There's a new Robin Hood movie coming out in 2010. It stars Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett and it's directed by Ridley Scott.

So it's basically Gladiator set in Medieval England. And it looks AWESOME!!!

Here's the trailer: http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/features/exclusive/

 

Seems like it could be a decent movie. I'll probably go see it, whenever it comes out.

 

It will probably be pretty good - I liked Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven - but the Robin Hood character is just a little too overused for my taste. There are dozens of movies about him.
I know that a historical movie has to be about some famous character or event, to appeal to audiences, but I think there are still enough subjects that would feel fresh.

 

Start chanting "MAXIMUS!" during the epic battle scenes to liven it up. S'what I'm gonna do, anyways.

It does basically have all the makings of a medieval 'Gladiator', but I still wanna see it.

 

I know right? I saw maybe two episodes and I was ready to jab a an arrow into emo!Robin Hood's throat.

But still Gladiator in medieval England. You can't go wrong! (Well you can but I don't think it will.)

 

I just can't picture Crowe as Robin Hood. Maybe if he was lankier?

 

Yeah, I kind of had the same problem Kai, but it should be okay.

 

Movie came out today. Haven't seen it, but from what I've heard it's like a Batman Begins for Robin Hood. It's supposedly more realistic than other versions, and closer to being historically accurate. Apparently it sets up a sequel, too.

Has anyone actually seen it yet?

 

I saw it two days ago, didn't find it epic. Couldn't help but feel that almost all the scenes that were supposed to be great fell flat. The rest redeems the whole, so it's still worth seeing.

I wrote a full review on IMDb, top of the page.

 

Saw it today, and rather enjoyed it. It really is Gladiator in Medieval England, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The relationship between Robin and Marion is surprisingly good, and quite funny - oddly, given the trailer, the character scenes are probably the best bits. They're actually, y'know, fun.

The action bits aren't bad, but not amazing either. And as for historical accuracy...well, I'm no history buff, but even I could tell that there were moments where it was being ridiculous. And my friend, who has a degree on the period and is a major Robin Hood geek, had to restrain cries of anger. Of course, you might not care about that.

So yeah, not bad, but not amazing. 3/5

EDIT: Also,

Spoiler

he doesn't actually become Robin Hood until the last five minutes of the film, in one of the most blatent sequel hooks I can remember. It's very much an origin story.

 

I wasn't too crazy about this one, it wasn't exactly bad but it didn't really feel anything like Robin Hood to me.

It was more of a random medieval time movie whose main character just happened to be named Robin.

shinysavage actually described it pretty well, it was exactly like Gladiator only that the main character wasn't as deep and with a lot more plot holes. In Gladiator, he had a reason and also a villain that was really interesting, in here, he kind of stumbled into it and decided to take matters into his own hands because he is just that awesome and it kind of was his legacy. The less said about the villains the better.

But if you guys want to see a Robin Hood movie, this is not one. Robin Hood was about hiding in the woods, doing cool things with bows and stealing stuff from the Sheriff and such, there is only one scene like that. A very short one that kind of felt out of place. Quite strange since this should be a movie all about that.

Wanting to try something knew is fine, but changing too much is not always good.

Spoiler

And although the end is really an extremely blatant sequel setup, it actually promises to be kind of interesting, with King Richard being dead early on in the movie. So they can't really finish it as usual with the usual him arriving and bringing peace.

And England is most certainly facing a civil war.

But the Sheriff was so horribly handled that I can't imagine him being the villain in the next one and a Robin Hood story needs a Sheriff of Nottingham. He is a complete joke and wuss-bag. And if they replace him, than why putting that idiot in this movie?

2.5/5

 

Spoiler alert, but you really shouldn't care because this movie isn't worth seeing anyway.

I went and saw the film a couple days ago (ironically right after I fucking blew a job interview, hard. felt like stealing a bit from the rich at the time anyway.)

Anyway, my thoughts;

First impression: Way too fucking long. Seriously, two hours and twenty minutes for a goddamn popcorn movie? Maybe I'm just an ADHD idiot, but a movie really needs to grip me if I'm expected to watch it for 140 minutes.

The romance was unoriginal and uninspired. I did not believe that the two characters felt anything for each other, and what little tension was there was completely sexual. Tip to movie writers Sexual Attraction =/= Love.

They tried to stuff way too much into this one movie, ironically creating the initial time issue and failed at almost all of it. Seriously, a good 30 minutes just in France setting up Robin coming home from the crusades? Another 10 for them to travel back? Just to count the major plot points:

1. The return from the crusades
2. Robin's Exposition concerning his past and his "talk" with King Richard
3. The betrayal of the British to the French by that one guy who's name I can't remember because his acting was more bland than white bread.
4. Robin Hood's childhood and FREAKIN' AMNESIA! FUCK YOU AND YOUR FUCKING PATHETIC OVERUSED & CLICHED PLOT DEVICES HOLLYWOOD.
5. Robin Hood completing his father's work on the deal between the royals & common people.
6. Impersonating a royal knight & returning to Nottingham.
7. Dealing with the Sheriff & excessive taxation+Friar Tuck.


Seriously man, I don't mind a full fleshed out story, but there comes a point when you need to take a step back. Too much shit, too little time.

Also, what the hell is up with Robin Hood in this movie? For the initial 60 minutes or so he is very clearly an archer. He's trained as an archer, and seems to have no experience as a cavalryman or knight. For the rest of the movie, he almost completely forsakes his bow; instead acting as a mounted knight. How? I'm pretty sure you need some fairly extensive training for that shit. I've ridden horses all my life, and continue to do so. Riding a fucking rampaging war horse at full gallop in armor & swinging a fucking heavy piece of steel around is not something one can do without a large amount of training.


So, had to get that off my chest. This movie really pissed me off.

Copied & pasted from other thread due to my stupidity >_>.

 

I just felt like I got mugged off. I didnt pay for a prequel, (Adverts were completely misleading). I wanted men running around in the woods firing arrows around plus as much as I admire Russell Crowe it was a really bad attempt at an accent. I still think the disney one with the foxes is the best one. I knew what I was getting, bit of fun and the fox was good with half decent with a bow and arrow.

 

I can see why you liked it Cheddar, but this was by all means no Robin Hood movie. Robin Hood should be about a guy leading bunch of thieves and rebels who steal from the evil Government and give it to the poor people and Robin is a cocky, roughish guy who uses a freaking bow. It should also include the nifty trick where one arrow pierces through the previous arrow because he is just that good of a marksman.

This movie didn't include that. It had a really bad villain, it was too long for what it did try to do, it wasn't historically accurate in most places, it was not a Robin Hood story, the sheriff was a joke and it was pretentious at times.

Now I am happy that you liked it, I didn't hated it and at the theater I didn't have a bad time but it was not a good movie. It wasn't even a Robin Hood movie and that was what disturbed me. I went into this to see a Robin Hood movie fleshed out a bit darker and different but what we got was just the story of some guy who happened to be named Robin while the director tried to fit Robin Hood into the real history.

There is taking your artistic license and then there is this.

It was interesting at times and some places were amusing and the ending did leave the movie at an interesting place with the oncoming civil war and all that but the problems overshadowed the pluses and I don't think I am going to see the sequel unless it is recommended to me by people I trust.

 

Well, I don't know what all of you bitching were expecting - I didn't look at the trailers, but I was expecting a pretty different take on the legend. If you want exactly the same movie that's been done five times, go ahead and watch one of those. They seemed to set up for a sequel, so you may still get part of your wish (I certainly hope they keep it fresh if they do take on the Sherwood forest thing).

For me, coming back from the crusades, getting involved in Nottingham were all good things. I wasn't bored at any time; I thought the romance, while different, wasn't bad when they actually had moments.

It's just that the screenplay wasn't very good, and all the background plot and backstory was crap: all that stuff about his father, inspiring democratic ideals, the French as badly-used villains, stupid prince John, etc. There's no emotion in the action sequences. There was no doubt as to who is going to survive, and how, very few characters were endearing at all. And that's even without considering the D-Day landing. What's the message? The French are going to liberate Britain from dictatorial madness?

@Cheddar: I've seen quite a few good movies that came out after Iron Man, tbh. In Bruges and The Dark Knight both came out a few weeks later (both awesome). Vicky Christina Barcelona, Frost/Nixon, Gran Torino and Inglourious Basterds I also liked a lot. Lately, How to Train Your Dragon and Kick-Ass were both a lot of fun. And that's just those I went to see in theatres.

 

I just watched it and thought it was an enjoyable affair considering the fact that Scott basically used the entire movie as a setup for the sequel.

The entire Robert/Marion setup felt a bit soap operish to me, but it didn't take way from the movie

I love Ridley Scott's battle scenes in these historical movies, and this one was no different. The movie had two epic battles (beginning and end) and they were awesome.

While I liked the political machinations, I thought it took away from the legend of Robin Hood. There was only one scene where Robin Hood helps out the poor out and even that was extremely short. If you are going to make a movie about Robin hood, you should add a couple of more scenes of what basically defines the legend.

Speaking of Robin Hood, he wasn't really a complex character at all, he was the knight in shining armor who came to save the day. Scott wanted to make the movie as realistic as possible (mostly succeeding) but his main character might as well have been Gary Stu. He was an outlaw, make him a bit more gray.