Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have to say the highlight of today's cinema experience was the faux A-Team trailer that preceded it. It started as a genuine trailer for the new film and then turned into one of those Orange adverts (not sure if they do these outside of the UK, but they involve well known actors being conned into making films which are saturated with mobile phone product placement). The cast was completely onboard with it, so you had Liam Neeson with a mock confused expression as he is made to say "I love it when a talk plan comes together." It is easily the funniest Orange advert so far.

Anyway onto Robin Hood. Accusations of Gladiator 2 have been levelled at this film, but I feel that Braveheart 2 is closer to the mark. What we definitely don't have is Robin Hood. All the Robin Hood type scenes ("I declare him to be an outlaw!") in the trailer are actually right at the end of the film. Is this a bad thing? Not especially, as it does at least mean you experience a different story to the normal one. I enjoyed watching it all unfold, but never got what I call a "Ride of the Rohirrim" feeling. The final battle is ok, but once you see the set up, the outcome is never in doubt (it's completely unwinnable for one of the sides, you'll see what I mean). With Russell Crowe on autopilot (exactly what accent were you going for, Russell?) and moping about with Cate Blanchett, it's the boo hoo villains you watch it for. Mark Strong continues a good run of bad guys, whilst the guy who plays Prince John (didn't catch his name) is suitably slimy (basically Blackadder with fewer morals). Regrettably, unlike Alan Rickman, they get very little screentime.

Verdict - Worth a look, but worth the Robin Hood 2 that it shamelessly sets up? I'm not so sure...

Flashman wrote:IAccusations of Gladiator 2 have been levelled at this film, but I feel that Braveheart 2 is closer to the mark.

There's a line of thinking that part of the Robin Hood myth is derived from William Wallace's exploits.

Those Orange adverts are indeed genius and often better than the films. I'm not really bothered about seeing Robin Hood.

Good review.

Christ, Braveheart was gak. Just terrible.

I don't wanna go and see this much either, however I have a feeling Mrs. Albatross might overrule me. I'd rather spend some of my 'hard-earned' on going to see Four Lions.

That looks awesome.


Good review as ever, FLASHMAN.

EDIT: I am a fething idiot.

Cheers for the review, some useful insights. I'm guessing this is a very serious take on the myth? With Crowe and Ridley Scott on board I kind of assumed it would be a very serious, manly, manly, manly take on the whole thing.

Albatross wrote:Christ, Braveheart was gak. Just terrible.

I was conflicted on Braveheat for a long time, but eventually realised that it was simultaneously one of the worst historical movies of all time and one of the best fantasy movies. Now I can enjoy it when they play it on tellie.

Squilvo, Albatross?! Squilvo?!?! Can you not tell Malcom McDowell and Paul Whitehouse apart?

@ Sebster - It's not that serious to be honest. The merry men are definitely merry (and I think even get referred to as such at one point) and Danny Huston is a riot at the beginning as a King Richard pushing Main Character Immunity Syndrome to absolute breaking point. Even Russell Crowe cracks a smile every so often.

It does tick the manly box with a big black marker though.

Flashman wrote:Squilvo, Albatross?! Squilvo?!?! Can you not tell Malcom McDowell and Paul Whitehouse apart?

@ Sebster - It's not that serious to be honest. The merry men are definitely merry (and I think even get referred to as such at one point) and Danny Huston is a riot at the beginning as a King Richard pushing Main Character Immunity Syndrome to absolute breaking point. Even Russell Crowe cracks a smile every so often.

It does tick the manly box with a big black marker though.

Huh, I might enjoy this then. Let it be on your head.

Flashman wrote:Squilvo, Albatross?! Squilvo?!?! Can you not tell Malcom McDowell and Paul Whitehouse apart?

Oh, balls. Sorry mate! I posted that when I was half-asleep - I've fixed it now.

The film didn't do anything for me. And as for the medieval version of the Normandy landing scene from Saving Private Ryan...
In Gladiator liberties were taken, in Robin Hood the p**s is taken...
Mick

So, it's pants then?

(I can't resist bring that one out when it fits!)

I was just listening to a BBC radio 4 interview with Crowe, where the interviewer questioned the accent and Crowe freaked out at him and had a pissy fit.

That boy needs a swift smack and sending to his room without supper, spoilt spanker.

On the other hand, I am a big fan of Blanchett, she's a talent. But no interest in this movie from me, not even from the trailers.

Ebert panned it.....

According to him it's a stealth R film with the PG-13 rating. Not for kids...according to Ebert anyway.

GG

Alpharius wrote:So, it's pants then?

(I can't resist bring that one out when it fits!)

Its soiled, ragged, should be incinerated and never mentioned again pants...

It makes the Costner one shine...

Mick

Albatross wrote:Christ, Braveheart was gak. Just terrible.

oh cmon man. it wasn't horrible...it wasn't pearl harbor.

Mick A wrote:
It makes the Costner one shine...

Mick

Ahh the irreplacable Kev Costner, the man has had more turkeys than Bernard Mathews.

I'm torn as to if I want to see this one or not, Russel "I am the greatest actor in the universe" Crowe is usualy good value if not for his acting then for getting into the news for chinning some poor sod who brought him the wrong coloured towel. As with most Ridley Scott films it looks well made enough and Cate Blanchett is certainly pleasing on the eye. As with most things it will come down to if Mrs Squilverine wants to see it I guess.

Alby, I also want to see 4 lions, the guy who made it (Chris Morris) is the same guy who did Brass Eye and most things he is involved in are pretty decent.

I thought his accent was OK gathering by the trailers I have seen - sounds like a sort Nottingham / Leicester / Rutland mashup which is vaguely relevant.

eh, it was okay. We also saw the midnight showing for no particular reason so I watched the first and last 3rds of the movie okay, but the 2nd third I was pretty much asleep.

Decidedly average.

Was anyone else bothered by the quote from the trailer, "The laws of this land enslave the people to its king"?

Robin Hood was a royalist. He essentially opposed King John because he saw Richard (off on Crusade at the time) as the rightful king. He wasn't opposed to the concept of monarchy at all.

Also,
@George
There are records of Richard going into Sherwood forest after his return to meet and thank a group of supporters who fought a guerrilla war against John while he was gone. In this way, Robin Hood has a similar historical basis to William Wallace. Wallace tends to have superhuman deeds attributed to him as well.

Quiet you, only people who value Freedom (capitalized for American emphasis) can be good guys.

There's a line of thinking that part of the Robin Hood myth is derived from William Wallace's exploits.

There may be a similarity of storyline, but the Robin in the Green character is going to predate Wallace by a long chalk.

There are motifs in the Robin Hood story that have similarities with Odysseus and also a legend of Buddha.
Robin Hood and the Zen of Archery

Mad Rabbit wrote:There are records of Richard going into Sherwood forest after his return to meet and thank a group of supporters who fought a guerrilla war against John while he was gone.

No offence but I'm having great difficulty believing this for various social and geographic reasons. Do feel free to post me some evidence though.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:There may be a similarity of storyline, but the Robin in the Green character is going to predate Wallace by a long chalk.

It may well do but that's not how legends work, they get added to over the years. I may however have overstated the Wallace link. Robin Hood is most certainly a composite character and part of that composite may be (Sir) William Wallace.

Am aware of the complexity of such storytelling

I was just thinking that in the political climate of the 13th and 14th century a Scots hero providing motifs for an English folk hero, while possible, is unlikely.

There may be a common source that has fed both streams? Must admit not being very familiar with the Wallace Legend.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:I was just thinking that in the political climate of the 13th and 14th century a Scots hero providing motifs for an English folk hero, while possible, is unlikely.

I think it would be a climate in which it would be very likely that stories of a foreign hero were 'Anglicised'. Besides they may have been added later than that.

dogma wrote:Quiet you, only people who value Freedom (capitalized for American emphasis) can be good guys.

Yeah, I think most people are alright with the idea that a hero doesn’t have to fight for vague, 20th century American ideal of FREEDOM!, as shown in the sales of a lot of media outside of mainstream movies. Unfortunately Hollywood doesn’t share that opinion and it’s a pretty big problem because Hollywood likes a lot of the stories that feature interesting heroes that actually reflect other sets of values beyond stereotypical American ones, but then Hollywood changes things so the good guy can fight for FREEDOM!

So we get William Wallace fighting for FREEDOM!, as opposed to increased power for the Scottish nobility to which he belonged. In the Clash of the Titans they talked about FREEDOM! from the Gods a lot, although they never actually bothered to show us the Gods being bad, nor did the Hero end up doing anything to give people any more FREEDOM! than they had when the film started.

What’s really weird is that FREEDOM! was a perfectly sensible theme for The Patriot but suddenly Hollywood lost confidence in their favourite theme, and felt they had to give us a ludicrously brutal British villain (who’s sins in the film directly taken from atrocities committed by the Nazis during WWII).

It’d be a shame if Robin Hood was given the same treatment, but I wish I could say it’s surprising.

Not just a ludicrously brutal British villain, but a Royalist main character.

WTF?

Oh, right, he's Mel Gibson, the pinacle of Americana.