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 liked it. I figured if you don't go into expecting the standard Robin Hood story all the other versions tell, its fine. It seemed to me like "Robin Hood: Origins" or something to that effect, like his backstory and what drove him to fight for the common man.
"Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes." - Robert A. Heinlein
Acheron Tomb Legion (shelved until codex update)
Revenants of Khaine Corsair Fleet (2000 and growing)
Blood Reapers Chaos Warband (World Eaters, Iron Warriors, and Death Guard) The only army I actually win games with!
I really enjoyed it. It was as previously stated a sort of story of how the man became the legend. The part about his dad drafting an early version of the magna carta was sort of iffy for me tho. Just felt like cheesy filler to me. It was a solid film tho. Not one that i would purchase on dvd, but worth the money spent for the ticket. I would reccomend it.
My thoughts watching Robin Hood, in approximately chronological order.
Ooh, cool siege scene.
Heh, Ridley Scott loves his Crusades history, and really likes pointing out that the Christians did bad things. Maybe that's not really there, and I'm just sensitive because I sat through Kingdom of Heaven getting beat over the head with Ridley's message of religious tolerance. Hopefully there'll be no more of that (there wasn't).
I like that Richard the Lionheart is portrayed as a bit of warmongering dick, instead of the all good King in contrast to the all bad John.
Max von Sydow is still alive?!
Oh, its Robin Hood and the Adventure of the Magna Carta.
Seriously fellas, when you dress in all black and you're leader is a bald guy with a big scar on his face, odds are you're the baddies.
Hang on, why does a commoner like Robin (or his Dad) care about the Magna Carta?
Cate Blanchett is really quite and incredible actress, she has almost nothing to work with in the movie but she's stealing every scene.
Why does every villain trap everyone in a barn and set in on fire these days? I thought that was basically something the Nazis did, and its kind of worrisome to see their brutality presented as something that happened throughout history. Actually, why are they even wiping this town out, it makes no sense.
Wow, these guys are really happy to follow Robin's command in battle. They only met him this morning, where he gave a three line speach on the Magna Carta.
Hey, this last battle scene is pretty cool. The d-day style landing boats are pretty lame, but the fighting is very cool.
Well, that was alright. A solid B from me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/06/10 03:23:04
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I think Ridley Scott is a pretty talented artist. And I really like some of his work (Alien, Blade Runner) and think some of it is junk. I think, especially in his later career, he's gotten too carried away with 'pretty pictures' in his movies and doesn't pay enough attention to little things like plot and character development.
And Russell Crowe is similar to me; sometimes he's great (LA Confidential, The Insider) and other times, he just looks constipated (Gladiator).
In the dark future, there are skulls for everyone. But only the bad guys get spikes. And rivets for all, apparently welding was lost in the Dark Age of Technology. -from C.Borer
dietrich wrote:I think Ridley Scott is a pretty talented artist. And I really like some of his work (Alien, Blade Runner) and think some of it is junk. I think, especially in his later career, he's gotten too carried away with 'pretty pictures' in his movies and doesn't pay enough attention to little things like plot and character development.
And Russell Crowe is similar to me; sometimes he's great (LA Confidential, The Insider) and other times, he just looks constipated (Gladiator).
Yeah, I think Ridley Scott’s best work might be behind him. He’s certainly got technical skills that match any director and these show in the gorgeous look of Robin Hood, but in his last few films the contrivances in the stories have really stood out. Most directors get more subtle over their careers, trust the audience to fill in the blanks, Scott seems to be getting more earnest, and more obvious.
And yeah, Crowe is an incredible actor when he’s on song. Romper Stomper is an amazing performance, as is A Beautiful Mind and The Insider (how did he win the Oscar for Gladiator but not for The Insider?!), but at other times he just seems to be big ball of serious angry face, and it comes off kind of goofy. I didn’t think he was too bad in Robin Hood, but he didn’t really add much to the movie, either.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
It was OK, miles better than Glad I Ate Her. The camera work was clear, I could follow what was going on and hardly ever felt the urge to yell at the screen's stupidity.
But OK is the best I can say. It was trying much too hard to be Rob Roy or Braveheart and turn Robin Hood into a 20th/21st C idealist and make him a lynchpin of history. Not needed. The story works well enough on its own without Robin becoming the father of modern democracy.
WWII landing barges were dumb. So was the exploding gate (oil doesn't work that way!).
I saw it with family and don't regret it but I'll never want to see it again.
Did not like. It was 3/4 Intro and then the rest of the story crammed in the end.
Jimi supports METAL
We're outnumbered ten to one here. Still' I love the odds! - Free Will Sacrifice - Amon Amarth
Ketara wrote:To survive on the net requires that you adapt the attributes of a Rhinocerous to a certain extent. A thick skin, a big horn to stab people you don't like, and poor eyesight when certain images are linked from places like 4chan.
I must admit though I did enjoy the first siege bit that's when I thought it would be a good film. Well put though a 3/4 intro and the important bit was crammed in at the end.
I thought it was pretty bad. The opening battle was good, and it went downhill from there. And I just couldn't wrap my head around all the historical inaccuracies...
Spoiler:
So let's make a movie with all the named characters from the Robin Hood legends, but not doing anything Robin Hoodish.
The final battle was ludicrous. Forgetting for a moment that the French King never invaded England in the 1200s, you've got D-day craft which are unloading knights wearing mail armour 20 feet from the shore.
Forgetting that for a second, they picked the least intelligent place ever to land, at the base of a wall of cliffs.
Forgetting even that, now you've got the French hanging out at the bottom of a cliff with English longbowmen at the top of the cliff raining arrows on them. (This is probably why the French never invaded England in the 1200s)... What does a good general do here? Keep shooting, or give up your advantage and launch a cavalry charge?
Robin Hood, archer of reknown, is chosen to lead this charge?
Carnage everywhere, but he has time to stop and kiss Marion amidst the slaughter?
And then get his bow out and shoot the fleeing guy - the only guy alive who knows that he's not really a knight that isn't in on the secret...
But somehow King John uses player knowledge, rather than character knowledge, to declare Robin an outlaw - in spite of the fact that Robin just won the day for you.
And John also refuses to sign the Magna Carta...
It wouldn't have hurt if the writer had half a clue about the era he was writing about.
As for the technical movie - it was good. Scott did a good job with what he was given to work with, and I had no problems with the technical side of the movie. I think people sometimes attribute too much of a movie's success or failure to the director. I don't think Scott has a writers credit anywhere on this movie.
"Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes." - Robert A. Heinlein
Acheron Tomb Legion (shelved until codex update)
Revenants of Khaine Corsair Fleet (2000 and growing)
Blood Reapers Chaos Warband (World Eaters, Iron Warriors, and Death Guard) The only army I actually win games with!
Redbeard wrote:As for the technical movie - it was good. Scott did a good job with what he was given to work with, and I had no problems with the technical side of the movie. I think people sometimes attribute too much of a movie's success or failure to the director. I don't think Scott has a writers credit anywhere on this movie.
I’d be really, really surprised if Scott, like any director of his stature, didn’t have an incredible amount of creative control over every part of the movie. Nobody directors and third tier actors are free to jump in and order re-writes of scripts, the idea that a guy like Scott is forced to shoot what he’s given is very unlikely.
Also, your history is a bit off. While John did sign the Magna Carta he rejected it almost immediately afterwards, plunging England into civil war. This is not materially different to the events of the movie, in which he agreed to sign such a document then later reneged, plunging England into civil war.
You complained that a French king never invaded England, but King Louis invaded in 1216 to take advantage of the political troubles, he actually took London and was proclaimed King. It was only after John’s death and the appointment of the child King Henry that enough barons moved their support away from Louis.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Redbeard wrote:You're right, I had no idea about that. I stand corrected.
Is cool. It's pretty interesting history - a lot more interesting than Robin Hood was able to realise.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/06/11 04:07:15
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote:..You complained that a French king never invaded England, but King Louis invaded in 1216 to take advantage of the political troubles, he actually took London and was proclaimed King. It was only after John’s death and the appointment of the child King Henry that enough barons moved their support away from Louis.
Wait... so France actually pwned England for once?
I read up on this too. I think the reason it's glossed over in history books, is because the French King never invaded, his son did. And, he didn't really invade, so much as was invited to come over by the English Barons.
So, the fact that he was the son of the French King isn't as important as it was that the barons rebelled, which is widely known.
Not quite the military invasion resisted by the barons in the movie...
sebster wrote:..You complained that a French king never invaded England, but King Louis invaded in 1216 to take advantage of the political troubles, he actually took London and was proclaimed King. It was only after John’s death and the appointment of the child King Henry that enough barons moved their support away from Louis.
Wait... so France actually pwned England for once?
Hmmmm I'm going to have read up on that.
GG
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Acheron Tomb Legion (shelved until codex update)
Revenants of Khaine Corsair Fleet (2000 and growing)
Blood Reapers Chaos Warband (World Eaters, Iron Warriors, and Death Guard) The only army I actually win games with! 
4210pts = The Waaagh! of Skragga Gorstab Naz-Balur da bug-stompa