'Superbly made' might be a bit over the top.
Robin Hood is shockingly inaccurate; the film clearly states that it is set during the 13th century (which means any time between 1200-1300AD) but the opening act of the film includes the death of Richard I with occured in 1199.
Worse, is the rampant use of the longbow. The first official record of the longbow wasn't until 1346, almost 150 years later. In the movie, everyone uses the longbow, even Kate Blanchette in the opening scene. Then there is the use of minutes, the term 'Your Majesty', the apparent detour through Yorkshire on a journey from Nottingham to London where we see a whitestone horse on a hillside (7 days ride to the north of Nottingham, whereas London lies 3 days ride to the south), luxurious glass goblets for common soldiers on a ship, friars, widespread use of chainmail by peasants, the use of a moldbald plough, wooden benches in church... did I mention it was Henry V in Shakespeare's play who was known for sneaking around the soldier's camp and not Richard I? This kind of total disregard for the source material, which, let's face it, is half the reason people went to see it in the first place. Not even making him an outlaw but still calling the movie 'Robin Hood' pretty much amounts to dishonesty, from an English perspective. I mean, hec, does Ridely Scott even know what a 'maid' is? Does he even speak English? Because he damn sure doesn't understand English geography!
This is not to speak of Crowe's intermittently Scottish/Northern/Cockney/Welsh/Irish accent. I mean, damn, the crew must have been in hysterics!
Of course, there's a lot more to films than being historically accurate. So I accept a total fantasy set in a place they call 'England' could still work. The problem for me were the shocking cliches, the highly predictable storyline, and most of all the weak performance by Russell Crowe (again, with an unintentionally hilarious accent). You'd be MUCH better off watching a different movie many more times in your lifetime.
reply
share
HenryCW
10 years ago
Much of the historical inaccuracies I am willing to overlook, especially the anachronisms in equipment and tools. The use of the longbow was not really too inaccurate - that had been traced back to the days B.C., though its adoption by the English military was around the time of the Hundred Years' War. Robin Hood was a legend anyway and he was always associated with the longbow - including for example in Sir Walter Scott's Ivanhoe.
Ridley Scott's films (including this film and Kingdom of Heaven had more problems instead with anachronisms in regard to people's thoughts and behaviors of the time. Crusaders and Muslims were unlikely to be concerned about the loss of lives of their enemies - not to mention the preaching of "religious harmony" between them.
Of course, in addition the idea of having Robin leading an army with King John to fight off invaders from France was ridiculous.
reply
share
syntinen
10 years ago
Ridley Scott's films (including this film and Kingdom of Heaven had more problems instead with anachronisms in regard to people's thoughts and behaviors of the time. Crusaders and Muslims were unlikely to be concerned about the loss of lives of their enemies - not to mention the preaching of "religious harmony" between them.
Plus his giving so much screen-time to an apparent attempt to re-write the social history of 12th-century England as a place where philosopher-stonemasons started movements for social reform that enthused not only the common people but the barons too! If he had done it for fun or satire that would have been one thing, but he apparently meant it to be taken seriously. And it was deadly dull - apart of course from the unintentional joke of this having happened in the reign of Henry II, possibly the greatest legal and administrative reformer in British history.
reply
share