be a tight-wearing fruitcake who hides in trees then great there are plenty of movies like that. I want to see a badass version of Robin Hood that decapitates people and enjoys it. And of course lots of battle sequences.


Then why bother calling it Robin Hood? If you want a badass character that chops people's heads off then just create a new character. It's not Robin Hood.

Also, instead of paying attention to any one critic in particular... I'm just gonna say that it has a 45% on Rotten Tomatoes.


Robin Hood isn't a real person Non. None of it is based in reality although I gaurantee that this Robin Hood is far more historically accurate in the details of any Robin Hood movie 'cause that's how Ridley likes things.

Another hysterical thing about that ChUD review is how Devin goes off about his age. I'm 39 and I wasn't planning on checking into an old folks home next year. What? Once you hit 40 you're too feable to do great things anymore. History differs on that quite a bit. But then it's Devin and I expect nothing but idiocy from him.


You're 39?

I figured you for 17, or 18 at best.

Wow.
_________________
----------
"We are bad guys. That means we've got more to do other than bullying companies. It's fun to lead a bad man's life."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
nonserviam03
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 4:48 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 07 Jun 2009
Posts: 1702

Floydian Trip wrote:
nonserviam03 wrote:
Floydian Trip wrote:
If people want him to be a tight-wearing fruitcake who hides in trees then great there are plenty of movies like that. I want to see a badass version of Robin Hood that decapitates people and enjoys it. And of course lots of battle sequences.


Then why bother calling it Robin Hood? If you want a badass character that chops people's heads off then just create a new character. It's not Robin Hood.

Also, instead of paying attention to any one critic in particular... I'm just gonna say that it has a 45% on Rotten Tomatoes.


Robin Hood isn't a real person Non. None of it is based in reality although I gaurantee that this Robin Hood is far more historically accurate in the details of any Robin Hood movie 'cause that's how Ridley likes things.

Another hysterical thing about that ChUD review is how Devin goes off about his age. I'm 39 and I wasn't planning on checking into an old folks home next year. What? Once you hit 40 you're too feable to do great things anymore. History differs on that quite a bit. But then it's Devin and I expect nothing but idiocy from him.


Whether he was a real person or not is irrelevant. If they made a movie about Superman and changed everything about the character then it would be just as wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dr. Mirakle
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 4:49 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 745

Floydian Trip wrote:
What I find funny is how all the naysayers are talking like Robin Hood is a real person. He's completely made up. Robin Hood can be whoever a person wants him to be. If people want him to be a tight-wearing fruitcake who hides in trees then great there are plenty of movies like that. I want to see a badass version of Robin Hood that decapitates people and enjoys it. And of course lots of battle sequences.



So...if I want Robin Hood to be a refugee from the planet Xenon, with wacky misadventures as he struggles to deal with these nutty Earth people, I can have that? Sure.

Besides, as I tried to point out before (and maybe it went right by you), that movie you want was already made; they called it 300. And you haven't yet answered my point about the messed-up timeline of this one; King Richard is dead, yet it's a prequel? A prequel to what, might I ask?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
frank_dracman
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 5:31 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Posts: 1463

The trailer is boring. With a run time of 2 hours and 20 minutes, you can bet the movie is too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Didn't See It Coming
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 6:05 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 4360
Location: NYC baby!

Floydian Trip wrote:
Devin is one of the biggest assholes on the face of the internet so I'll stick to respecting what Ebert has to say more and disregarding CHUD like I usually do.


I'm curious as to why you're so pleased with Ebert's review. He didn't give it a good one.

Quote:
What I find funny is how all the naysayers are talking like Robin Hood is a real person. He's completely made up. Robin Hood can be whoever a person wants him to be. If people want him to be a tight-wearing fruitcake who hides in trees then great there are plenty of movies like that. I want to see a badass version of Robin Hood that decapitates people and enjoys it. And of course lots of battle sequences.



This is coming from someone who has said that Vampires shouldn't be homoerotic, werewolves can't climb on walls, zombies can't run and a host of other things....In case you're missing the point I'm making here. How's that double standard treating you?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Terminal
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 6:47 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 8052
Location: Bronx, New York

Didn't See It Coming wrote:
This is coming from someone who has said that Vampires shouldn't be homoerotic, werewolves can't climb on walls, zombies can't run and a host of other things....In case you're missing the point I'm making here. How's that double standard treating you?


Nice.

Cool
_________________
----------
"We are bad guys. That means we've got more to do other than bullying companies. It's fun to lead a bad man's life."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
frank_dracman
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 10:55 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Posts: 1463

Terminal wrote:
Didn't See It Coming wrote:
This is coming from someone who has said that Vampires shouldn't be homoerotic, werewolves can't climb on walls, zombies can't run and a host of other things....In case you're missing the point I'm making here. How's that double standard treating you?


Nice.

Cool

Don't billow the flames of fabricated contempt between those two. They are obviously gay for each other. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SRB1951
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 11:00 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 124

frank_dracman wrote:
Terminal wrote:
Didn't See It Coming wrote:
This is coming from someone who has said that Vampires shouldn't be homoerotic, werewolves can't climb on walls, zombies can't run and a host of other things....In case you're missing the point I'm making here. How's that double standard treating you?


Nice.

Cool

Don't billow the flames of fabricated contempt between those two. They are obviously gay for each other. Very Happy



Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LivingDeadPunk
PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 12:58 am  Reply with quote



Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 5679
Location: Cleveland, OH

I'm actually with FT on this one. In his review, Kim Newman said,

Quote:
The script gets hung up on Hollywoodish nonsense about Robinís traumatic relationship with a murdered father (Holy Backstory, Batman!), but grows in confidence when it becomes apparent that this is the Batman Begins/Casino Royale version of Robin Hood, putting the pieces on the board for the stories we know about the outlaw in lincoln green.
Scott directs on the epic scale, with superb battle scenes and court intrigues, though this is one of those noisy films where dialogue is often obscured by clashing chainmail or arrgghhing extras. It wobbles in the early stages, but becomes enormous fun and unexpectedly stirring when things pick up. Hooray for Robin and Ridley.


That's good enough for me. I am perfectly willing to give an Elseworlds Robin Hood a chance, though, I really wish Scott'd actually made Nottingham, like I thought he was going to, instead of this. I was pretty eager to see that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Floydian Trip
PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 10:12 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 10 Aug 2008
Posts: 6478

I liked it alot. Definitely the most exciting and historically accurate Robin Hood ever made. If the idea of The Tudors crossed with Braveheart sounds interesting then I don't see how you could not like this movie. Movies like this just aren't going to be made very often anymore. Building an actual castle to use as a set will be a thing of the past once it becomes cheaper and more practical to do it in CGI which will be in the not-too-distant future.


SPOILERS


It's not 100% accurate though but if it were it'd have to run about 4 hours long and be more of a documentary. The things they altered or glossed over were done in an acceptable manner so as to make the movie more action packed and reasonable in length. They got the major players down really well in this one though and Robin Hood is actually a minor character in the grand scheme of things. In Costner's Robin Hood they made King Richard out to be a hero and beloved king but that was not the case. Here they make it clear that his people did not believe in the Crusades and were unhappy with his rule. He was never really known to be a good King, he was more of a warrior first. Here it is presumed he died in the final seige of the Crusade which it is true that he was presumed dead but later it was found that he had been captured and held for ransom by the Holy Roman Emperor. This may play out in the sequel or not.

So John did become king and warred against his own country and nobleman along with the French which is the final epic battle in the movie although little things about all that were changed as well to move things along faster. One thing King John and the King of France never led their armies in battle. John was a coward but they did make that pretty clear in the movie. Then there's the whole thing about the Magna Carta which John did sign but did not abide by. He was given the nickname of John the Bad because his reign was so disastrous. Yada, yada, yada. Nothing to really complain about and did most things better than most other movies.

Russel Crowe is not too old. He was excellent. Cate Blanchett was excellent as well and was portrayed as a very strong woman. I like this Sherriff of Nottingham alot because usually he's made out to be the ultimate villian which this time he was more of a puppet to the king and King John was really the bad guy.

All in all an excellent Ridley Scott film and I'll enjoy them while they last because Ridley is pushing 80 and won't be doing this very much longer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Didn't See It Coming
PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 11:02 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 4360
Location: NYC baby!

I'm sure that if it were as bad or dull as more than half the critics have said you would have still said you liked it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Floydian Trip
PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2010 1:13 am  Reply with quote



Joined: 10 Aug 2008
Posts: 6478

And what about the critics that did like it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Didn't See It Coming
PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2010 4:57 am  Reply with quote



Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 4360
Location: NYC baby!

Floydian Trip wrote:
And what about the critics that did like it?


The most likely don't swing from the nuts of Ridley Scott so I trust their opinion far more than someone who thinks he has been making amazing films his whole career. Then, again, I'm not privy to their "opinions" of his recent work. But I do think it's telling that Ebert gave the movie a bad review.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
All times are GMT

View next topic
View previous topic
Page 2 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Dread Central Forum Index -> Out of Genre Experience

Post new topic   Reply to topic


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum