I’ve told you what I thought. Guy offered his opinion from Cannes. What more can be left to say, other than, hey, what did you think? Cut loose with your comments below when you see the film this weekend (or whenever). Also, don’t forget to vote in this week’s sidebar poll.
Comments
21 responses to “Tell us what you thought of ‘Robin Hood’”
Antoine Fuqua’s “Chronicles of Nottingham”.
I enjoyed it! :)
I was initially wary of such an “old” (age-wise) take on the characters, but it worked. It was also pretty original to place the tale after the death of King Richard, so King Richard is no longer the panacea all of England is looking to to save them from the excesses of his brother. If they follow this up I imagine they’ll have Robin involved in the Barons’ revolt that lead to the writing of the Magna Carta… but I can’t ever imagine John making peace with him so he’s destined to be an outlaw forever.
A few heavy historical inaccuracies bugged me, as well as not getting to spend enough time with secondary characters, but otherwise I thought it was fine. Just missing a decent Sheriff of Nottingham though! ;)
My take:
http://crazycrishereandthere.blogspot.com/2010/05/movie-magic-new-outing-of-favourite.html
I don’t intend to see it but.. isn’t that last guy from Lost?
Yes, Kevin Durand, also from X-Men Origins: Wolverine and 3:10 to Yuma, among other stuff. Worked with Crowe a third time in Mystery, Alaska, interestingly enough.
Nice catch. Martin Keamy.
I would have missed it.
Thought it played like a 2 hour 20 minute act 1.
The sequel, if it happens, will be better. This was lots of set up, a little more set up and then finally some set up. Kind of wonder why they bothered calling it Robin Hood – could have been anyone.
Love Ridley Scott, and he was great as always, but the problem lied in the tepid script.
There’s a another Robin Hood film out????
The movie is not perfect and I can see where some folks get a little confused or impatient during the first third, which does move along more slowly. Still, there is a lot of background and historical context to cover. Scott & Co. might have been able to trim a few minutes but it didn’t move too slowly for me. The second half, though, is truly engaging and entertaining. This is one of the most beautifully shot movies I’ve seen in awhile and the battles, especially the one at the end, are top notch Ridley Scott.
I thought Russell Crowe was his usual excellent self and Cate Blanchett was an admirable match for him. Unlike some others I did feel there was great chemistry between them. Being an over 40 person I appreciated the more mature love story and felt that Robin and Marian’s slowly developing romantic relationship was just right. I thought all the acting was very good and especially enjoyed Max von Sydow and William Hurt. That Oscar Isaac, he’s an up and comer, don’t you think?
Some critics have called this the old style of moviemaking and I guess I like that style, with complicated plots, intelligent dialogue and beautiful, gorgeous, REAL scenery.
Robin Hood is not without flaws, some few minutes could be cut from the first third, but if I had to sum it up in two words, I would call if Rousing Entertainment.
It was exceedingly long and poorly done. Also, boring, confusing, visually kind of stale (nothing we haven’t seen before). Not nearly as abortive as Scott’s “Kingdom of Heaven,” which was easily one of 2005’s worst movies, and perhaps one of the worst excuses for an epic ever crafted. “Robin Hood” wasn’t THAT bad. But it was pretty bad.
It’s a disaster.
Abolutely no interest in seeing it.
Isn’t it time for Russell Crowe to retire and/or disappear? Best Robin Hood movie, in my opinion, was 1976’s ‘Robin and Marian’ with Sean Connery and Audrey Hepburn. And I can hardly wait to see if Chad will mention it as the 1976 movie which should have been Oscar-nominated.
It’s the most divisive popular film of the year, that’s for sure. I loved it, but I went in not entirely convinced with the trailers and such. Even though Kingdom of Heaven is one of my all time favorites. I was pleasently surprised to find a film much more in that vein with the intrigue, storylines and interesting characters. Though much has been said about this being a film that could use a trimming I was never bored or felt the movie needed better pacing. I loved every minute of it, even though not everyting worked as well as it should’ve.
I was particularly impressed with the fact it’s really such a big part origin story and how it’s really serious. Also the casting of the side characters that really belong to the original stories (Tuck, Sheriff) surprised me and gave a look into what a sequel might be. I’d love one and I’m willing to defend this film from all those detractors that feel it’s too boring. Go see Iron Man 2 instead.
Seeing it tonight.
My friend saw it last night, and (while she has admittedly low standards for films of this ilk), she thought it was “outrageous” in a good way. She absolutely loved it.
She also said the 5, 6, and 7pm shows were sold out, had to wait for 7:30pm.
I went in with low expectations and was pleasantly surprised, it was a solid 3/4 star type movie which if not for a few bad decisions (film should’ve been 20 minutes shorter and Marian should never have joined the battlefield) would’ve been even better.
Not an oscar quality film but it gets the job done as a launch to the summer movie season, unlike Iron Man 2 or Scott’s own Kingdom of Heaven.
@ “It’s the most divisive popular film of the year, that’s for sure. ”
No, because that means this won`t be forgotten which is not true. This movie will be disappear from everyone`s memory by next Friday. there`s absolutely nothing memorable there.
BTW, Sly Stallone loved Harry Knowles`s RH pan which means that Sly thinks RH is crap. Yes! Sly and Ebert in agreement! Bring on Expendables!
Awful movie.
There’s no shadow of true emotion, no chemestry between the two star and Crowe is too old and one dimensional for the part.
A missed opportunity. A boring and frustrating prologue of the legend. Hope there will be no sequel and Blanchett returns to auteurish projects instead of commercial flops.
No matter the quality, I don’t think RH will be that much of a flop at all, and it may just be a mild success by the end of it all ($$-wise).
@18 I liked Blanchett (who I usually don`t) in Indy 4. I thought she was so much fun and really got it that Irina Spalko was a ridiculous character and played her accordingly. IMO, Lady Marion fails because it`s a ridiculous character who is played seriously, like someone expected an Oscar nomination for such schlock. If Marion got Spalko treatment and the movie had humor in it and didn`t try to be oh-so-holy-truth-about-mythical-character, the age and changes to the story wouldn`t matter. But they killed the fun for the sake of awards that aren`t coming their way in any shape of form.
BTW, my problem with Blanchett is that she`s such a fun, likable, charming lady off the screen, really down the earth, warm,etc but that totally gets lost on the big screen. There, she always come off obnoxious and mean. Like ben Affleck who is the blandest actor around but remarkably charismatic off the big screen.
Just saw it.
Overall, a 7/10 for me. I found the editing (especially of the battles), cinematography, sets, costumes, make-up, sound work, & musical score to be great. The performances are stellar, with no stand-outs. The problem here is, and someone mentioned it above, it plays like a 140 minute Part One. The story isn’t great, and I wanted more from ‘some’ of the secondary characters. Overall, I liked it, without loving it. And it’s very well done; production-wise.
I was in a packed theater for a 9:15pm showing. It seemes to me like the movie went over well with most people, but no one was raving. And the 3 friends I went with all liked it, didn’t love it, and commented on it feeling incomplete.