Robin Hood 2010 (1 Viewer)

I really want to like this Robin Hood, so I'm looking forward to the extended version. I found that Kingdom of Heaven was better extended as well.
 
Well...I finally rented this last night and found it very disappointing. An interesting story (sort of), but not sure why they would call this Robin Hood, because had they changed the names of the characters, it could quite easily have been an original story. It appeared to have little to do with the traditional legend of Robin Hood. It seemed to me that it did little other than set the stage for a sequel (or several sequels). Way too much hype for what they delivered.
 
I thought it was good.A couple of things at the end that I didn't care for but it didn't ruin the movie for me.This was a prequel setting up the legend and how it came to be.It was said that anybody expecting the traditional story would be disappointed.
Mark
 
Scott said:
I really want to like this Robin Hood, so I'm looking forward to the extended version. I found that Kingdom of Heaven was better extended as well.
Click to expand...
KoH was indeed much better extended and I have hopes this one will be as well. I will know shortly since it shipped to me on Monday.;):D

I don't quite understand why some folks are so hung up on the traditional story. We have had some many movies do that already so a fresh look was great for me even as much as I love the Flynn version.
 
I don't think it is so much a matter of being hung up on the traditional story. I understood that this film was meant to be innovative, and I like that idea. But I think the complete absence of anything vaguely related to the tradition of the Robin Hood legend made it something other than "Robin Hood". Ok...he shot a couple of arrows. That is not to say that it wouldn't be a good film about a 12th century yeoman posing as a noble, returing from the Crusades. You could call it 12th Century Yeoman Posing as a Noble, Returing from the Crusades

It's like comparing a 2010 Mustang to a 1965 Mustang. Other than the name, what exactly is the same about them?

Spitfrnd said:
KoH was indeed much better extended and I have hopes this one will be as well. I will know shortly since it shipped to me on Monday.;):D

I don't quite understand why some folks are so hung up on the traditional story. We have had some many movies do that already so a fresh look was great for me even as much as I love the Flynn version.
Click to expand...
 
Scarlet Pimpernel said:
I don't think it is so much a matter of being hung up on the traditional story. I understood that this film was meant to be innovative, and I like that idea. But I think the complete absence of anything vaguely related to the tradition of the Robin Hood legend made it something other than "Robin Hood". Ok...he shot a couple of arrows. That is not to say that it wouldn't be a good film about a 12th century yeoman posing as a noble, returing from the Crusades. You could call it 12th Century Yeoman Posing as a Noble, Returing from the Crusades

It's like comparing a 2010 Mustang to a 1965 Mustang. Other than the name, what exactly is the same about them?
Click to expand...
Well as one of my favorite Englishmen once wrote "...what's in a name....";)
 
Those how the legend started films can be fun. There was a TV version of Zorro that had the evil commandant sending an American detective after Zorro. Zorro befriends the American and turns him good. Zorro then shows the American his cave, gadgets, disguises, etc. The American is Dr. Henry Wayne and played by Adam West.
 
marco55 said:
It tried to explain how the legend came to be.
Mark
Click to expand...

It is harder to get that sense, given some of the important scenes that were cut out of the theatrical release. Had the film been left in its entirety, then it would be easier to see the connection between this film and the legend.

Noah
 
I must have saw the uncut version.What was cut from the theatrical release?
Mark
 
marco55 said:
I must have saw the uncut version.What was cut from the theatrical release?
Mark
Click to expand...

About 15 min of footage contained in I think 5 or 6 scenes. I outlined a couple of them in a previous posting and how they would have added to the theatrical release.

Noah
 
Just watched the extended version and thought it to be a good action movie..Still not in the scope of Kingdom of Heaven or Gladiator, but OK...I also suggest folks who have not seen it, to not fret about the landing craft..Most ships of that era were cog type ships, which were box like..These ships were wood, had oar holes, and looked passable as suitable to that era.. The way some were complaining, I was looking for WW2 Higgins boats covered with cloth to hide their outlines..:confused:Michael
 
maddadicus said:
Just watched the extended version and thought it to be a good action movie..Still not in the scope of Kingdom of Heaven or Gladiator, but OK...I also suggest folks who have not seen it, to not fret about the landing craft..Most ships of that era were cog type ships, which were box like..These ships were wood, had oar holes, and looked passable as suitable to that era.. The way some were complaining, I was looking for WW2 Higgins boats covered with cloth to hide their outlines..:confused:Michael
Click to expand...
Thanks Michael. I hope to get mine tomorrow.
 
I couldn't help but feel for the poor guys that had to row those boats across the channel with the flat bows. If they were towed, it would be a real drag, (Pun intended)
 
Peter Jackson had Orc landing craft as well at Osgiliath. I didn't complain, but the French craft AND the SPR imagery was to WW II.

I still want to see the movie again.


04_orcsInBoats.jpg
 
I had to send and recover my BRP for repair over the last week but I just saw the Director's Cut and thought it made a huge difference. It is not only the additional footage, which is quite helpful in making the story understandable, but the cuts are different and I think much better overall. I think it is as good of an improvement as the changes to KoH and a better movie overall mostly because of Crowe. My one reservation is its use of the more modern still of quick cut action versus the classic style manifested in the great Flynn version but that is the modern trend. Fortunately Scott does not abuse it as much as some younger directors, like Greengrass and Forster.

Overall, I really liked it a great deal. I like the story line as well or better as any of the earlier versions and with the new cuts, it really holds together now. On to the sequel.:cool::D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top