Robin Hood 2010

Rate Robin Hood

6/6 Maximus Robin Hood rules !
0
No votes
5/6 Ponys spread Havoc
0
No votes
4/6 I even understood the story
1
50%
3/6 Is Nottingham still Far away ?
1
50%
2/6 Broken Arrow
0
No votes
1/6 Not enough Tights
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 2
User avatar
Nau of Sands
marquess
marquess
Posts: 2993
Joined: Tue 19 Aug, 2003 20:26
Location: Locked inside a suitcase
Contact:

Robin Hood 2010

Postby Nau of Sands » Wed 29 Sep, 2010 06:33

Image

Ridley Scott these times seems to focus on more-or-less-historical medieval movies, I rather liked his Kingdom of Heaven (better seen in director’s cut), so I expected some good watchable movie about Robin Hood.

Image
Ridley Scott explaining the story to Cate Blanchett and Russel Crowe

The sense of humour of Russel Crowe might be not his strongest characteristic, so I imagine this is the reason he eventually wears no tights (Russel Crowe as Robin Hood is a real man, not a faggot pretty sums-up his presentation of his performance), and plays a non-cunning, non-foxy Robin Hood. He is rather a kind of new impersonation of his Gladiator role, damn serious, making self -infatuated speeches that for some obscure reason everyone else in the movie listens.

This is no classic Robin Hood but a kind of prelude to the story, with a complicated plot involving a questioning about the hero’s identity. The trouble begins there : the script seems to be a mixture of ten different storylines, slowly hesitating telling us one or another for most of the running time, and eventually rushing at the end in a complete nonsense. The result is an amazing series of erratic plot holes and flaws, filled with goofs, absurdities and contradictions. On the historical side, this makes no sense either, but at some point in the movie, I and everyone else stopped to care.

Shot by anyone else than Ridley Scott, I think this would turn into pure unwilling comedy, but there is the man: he is still, sometimes, the great Ridley. Out of this mess and with a consequent budget (more than 230 millions dollars !) he managed to make a watchable good B-movie. There is some good battle scenes in it, although some are a bit strange, there is a lot of rhythm in the cloudy storytelling, and the photography of the whole movie is magnificent.

Image
Later on, Cate Blanchett asks Russel Crowe if he can once again explains her the story because she missed some points

Cate Blanchett is OK, whilst her role has little interest and little logic in it. I liked her leading the heroic charge of the poneys at the end ( those who have seen the movie will understand what I mean, I don t think this is spoiler), and she is just amazing in her ability of not bursting into laughter saying her lines.

Some very good songs in the inns, probably the best part.

I must admit that at the end, after two hours, I watched my watch with some terror, because I had the feeling a brand new movie was about to begin. Hopefully, this is not the case, and the upcoming adventures of Robin Hood will (or won’t) be told in a sequel of this nonsensical prequel.

Image
Shortly after Ridley Scott has explained the story to the rest of the cast

I put a 3, it is still quite well shot and impressive.

Return to “North America”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest