I'm just gutted - went to see it last night and was very disappointed!
Over long and all over the place.
I'm a massive fan of Russ as an actor and a man - hubba - but he just does not seem to be used enough in this movie - once he is off screen it all falls flat.
Mark Strong hams it up a bit and the King is amusing - but its just not good enough.
Gutted - had to youtube a bit of Maximus when I got home to have a good film fix.
Since when was Robin Hood a 46-year-old with middle-age spread and an Irish accent?
I heard Crowe's interview with Lawson and thought he sounded like an utter nob. I'm not even going to bother watching it, I can't take Crowe and his childish grumpy hard man act seriously.
Awful, awful movie - just gave it 2 stars on IMDB and was actually being generous (an extra star for the comedy accents). To be fair to Crowe, though, I doubt he has been anywhere in England outside London, so maybe he just used all the accents he heard there.
How many complained that he didn't talk like a Spaniard in Gladiator? I think people are really focusing too much on his accent after Mark Lawson decided to waste Crowe's time on the subject. Saying that though, I am looking forward ot this so much.
I don't mind it being long it's the lack of direction tha I struggled with. If didn't appear to know where it was going and what it was supposed to be. It wasn't an action film as there wasn't enough of that to give it that label. Equally it wasn't a love story. You didn't really see the relationship between Robin and Marion develop.
I think it doesn't help that it's called Robin Hood. He didn't really become Robin of the Hood until after the events of this film. It would be like making a film called Spiderman and just doing a film about Peter Parker and say well Spiderman happens after this film finishes.
What was the point of the Merry Men in this film? What did they do and actually contribute to the story? Did you feel they they had a close relationship and thought of each others as "brothers" and would lay their lives down for each other? I didn't. Of all the Merry Men the only one that got any decent characterisation was Friar Tuck. The rest could have just been anybody or even not used at all in the film. If there is to be a sequel you could just have easily introduced them in that film and base it around Robin now an outlaw and building up his gang.
Hed the characterisation been better it would have made the slower parts of the film more interesting and made it flowed better.
IMO the lack of direction for the film, a weak plot and poor characterisation are a bigger problem than the pacing and length of the film.
The intention was a real take on Robin Hood going right back to the roots, rather than the steal from the rich give to the poor thing. It seems like they want to cover a large story arch, it basically needs another film to get to the other stuff, which I hope they do.
I agree that the direction could have been a bit better though, I’d did veer off at points and you didn’t know what they were trying to get at, some points of the story were not gone into enough, or the more interesting parts seemed neglected a bit for the sake of drawing out others scenes, which was probably a big mistake.
Better editing to optimise things a bit probably would have helped the flow of the film more. I still enjoyed it though, if they address these issues the sequel could be a lot better, that part of the story would be better and more interesting to work with
I'm just gutted - went to see it last night and was very disappointed!
Over long and all over the place.
I'm a massive fan of Russ as an actor and a man - hubba - but he just does not seem to be used enough in this movie - once he is off screen it all falls flat.
Mark Strong hams it up a bit and the King is amusing - but its just not good enough.
Gutted - had to youtube a bit of Maximus when I got home to have a good film fix.
sounds like you were expecting Gladiator mark 2, which this film isn't really.
sounds like you were expecting Gladiator mark 2, which this film isn't really.
If anything, a large chunk of the middle section was more like Master & Commander in tone, long periods of calm and normality between short periods of shouty violence.
The film was, as has been said already, too long. I reckon you could easily chop 15 minutes off of the whole thing in France at the beginning and still get your point across.
Crowe's accent wavered from being good in places to pure Ringo Starr.
Saying that though, felt it was reasonably enjoyable... not the greatest film but certainly not the worst.
sounds like you were expecting Gladiator mark 2, which this film isn't really.
I def knew it was not going to be Gladiator 2 and would have been cross if it had been - but it was such a drag and that was the big surprise to me.
Gutted!
I saw this film last Friday and wasn't very impressed. I only saw it because my accomplice refused to see anything else:sleep: Russel Crowes accent throughout the film was really bizarre, and i'm kind of stupid so didn't really get what was going on... Also, i thought the king at the beginning was meant to be the good one... anddd i didn't really like Cate Blanchett in it... The only thing I did like was Robins crew or whatever... Little John and co. ALTHOUGH I spent over half an hour trying to work out where I'd seen Little John before until i relaised he was in Lost:p
I def knew it was not going to be Gladiator 2 and would have been cross if it had been - but it was such a drag and that was the big surprise to me.
Gutted!
Well its not as good as Gladiator that’s for sure. So I can see the disappoint in regards to comparing the quality of the two films even if not expecting a similar type thing.
I watched Gladiator again the other day and as a film it flows much better and nearly every scene has a purpose. I was interested by similarities between Joaquin Phoenix’s character and the king in Robin Hood, they both had a spoiled edge about them although Phoenix had that darker side. Robin Hood would have been better with Joaquin in it lol. I forgot how good he was in Gladiator, theres only a hand full of actors that can pull of that vulnerable insecurity allied to a brutal evil streak.
Robin Hood would defiantly have benefited from some better, more stand out characters. Although campy and amusing at times, the King doesn’t really have that edge to him and the Sheriff of Nottingham was a non entity. My hope is they will develop this more in another film. I almost feel that without a sequel this film will be regarded as a bit pointless in story terms. With one it might feel more complete and the first film might be viewed as a decent set up to an incredible follow up! Wishful thinking I know
I don't think they will do a sequel to this, even though maybe they were planning to, due to the negative reaction. It seems Russell Crowe so wasn't expecting to be ripped off for this, and yet his performance IS pretty dodgy. He's obviously a good actor but definitely out of place here.
He would have been much better as the Sheriff, as was the original idea. And then maybe Orlando Bloom as Robin (would have made sense, have the two stars of Ridley Scott's previous two epics clash together). What we've ended up with is a confused mess. It doesn't know what it wants to be.
I don't think they will do a sequel to this, even though maybe they were planning to, due to the negative reaction. It seems Russell Crowe so wasn't expecting to be ripped off for this, and yet his performance IS pretty dodgy. He's obviously a good actor but definitely out of place here.
He would have been much better as the Sheriff, as was the original idea. And then maybe Orlando Bloom as Robin (would have made sense, have the two stars of Ridley Scott's previous two epics clash together). What we've ended up with is a confused mess. It doesn't know what it wants to be.
Crowe's performance was far from great and he was definitely miscast but I seriously doubt that Orlando Bloom's presence would have improved the film!
I don't think they will do a sequel to this, even though maybe they were planning to, due to the negative reaction. It seems Russell Crowe so wasn't expecting to be ripped off for this, and yet his performance IS pretty dodgy. He's obviously a good actor but definitely out of place here.
He would have been much better as the Sheriff, as was the original idea. And then maybe Orlando Bloom as Robin (would have made sense, have the two stars of Ridley Scott's previous two epics clash together). What we've ended up with is a confused mess. It doesn't know what it wants to be.
I doubt it as well. Although the figures have been good the reviews have been very mixed. It’s a shame really as it could have been better. They to appear to have missed the mark that would have made it a very good film, I think its good but has a few too many faults for the majority of people to really embrace it.
Orlando Bloom would have made it worse though, personally I don’t think he has the presence for a leading role like that and would come across as a sap. I agree that Crowe was probably miscast, he was more like a worn out old solider and probably would have been better suited in another role.
It’s a shame they didn’t stay away from Robin Hood and do another historical epic type thing Crowe would have been better suited to, he has the presence to play a load of powerful historical figures, I always thought Robin Hood was a strange choice well before it came out.
I saw the film yesterday. I would give it 5/10 a very avrage film. I thought the acting was quite bad and halfway through the film i did not really know what was going on. I thought the film was very fast and i hated the fighting scenes.
The original idea for the film sounds quite interesting:
Probably close to 3 years ago, a hot script by Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris called NOTTINGHAM went out to buyers. The script was the Robin Hood story told from the Sheriff of Nottingham’s point of view - as he used period “forensics”, like tracking and arrow trajectory, to find a terrorist who was robbing respectable members of society. Shelock Holmes in Sherwood Forest.
I still don't understand how a script that everyone loves can be bought up after a bidding war, only for the director to swan in and decide he wants to do something different and junk the whole thing.
I like the way the French were portrayed as the "Baddies" when in the beginning, we were sacking French Castles.
And where did the French get WW2 landing craft in 1500?, they never actually invaded, or tried to.
...Crowe's accent wavered from being good in places to pure Ringo Starr.
Saying that though, felt it was reasonably enjoyable... not the greatest film but certainly not the worst.
A group of us were discussing the movie whilst out for a pub lunch the other day and came to a similar conclusion. Crowe's wandering accent made us all smile but the film was a fairly decent watch though does not live up to the pre-hype.
The original idea for the film sounds quite interesting:
I still don't understand how a script that everyone loves can be bought up after a bidding war, only for the director to swan in and decide he wants to do something different and junk the whole thing.
I probably would have gone to see the film if it had stuck to that original idea
Comments
Over long and all over the place.
I'm a massive fan of Russ as an actor and a man - hubba - but he just does not seem to be used enough in this movie - once he is off screen it all falls flat.
Mark Strong hams it up a bit and the King is amusing - but its just not good enough.
Gutted - had to youtube a bit of Maximus when I got home to have a good film fix.
I heard Crowe's interview with Lawson and thought he sounded like an utter nob. I'm not even going to bother watching it, I can't take Crowe and his childish grumpy hard man act seriously.
The intention was a real take on Robin Hood going right back to the roots, rather than the steal from the rich give to the poor thing. It seems like they want to cover a large story arch, it basically needs another film to get to the other stuff, which I hope they do.
I agree that the direction could have been a bit better though, I’d did veer off at points and you didn’t know what they were trying to get at, some points of the story were not gone into enough, or the more interesting parts seemed neglected a bit for the sake of drawing out others scenes, which was probably a big mistake.
Better editing to optimise things a bit probably would have helped the flow of the film more. I still enjoyed it though, if they address these issues the sequel could be a lot better, that part of the story would be better and more interesting to work with
I didn't see all the end credits, so can someone tell me who was playing Eleanor of Aquitaine?
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0040586/
IMDB is your friend.....:)
sounds like you were expecting Gladiator mark 2, which this film isn't really.
If anything, a large chunk of the middle section was more like Master & Commander in tone, long periods of calm and normality between short periods of shouty violence.
Crowe's accent wavered from being good in places to pure Ringo Starr.
Saying that though, felt it was reasonably enjoyable... not the greatest film but certainly not the worst.
I def knew it was not going to be Gladiator 2 and would have been cross if it had been - but it was such a drag and that was the big surprise to me.
Gutted!
Well its not as good as Gladiator that’s for sure. So I can see the disappoint in regards to comparing the quality of the two films even if not expecting a similar type thing.
I watched Gladiator again the other day and as a film it flows much better and nearly every scene has a purpose. I was interested by similarities between Joaquin Phoenix’s character and the king in Robin Hood, they both had a spoiled edge about them although Phoenix had that darker side. Robin Hood would have been better with Joaquin in it lol. I forgot how good he was in Gladiator, theres only a hand full of actors that can pull of that vulnerable insecurity allied to a brutal evil streak.
Robin Hood would defiantly have benefited from some better, more stand out characters. Although campy and amusing at times, the King doesn’t really have that edge to him and the Sheriff of Nottingham was a non entity. My hope is they will develop this more in another film. I almost feel that without a sequel this film will be regarded as a bit pointless in story terms. With one it might feel more complete and the first film might be viewed as a decent set up to an incredible follow up! Wishful thinking I know
He would have been much better as the Sheriff, as was the original idea. And then maybe Orlando Bloom as Robin (would have made sense, have the two stars of Ridley Scott's previous two epics clash together). What we've ended up with is a confused mess. It doesn't know what it wants to be.
Even without the costume and ears i think people would think of Logolass seeing him running about wuth the bow.
Maybe someone like Clive Owen would have been good.
I doubt it as well. Although the figures have been good the reviews have been very mixed. It’s a shame really as it could have been better. They to appear to have missed the mark that would have made it a very good film, I think its good but has a few too many faults for the majority of people to really embrace it.
Orlando Bloom would have made it worse though, personally I don’t think he has the presence for a leading role like that and would come across as a sap. I agree that Crowe was probably miscast, he was more like a worn out old solider and probably would have been better suited in another role.
It’s a shame they didn’t stay away from Robin Hood and do another historical epic type thing Crowe would have been better suited to, he has the presence to play a load of powerful historical figures, I always thought Robin Hood was a strange choice well before it came out.
Not a film i will be buying when it comes out.
The original idea for the film sounds quite interesting:
I still don't understand how a script that everyone loves can be bought up after a bidding war, only for the director to swan in and decide he wants to do something different and junk the whole thing.
And where did the French get WW2 landing craft in 1500?, they never actually invaded, or tried to.
I probably would have gone to see the film if it had stuck to that original idea
Me too, that sounds really good. I hope someone rebuys it and we can see that film one day.