And I say that, even though I stopped it half an hour in (checked back a couple of times)
I did'nt care about the characters or story at all
Ridley Scott thought all we really loved about Gladiator was the impressive fight scenes and flickering action, so he took it to the max with cutting MTV cut fast cut fire action blood dust fire cut. "let's give the audience more of that! better! screw buildup, just cut to the chase!"
Muuuh!
Nothing. Empty.
[deleted]
Recently Scott's films have tended to contain a big element of personal self-indulgence, and this is a particularly bad case. He took a script everybody loved and was keen to see made, then spent two years stripping out of it everything that had intrigued people and dreaming up that complicated, windy, implausible backstory about Robin having had an adored social-philosopher-&-political-militant-stonemason daddy who was assassinated by Henry II(!) but whom he has forgotten all about. That has to have come straight out of Scott's own head. It doesn't relate to anything in the original script; in the folklore or movie/TV canon of Robin Hood; still less anything in medieval history.
I do wonder if what it's really about is Scott's relationship with his own father. In recent years missing fathers, misunderstood fathers, inadequate fathers and surrogate fathers have been something of a theme in his films (I'm thinking for example Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, A Good Year, as well as RH).
Wow - you're right
And what about Matchstick Men and Prometheus??
Two big father figures in Prometheus
Yup, it must be something Ridley really feels as personal
Follow the latest films around the world!! http://7films.me.uk
You are badly mistaken. Scott did not WRITE this screenplay. Check the credits.
shareHe did however have considerably more to do with it than Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris who get story credit on the film (it was their script for 'Nottingham' that was bought and discarded). And what about Sir Tom Stoppard who was contributing dialogue whilst the movie was being shot but who isn't credited at all?
Screen credits are what they sound like, a form of negotiable currency, not necessarily a true reflection of who did what on a film.
Taking painting to the pictures ...
www.thepicturepalace.co.uk
No: you're the one who is badly mistaken. I never said Scott 'WROTE' the words - he had a dogsbody, Brian Helgeland, hired to do that. But he certainly was the man who insisted that the 'hottest script in Hollywood' needed to be destroyed and replaced by a long, windy, implausible, sentimental/political plot cooked up between himself, Brian Grazer and Russell Crowe.
Don't take my word for it. Check out the studio's own production notes:
http://www.visualhollywood.com/movies_2010/robin_hood/notes.pdf
and this article about how the Nottingham script was suppressed:
http://sex-in-a-sub.blogs pot.co.uk/2010/05/robbing-from-poor-writer.html
Yep, this is the worse piece of junk i've ever seen.
shareCrikey you mustn't watch much then and when you do it must be pretty good.
Personally I thought this was the best version of the story I've seen and made a real effort to tie into the historical context of that time.
Noi apparently you don't watch that many films, if you really think this is a good film. And the effort you are referring to is down right laughable
shareTo bad you turned it off 30 minutes in... I found that that was about the time it took for the movie to actually get anywhere.
I was more or less bored during that first half hour, but then gradually got more and more into it. By the 1,5hr mark I was thoroughly invested in the story and found it really captivating.
"Racoon, Rog?"
Ok, yeah, well I checked back a couple of times to see if it got better, no luck ;)
sharei actually loved this film. Never noticed it lacking 'soul', because i was truly invested in the characters and the storyline. Not to mention, it was so beautifully shot that I was engrossed from start to finish.
Currently watching/waiting for: Sons of Anarchy; Suits; Southland.
It was boring and I watched the thing through.
Crowe's accent was hard to take(when I could understand what he was saying).
Didnt care about the characters--the bald bad guy was boring.
Though I have been watching some of Ridley Scott's earlier films--and even Bladerunner and Legend are thin on character and story and more about visual style.
But this film-the Costner version was more interesting and his accent was terrible.
I do agree Scott is very weak on developing characters, and in this movie, it kills the story. We don't wanna see a cgi robyn (just prolly called 'bin') slay enemies, if you gonna retell a classic, make it better or bring a new angle, all of that was missing bluntly.
2/10
may the farce be wif u
I actually liked the movie. Was not amazed by it or anything but I thought overall it was a good movie. I liked it better after seeing it a few more times on DVD. I like the director's cut better. It only adds a few extra minutes of story but it I did not mind that.
While people still point to "Gladiator" as Scott's best "historical" epic, I actually think that the best, and one of his best movies in general, is "Kingdom Of Heaven", not the butchered theatrical version, but the longer director's cut. I liked theatrical version well enough, but I fell in love with the film when I saw the extended cut, it looked like a different movie. I have no problem saying that "Kingdom Of Heaven" was a masterpiece and definitely amongst the best movies of the past decade.
You want to see an epic that has no soul and is a true piece of crap? Well look no further than Oliver Stone's stinker, "Alexander"...a movie that was bad enough in its original theatrical version, but then it had two, count two other versions, each worse than the other, "Alexander Director's Cut" and "Alexander Re-Cut"...Compared to "Alexander" or even newer turds like "John Carter", Scott's "Robin Hood" looks downright majectic!
"Today is the tomorrow I was so worried about yesterday"--Anthony Hopkins
I agree. Ridley-Scott said the only good Robin Hood movie was the Kevin Costner one, he then gave us a film that totally ignored the legend. He may have included characters from the legend but then totally ignored their part in it.
The film looked good, but at $200m as one reviewer said it should have. If the film had been called something other than Robin Hood only the names of some of the characters would have had people linking it to Robin Hood.
You're one of the biggest idiots on the IMDb boards. This is easily one of the best period pieces of all time and the best Robin Hood film ever made. Yeah, it's not as good as Lawrence of Arabia, Gladiator or The Last Samurai, but it sure as hell is a great movie. To all of you hating on it, you know nothing about story-telling or origin stories. This was the origin of Robin, and the beginning of an epic tale. I would insult half of you, but to insult just one of you haters on this specific board, would be insult to injury. You haters are literally too stupid to insult, as you lower the IQ of everyone here just by your bias and one-sided comments/opinions
share