Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

This Las Vegas denizen steals a look at Ridley Scott & Russell Crowe's ROBIN HOOD - Good News!

Hey folks, Harry here with a deep desire to see Ridley Scott's ROBIN HOOD. I find it odd that this look at a test screening instantly made me want to see this, when none of the trailers have managed to motivate much enthusiasm at all. It just seems nice that it seems as different as this sounds. Watch out for spoilers, and I really should have more faith in Ridley.

Hey just got back from the "Robin Hood" screening here in Las Vegas. The most surprising thing about “Robin Hood” isn't really so surprising at all: Ridley Scott has made a variation on “Gladiator” that switches out swords and sandals for bows and arrows. Russell Crowe is back in fighting form (looks like he lost an entire person since “State of Play”) and takes his place where he belongs, playing a hero square in the middle of a big period action epic, bellowing orders, galloping on horseback and just generally kicking ass. Forget the green tights, pulling on the sheriff version of “Robin Hood.” This is a dirty, brutal, muscular, serious origin story that introduces the characters we've seen in movies and read in books that only meets up with the familiar story literally in the last scene. The story here is about an archer from the Crusades who assumes the identity of a fellow soldier who died on the field. Robin returns home to England and discovers a secret he never knew about his past which puts him on a path to help his country from a despotic king (btw, don’t know who plays King John but he’s awesome). The first two-thirds of the movie are about Robin figuring out his destiny and rallying the people together against King John’s thugs and the usual cast of characters starts to come together: the Merry Men, a tough Maid Marian (I don’t understand how Sienna Miller was ever supposed to play this role), the Sheriff of Nottingham, Friar Tuck. The last third is an extended action sequence set at the edge of the sea as Robin and his countrymen face off against the invading French navy attempting to land and take over Britain. This is pure “Gladiator”/”Kingdom of Heaven” Ridley Scott with a lot of hand-to-hand combat. There’s another nice surprise: there doesn’t seem to be much of a reliance on computer imagery outside of that French navy. This is action on a huge scale made the old-fashioned way: armies of thousands, swords clanging off each other, arrows shooting through bodies, ships crashing on shore all staged right there on the beach, not in a computer.
Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Jan. 27, 2010, 3:28 a.m. CST


    by YouKissTheWookie

    woohoo, sounds like a good movie

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 3:31 a.m. CST



    Sounds like we have been here before. Dull.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 3:37 a.m. CST

    Sounds good

    by stewarco

    Sounds a bit more inventive than I thought it was going to be from the trailer. Now I can put to rest fears of another cheesy Bryan Adams song.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 3:44 a.m. CST

    Windshield bullet holes

    by detectivesoap

    in many movies are CGI now, as well as reflections, shrubs, etc. That said, this'll probably be cool, but don't expect it to be CGI free, just obvious CGI free (which I'm sure is what you mean). I'm being a dick, goodnight. Looks neato though.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 3:46 a.m. CST


    by Star Hump

    Hacked off limbs, screams of agony, arcs of blood jetting through the air. And if we're lucky, an arrow right into some poor slob's face. THOONK!<p> This is going to be fun. And anyway, Russell's a great actor. I'm still a fan. He always turns in exciting performances. The man has talent to burn.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 3:50 a.m. CST

    Summary of review

    by detectivesoap

    "back in fighting form", "dirty, brutal, muscular","hand-to-hand", "swords clanging off each other, French semen shooting on bodies"...damn this shit's wild! Zack Snyder would be proud.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 3:53 a.m. CST

    I'm with the Ginge

    by tonguestubble

    This confirms that the dull trailer represents a dull movie. Seriously, why re-make Gladiator taking out all the colour and majesty, and replacing it with mud and grey clouds. A new spin on Robin Hood shouldn't be a rehash of something else

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 4:03 a.m. CST

    Who posted this review?

    by gingerella

    T Scott?

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 4:04 a.m. CST

    I hope

    by Box_Bruceleitner

    It actually is bloody and doesn't shy away from showing limbs being hacked off or bodies viciously impaled.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 4:09 a.m. CST

    Who needs CGI

    by doorlestoaster

    Just when you think that a film can't go with out CGI it does! Health and safety must have been a nightmare with all those arrows! Just think of all the dead Frenchmen on set. Excellent speed ramps too, Zack Snyder would have indeed been proud! Another classic to add to add to the vault of non CGI Mr Scot classics. I love it.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 4:17 a.m. CST

    Dull does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    Sounds far from fucking dull! Sounds great!<p> Anyone who saw KINGDOM OF HEAVEN knows that when it comes to medieval melee's Ridley is the master.<p> The ambush scene in particular, near the start of that movie where Liam Neeson' small band of hardnuts comes under attack from the King's men at their forest camp is everything you want a good ruck to be. Bloody, visceral, well-choreographed and easy to follow.<p> The only movie that i've seen recently that comes close to Scott is RED CLIFF, with John Woo staging some truly magnificent battle sequences.<p> Personally I find extended battle scenes far from boring. If they're well directed such as the ones by John Woo, Ridley, and PJ then I can happily sit through as much battle as the film wants to give me.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 4:19 a.m. CST


    by Crooooooow

    Crowe is overrated.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 4:23 a.m. CST

    Just cant get excited about yet another robin hood adaptation

    by Piratebill

    Literally have seen it all before

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 4:53 a.m. CST

    Ok where's the end of the review?

    by DOGSOUP

    It just got cut off??

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 5:07 a.m. CST

    sounds dope


    im cool with russell and ridley going at it again,cause if it aint fixed dont break it.Right!you cockless sons of whores!

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 5:08 a.m. CST

    Prince Of Thieves Rules

    by Drsambeckett1984

    This will blow big chunks of hairy ass!

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 5:10 a.m. CST

    Much rather see Crowe...

    by Human_Bean_Juice_

    do the Master and Commander series. There is your legacy my burly friend.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 5:13 a.m. CST

    Will there be another Bryan Adams ballad?

    by Spifftacular Squirrel Girl

    Can't really judge this film for the one trailer they had which was basically a teaser trailer. I'm sure this movie will be pretty good. Hopefully.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 5:15 a.m. CST

    Shit we never got any Legion reviews here.

    by Human_Bean_Juice_

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 5:23 a.m. CST

    This 'review' only describes the trailers!!!

    by Wookie_Weed

    FFS Harry, take off the blindfold.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 5:45 a.m. CST

    Go to hell, Michael Bay!!!

    by koprosphagos

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 5:53 a.m. CST


    by maxgod

    i want to see costner in a sequel. since prince of thieves didn't give us prince john (collin farrell???) he would be the new villain. morgan freeman and sean connery are still able to walk, so no problem at all.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 5:54 a.m. CST

    The French Navy attempted to invade

    by Ingeld

    England in the 12th century?

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 5:56 a.m. CST

    It's Going to be Weird for me

    by Captain RawBeard

    I cant wait to see this film after all I was a Sound Assistant Trainee on it but will be weird seeing the film knowing where all the sets finish, crew are standing etc etc.<br> <br> Same for Alice in Wonderland and a bit of the Wolfman

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 6:34 a.m. CST

    Zach Snyder would be shat on by this

    by PTSDPete

    I never got the hype on that sissy, derivative bullshit '300'. That's always been 'Gladiator' for the Adam Lambert set.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 6:36 a.m. CST

    Prince Of Thieves

    by the new transported man

    Fuck me, he cleared it!

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 6:45 a.m. CST

    Prince of Plants

    by Dazzler69

    Sorry had to start this line of posts. They make me giggle.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 6:52 a.m. CST

    RE: French Navy

    by DrunkyMcLush

    "there doesn’t seem to be much of a reliance on computer imagery outside of that French navy." Haha, sounds like a slight towards the French Military :D Be careful... You might make all 8 of the men mad.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 7:04 a.m. CST

    Not digging it

    by peter_dickinson

    Even positive reviews aren't enough to make me want to see this.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 7:13 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    The French are cowards not fighters.<p> Oops, did I say *cowards*? I meant lovers, *lovers*!<p> (no French dudes read this site, right?)

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 7:20 a.m. CST

    It's pointless making a gritty version of the tale,

    by Dingbatty

    as the Robin Hood story is entirely of the realm of folklore.<p>They should've made it a fantasy.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 7:21 a.m. CST

    The French didn't have a navy in 1200

    by catlettuce4

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 7:24 a.m. CST

    Ugh. Another period piece ruined by

    by caprica

    a stupid, moronic, politically correct desire to see a woman of the period strap on a Bow or sword and pretend to fight. Didn't anyone learn from the idiotic sight of Keira Knightly wearing leather strap bikinis in Arthur? Why pull us out of the film by showing us something that we can't suspend disbelief on? We may know that Robin Hood likely didn't exist, but we want to believe he did--it's called suspending cynicism. But how can we do that when you show us something we know didn't happen ever under any circumstances? Make Maid Marian a strong female character, that's great--but don't bullshit us and pretend any woman of the time was fighting alongside Robin Hood.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 7:29 a.m. CST

    Caprica needs to read closer

    by chiwrtr72

    The review said Marian was tough, it didn't say she was fighting.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 7:35 a.m. CST

    They're so old

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    Maid Marion is more like Spinster Marion

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 7:42 a.m. CST


    by JayLenoTookMyJob

    Then, you've never heard of Joan of Arc?

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 7:50 a.m. CST


    by sansara07

    Is this going to happen? It would be a nice book-end to Scott's incredible career if he delivered on the Alien prequel. It's rumored Crowe will play Ripley's father. Btw the Academy had better give Scott a Lifetime Achievement oscar while he's still here!

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 7:51 a.m. CST


    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...ummmm....maybe read about Boadicea.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 7:52 a.m. CST

    Prince John? King Richard? Little John?

    by thinboyslim.

    whose this guy talking about when he says 'King John'? Kevin Durand? Danny Huston? Oscar Isaac?

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 8:07 a.m. CST

    At least...

    by Mr Lucas

    Orlando Bloom isn't stinking it up.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 8:13 a.m. CST

    This review was unintelligible, right?

    by Laserhead

    I mean, was that just me?

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 8:15 a.m. CST

    French Navy probably equals Norman reinforcements

    by JasonPratt

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 8:21 a.m. CST

    Somewhere between MEH and AWESOME...

    by spud mcspud

    ...Lies the legend of Sherwood.<P> And we won't know until the movie comes out. Fuck it, I'll give it a shot. Rid hasn't let me down yet, and KINGDOM OF HEAVEN was fucking spectacular. I'll be there.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 8:23 a.m. CST

    Not reading this. Swords + Ridley Scott and I'll see it.

    by FlickaPoo's completely inevitable.<P>Better to keep expectations low and be pleasantly surprised.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 8:44 a.m. CST

    The 74,893,003,839.649th version of Robin Hood

    by Gungan Slayer

    Alas. Scott knows how to direct and set up his movies well, so I'll probably go see it, although it does appear it's just going to be 'Gladiator' in Medieval times. And I agree with Caprica about this bullshit of having female 'warriors' (at least in Maid Marian) fighting alongside Hood and the likes.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 8:52 a.m. CST

    No CGI in that battle scene?

    by wraith777

    Riiiight. I'll take that bet. It really is that good now, believe it.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 8:56 a.m. CST

    I Dont Think This Will Be A Theater Movie

    by Broseph

    For Me Maybe A Rental.The Trailer Has Done Nothing To Captivate My Intrest

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 9:13 a.m. CST

    Just make something up

    by ooggbboo

    Why is Robin Hood constantly remade? The story is public domain; just tweak it to indicate some level of creativity. At this point, I would take a version of The White Shadow that takes place in the 12th century. (A tough but fair archer from King Richard's army leads a group of Spaniards and Moors lost in the woods of Nottingham. They learn how to be fighters -- and men.)

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 9:13 a.m. CST

    There will never be a Robin Hood movie as good...

    by cookylamoo

    As Adventures of Robin Hood. Flynn, De Haviland and Rathbone nailed it.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 9:19 a.m. CST

    I can think of two Robin Hood...

    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...movies worth seeing. The old Errol Flynn The Adeventures of Robin Hood. Claude Rains made a great Prince John and the sword fight between Flynn and Rathbone still rocks in a great old Hollywood way. <p> Robin and Marion, about old Robin Hood. Sean Connery as Robin Hood, Audrey Hepburn as Maid Marian, Nicol Williamson (that's right, Merlin) as Little John, Richard Harris just chewing the scenery as King Richard... <p> Oh yeah, and Robet Shaw as the Sheriff of Nottingham. <p> This movie isn't going to be as good as Robin and Marian. Just won't be. <p> Doesn't have to be. Just has to be enough better than Costner's version to not cause flashbacks. That seems a pretty easy bar to clear.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 9:22 a.m. CST

    Can't wait!

    by m_reporter

    This is the movie I'm most excited about this year, Sir Ridley and Crowe kicking some medieval ass! Hell yeah.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 9:41 a.m. CST

    No CGI...I know for a fact that IS NOT true

    by whoswho101

    I can tell you for certain that there is plenty of CGI in this film. The armies are not thousands of extras. In most crowd shots it is largely CGI as are the vast majority of the ships/boats. As for the arrows...can you guess?....yup...CGI. It makes me laugh that when the CG is not perfect people complain that it isnt but when it is actually as good as you've been don't even realise. Just no pleasing some people :P Oh, and a note to doorlestoaster: Mr scott uses CG more then I think you realise.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 9:45 a.m. CST

    I just watched GLADIATOR again

    by blackwood

    So I don't think I need to see this in the theatre. Russell Crowe is a mangod though so we'll see.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 9:47 a.m. CST

    And I wish

    by blackwood

    that they had stayed with the original tact and done a film with Crowe playing a sympathetic Nottingham.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 9:48 a.m. CST

    Where's David Chappelle?

    by jarjarmessiah

    "Hey Robin, this aint exactley the Mississippi!"

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 9:51 a.m. CST


    by SSquirrel

    You mean besides the shots of Cate Blanchett on a horse, in full armor swinging her sword at people? She's definitely fighting. One of the other trailer shots makes it seem like she's got the hair hidden pretty well and may be pulling an Eowyn, pretending to be a man so she can go off to war.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 9:55 a.m. CST

    The fench army? You mean, the royal english army?

    by AsimovLives

    Because back then, the kings of england though themselves french then englishmen. For them, the english were a conquered people. They viewed England merely a land to get squeeze by taxes and to get cannon fodder for their armies. Richard Lionheart, for instance, only spent 9 months of his whole life in english soil, and he hated the country! He though himself first anf foremost as french. The whole royal and higher nobility were french. There was in fact, for all pratical porposes, TWO FRENCH KINGDOMS, one which had territories in England and one that didn't. So, to say that a french army is invading britain, i have to ask, which french army was it? The "english king" french army or the other french king army?

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 9:57 a.m. CST

    The plot twist of the movie is that...

    by AsimovLives

    ... Little John is actually Prince/King John.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 10:15 a.m. CST

    And Richard Lionheart was gay

    by AsimovLives

    The king that the english believed kicked the most ass was gay. Suddently, the notion of Richard Lionheart kicking ass gains a whole new meaning.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 10:16 a.m. CST

    For all you people that have already decided...

    by yodalovesyou

    Could you do us all a favour and avoid this film completely. That way we won't have to put up with months of 'I said this film was going to be shit and I was right because I am the only person in the entire universe whose opinion actually matters' bollocks.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 10:25 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    My feeling entirely.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 10:26 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Consider this: if the movie turns out good or great, it will be lots of fun to mock them ney-sayers.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 10:37 a.m. CST

    Haven't Liked A Scott Film Since Black Hawk Down

    by Crow3711

    Matchstick Men was Okay and I hear great things about the DC of Kingdom of Heaven, but only saw the fairly crap theatrical cut. Body of Lies and American Gangster were both forgettable, redundant crap. I'm just not convinced I'm attuned to Mr. Scott anymore. And don't even get me started on how much I hate his stupid brothers crappy movies. True Romance is great because it would actually be difficult to fuck up how beautiful that story is. I'm sad I don't like ridley Scott movies anymore. Hopefully this one gets him back in the game for me. <p> ...not that I matter at all.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 10:39 a.m. CST


    by TheUmpireStrokesBach

    Again, if Weir won't do another, I nominate Sir Ridley. This must happen. As Human_Bean_Juice noted, that could/should be Crowe's legacy.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 11:09 a.m. CST

    Ripping off madmen; ripping on french

    by awardgiver

    Robin Hood is a guy who takes on a dead soldiers personality ala Don Draper? This sounds dumb. And I see once again its Russel Crowe against the french. Whats his deal?

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 11:15 a.m. CST

    Peter Weir directing a Robin Hood movie

    by AsimovLives

    That would be a dream.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 11:20 a.m. CST

    instead of this crap,

    by awardgiver

    I nominate another Master and Commander film.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 11:34 a.m. CST

    This review make you MORE excited?

    by The Garbage Man

    He basically says what everyone already assumed: the movie is a retread of Gladiator with bows and arrows, and it bears a passing resemblance to the Robin Hood of legend only in the last scene.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 11:35 a.m. CST

    Invading French navy? Awesome

    by D.Vader

    Oodle-lolly oodle-lolly, golly what-a-day...

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 11:53 a.m. CST

    I watched them filming

    by Brigon

    Last summer I went down to a local beach to spend the afternoon watching the filming. Extras were hired locally and a few hundred were chosen. The beach scene I watched being filmed had about 6 french boats landing at the beach and being promptly being charged by the Calvary.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, noon CST

    Yes, more Master and Commander

    by Star Hump

    and, to second the post above^, if any of you movie freaks has not seen ROBIN AND MARION (with Connery as Robin and Hepburn as Marion) then get it off Netflix post haste. It's a superb Robin Hood adventure in every way, with the added bonus that it's original: this time it's Robin at the end of his adventurous career. And if the end doesn't gut you, then you're a fucking android.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 12:14 p.m. CST


    by J-Dizzle

    If the whole movie is basically setting up the Robin Hood myth, then I guess there will be a sequel telling the actual story of Robin Hood?

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 12:15 p.m. CST

    William Hurt's in this too?

    by D.Vader


  • Jan. 27, 2010, 12:17 p.m. CST

    Well, if not for...

    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...being afraid of being skewered by the Adventures of Robin Hood purists I would have flat out said that Robin and Marian is the best Robin Hood movie ever. It's certainly my favorite. <p> And if you like Robin and Marian you should watch They Might Be Giants, which is an interesting take on Sherlock Holmes by the same writer, James Goldman. Very different take and topic but man you'll recognize the sensibilities. <p> Yeah, he's William Goldman's brother, and he didn't really write that much for film, but you know, The Lion in Winter, Robin and Marian, They Might be Giants and Nicholas and Alexandra make for a hell of a legacy on their own. <p> Seriously, Robin, Giants and Lion are all three among my favorite hundred movies.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 12:26 p.m. CST


    by J-Dizzle

    The Kings of England of old were Normans. Normans were of Viking descent. Normandy was a Duchy, totally separate from the Frankish/French Kingdom, established by invading Vikings after the Frankish/French requested a truce. Just because they spoke French doesn't mean they were French. While it is true that they adopted some aspects of French culture (mainly to compliment Viking military tactics), they did not totally abandon their Viking roots. No self respecting Norman would have ever declared England or Normandy French client kingdoms. If anything, France itself became more of a client kingdom once more than half of France came under Norman control!

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 12:32 p.m. CST

    I'd prefer that Robin Hood was an evil archer.

    by Stereotypical Evil Archer

    Why must he be a good guy? Bad guys are more interesting. Ask any woman with self-esteem issues. That's why JettL93 has wenches in every city.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 12:52 p.m. CST

    J-Dizzle, don't forget about language:

    by Stereotypical Evil Archer

    The Normans quickly took the early French language. Vikings would never say "rendevous". The Norman (French)influence actually erased a fair amount of Norse(Viking) and Anglo-Saxon culture from England. My point is the Normans were far more Frankish than Viking in the 1200s.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 12:55 p.m. CST

    Oodle-lolly, Golly, what a day. THE LION IN WINTER!

    by Stereotypical Evil Archer

    Great film.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 12:56 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Egnland was invaded and dominated by a french people descendent from vikings for hundreds of years, until after their defeat in the 100 years wars they decided to pretend they had been english all along. Deal with it. Yes, it might hurt some englishmen's ego that for a long time they were SUCESSFULLY invaded by french. But it was a long time ago, they better get over it. Deal with it. Normans were french, deal with it. The higher ups and the kings of england were french and only spoke french,a nd they despised england. Deal with it. Richard Lionheart thought hismelf french and if you called him engoish to his face he would disembow you. Deal with it. Henry V thought himself french before english. Deal with it. The french invaded and conquered the english for centuries. Deal with it.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 1:02 p.m. CST

    Oodle Lolly!

    by D.Vader

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 1:25 p.m. CST

    Robin has the best barber and dentist in Sherwood Forest!

    by AzulTool

    Heh, man of the people! Peeshaw!

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 1:27 p.m. CST


    by HoboCode

    What in the fuck? Tell a Robin Hood story. You know? Rob from the motherfucking rich cunts and give to the poor? It's more relevant now more than ever. fuck this French Navy bullshit.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 1:36 p.m. CST

    Wait a sec.

    by HoboCode

    Scott Grimes as Will Scarlett and Kevin Durand as Little John? The stock on this just rose HEAVILY. But I'm still not happy about this French navy bullshit.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 1:58 p.m. CST


    by KHjLL

    ...Does that mean there is going to be a sequel...The ending...

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 2:04 p.m. CST


    by J-Dizzle

    The Normans were Vikings. Deal with it. The Norman crest was basically Danish crest but with different colors. Deal with it. The French waived a white flag of truce and begged the Normans for peace. Deal with it. William the Conqueror, Richard I, Henry V thought of themselves as Normans, NOT French NOR English. Deal with it. The Vikings came and conquered the English, Scots, Irish, and French. Deal with it. A bunch of rabid Scandinavians traveled around the world in little boats and conquered various regions. Deal with it.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 2:08 p.m. CST


    by J-Dizzle

    Yes they did adopt the French language (which was part of the culture they adopted as referenced in my previous post). But that adoption wasn't based on some love affair with the Franks, that was more for practical communication purposes so they could trade and continue diplomacy with their Frankish neighbors.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 2:33 p.m. CST


    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...there is some truth in what you say, but the devil is in the details. The Normans who invaded England had certainly adopted a great many French customs (like the Mongols or any number of nomadic raiders they tended, to one extent or another, to adopt the culture of the region where they settled). <p> However, the Normans certainly were not of the same stock as the French nobility. None of those folks could trace their bloodlines back to the Carolignians. In addition, of course, there were treaties signed between the Normans and the French Crown. <p> That said, by the time 1066 rolled around, for all that the Normans were still speaking a distinctly different dialect than most of France, one still bearing heavy Norse influences, the invasion did create rulers of Normandy who were nominal vassals of the French crown. And because they were vassals of the French crown, and because the Dukes of Normandy were also Kings of England, it could be argued…although only by paying far more attention to heraldic tradition than realpolitik, that England became part of a vast French empire. <p> As for the language and bloodlines of the royalty, there had already been a great deal of intermarriage and cultural exchange between the lot of these folks. And although France became the court tongue of all the royal courts in Europe, it was certainly not the dominant tongue among the people of Normandy when the invasion took place. <p> So to say conquered by the French people is not correct, really. If you want to say conquered by people led by a ruling class that had adopted a good deal of French culture, sure.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 2:47 p.m. CST

    I want to like this movie so much

    by liesandpicturesofalsolies

    I haven't liked a Ridley Scott movie in a loooong time. I'm sure I'll end up seeing it in theaters, though, I see everything. I'm glad I checked out the talkback, though, AsimovLives always delivers.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 3:56 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    The normans WERE vikings, a few centuries before. By the time they invaded England, they were FRENCH. Deal with it. The "english" top aristocracy and the king of england thought of themselves as french, not english. Deal with it. They didn't even spoke english, they spoke french. French was the language of the court. Deal with it. Only after the defeat in the 100 Years War did the losing french faction decide to gain a english identity, ebcause they had to surrender to the fact they lost France for good. Deal with it. The fact that some english seems to not udnerstand is that they were invaded, and conquered, and governed by french for quite a long time.<br><br>It's easy to put down your "we were invaded by vikings2 nonsense. What language did the normans spoke? Was it a nord language? Or was it french?<br><br>No, really, you have to deal with the fact that england was ocne invaded and sucessfully conquered by the french. If you have a fragille sense of nationality or any form of anti-french hatred that you can't handle it, it's your problem. History doesn't exist to support fancies.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 4:01 p.m. CST

    Red Ned Lynch

    by AsimovLives

    It all comes down to this simple fact: what do you think the rullers of england at the time though of themselves? And the answer is very simple: they thought themselves french. Thus endeth the discussion.<br><br>You know, this is like asking me if, because i came from the south of my country Portugal, which once used to be governed by the moors, if i'm a different kind of portuguese form the people from the north which were christian portugueses since the birth of the country. And i say, i'm as portuguese as they. Just because there's moorish ancestors to me doesn't make me any less portuguese. I'm as portuguese as the ones from the always christian north. Got it now? The normans, when they decided to became vassals from the king of france and live in france, they became french. A different french from the ones from Aquilonia or Champagne or whatever, sure, but french nevertheless. And again, it all comes down to this simple fact. The king of england and the high nobility though themselves as french, even centuries after the invasion and the conquest. That deals it.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 4:02 p.m. CST

    God, i love nationalistic bullshit!

    by AsimovLives

    Always good for a laugh!

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 4:22 p.m. CST

    "The last scene"

    by davidwebb

    I take it he simply puts up his hood and runs into the forest, or some such shit that would leave it open for a sequel?

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 4:27 p.m. CST


    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...I think what you're failing to grasp here, though, is that nationalism, as we define it today, as we feel it today, existed not really at all in 1066. <p> You're applying a curiously modern sensibility to a world in which the primary loyalties lay along religious and tribal lines. <p> And rulers of England tended to think of themselves as French to precisely the degree they held hope of becoming King of France. I can't imagine you don't already know these things because it would be hard to know the things you've already demonstrated knowledge of without knowing them. <p> So is this some kind of grudge against the English or what?

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Because if it is...

    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...fine. <p> Everybody's got a right to their grudges.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 4:44 p.m. CST

    I´m just glad Scott didn´t cast Bloom

    by Koborover

    Ridley clearly went on the safe side by casting a capable leading man such as Crowe, not a very bold choice but probably a smart one. It´s exactly what Kingdom of Heaven (DC or no DC) lacked in my eyes.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 4:54 p.m. CST


    by J-Dizzle

    I'm talking about history. You're the one who keeps on ranting about nationalism and the English are this and the English are that.<p> The notion of an English national identity didn't even come about until part way through the 100 years war (ironically under the rule of Henry V!)<p> I think I misinterpreted what your original posts were on about. As Red Ned Lynch noted, it seems you're more interested in taking shots at the English (for some unknown reason) rather than being historically accurate.<p> That explains why you would blindly label the Normans as being French when in actual fact they weren't. The Normans also conquered Sicily, but no one in the right mind would have called the Sicilians French!

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 5:16 p.m. CST

    Koborover, RE: OBloom

    by D.Vader

    That was not Ridley's choice for Kingdom of Heaven. More of a studio-mandate.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 6:40 p.m. CST

    Red Ned Lynch & J-Dizzle = Great points.

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    But it's amazing to see how AsimovLives completely side-stepped them in order to take a shot at you and a strange swipe at the English.

  • Jan. 27, 2010, 7:13 p.m. CST

    History does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    Red Ned, Asi and J-Dizzle deserve a round of applause from the gallery for taking aicn into the cobwebbed and venerable medieval history lecture room.<p> Not somewhere we usually tread, but bravo nonetheless.

  • Jan. 28, 2010, 12:21 a.m. CST

    You guys amaze me....

    by Stormwatcher

    Your posts are as dry as this movie will be. I start off...okay I'm picking up what your selling but then.....too much fighting....tooo much fighting....lost me...were's the popcorn. That's your argument about a movie thats about 1000 years ago and based on dodgy info.

  • Jan. 28, 2010, 2:53 a.m. CST

    Red Ned Lynch

    by AsimovLives

    Yes, you are correct that a national notion as understood today didn't existed back then. Which in the end is my point. You know why? Because if one is to nickpick that the normans were not french but vikings, so then we have to nickpick on the english under king Harold, who were, in fact, vikings too! they were saxons, which were a dannish people that invaded and conquered england. So, if we are to claim that england was not conquered by french but by viking normns, then i have to say that the viking normans conquered the saxons which had previously conquered and kicked the ass of the english. If we are to nickpick about normans being vikings and not french, then the english even look mor ethe loser because it makes them

  • Jan. 28, 2010, 2:54 a.m. CST

    ops, sorry about that, next is the complete post

    by AsimovLives

  • Jan. 28, 2010, 2:58 a.m. CST

    Red Ned Lynch

    by AsimovLives

    Yes, you are correct that a national notion as understood today didn't existed back then. Which in the end is my point. You know why? Because if one is to nickpick that the normans were not french but vikings, so then we have to nickpick on the english under king Harold, who were, in fact, vikings too! they were saxons, which were a dannish people that invaded and conquered england. So, if we are to claim that england was not conquered by french but by viking normns, then i have to say that the viking normans conquered the saxons which had previously conquered and kicked the ass of the english. If we are to nickpick about normans being vikings and not french, then the english even look more the loser because it makes them TWICE CONQUERED.<br><br>And i have absolutly nothing agaisnt the english. england and my country have been the longest allies in history, and alliance that started in the early 13th century and still holds. The english have helped my country keep independetn form spain many times in history. I'm a bit of an anglophile myself. But bullshit on acocunt of sensitive nationalistic bullshit i never abide. Not from my own countrymen, not from anyboy. specially if it's based on bending history and reinterpreting history to satisy an agenda, made worst if it's xenophobic in nature. It's about time the english accept they lost the 100 Years War, and it happened 600 year ago. Get over it already!

  • Jan. 28, 2010, 3:45 a.m. CST

    Mr. Nice Gaius

    by AsimovLives

    C'mon, man! You should know better then saying that. Either you read my posts, really read what i'm saying in them, and coment on then, or don't read them and don't coment. And le tme say this, i like the english way better then the french, but bullshit is bullshit.<br><br>On a different subject, i watched THE ROAD, and i found it a brillant movie. I haven't read the novel, though, so i can't judge it as an adaptation. But as a movie, i found it very good. What say you?

  • Jan. 28, 2010, 3:55 a.m. CST

    I have historical reasons to prefer the english over the french

    by AsimovLives

    The french invaded my country during the Napolean Wars, and the english helped us regain independence. We have the longest standing uninterrupted alliance in history, a fact i'm quite proud, if i say so myself. but the constant mindles sbashing many english do against the french for reaosns which should, by now, be completly under the bridge, is a bit too much, the way i see it. By all logic, we the portuguese and the spanish have far more reasons to dislike the french then the english. And the reasons form the portuguese are even more imediate and direct, if we take into account the snobbish way many french have treated portuguese emigrants throughout the whole second half of the 20th century.

  • Jan. 28, 2010, 4:28 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    There's an hypothesis about who was the person which inspired much of the Robin Hood myth which is quite interesting. a movie about him would make for quite a thrilling medieval adventure movie. His name was Roger Godberd. But he lived about a century after the time most of the lengends about Robin Hood take place, at the time of Richard Lionheart's involvement in the Third Crusade. but many things that happened to Roger Godberd coincide about elements form the Robin Hood's stories.<br><br>There's another hypothesis that says that the very name "Robin Hood" was not in fact a name but a common title given to robbers, the same way people today call "johns" to pimps. If this is true, then the tales about Robin Hood is not the tales of one particular robber, but a collection of tales about different robbers, a mix between real events from real people, tall tales and legends from different times, different centuries in England's history.

  • Jan. 28, 2010, 12:05 p.m. CST


    by J-Dizzle

    "Yes, you are correct that a national notion as understood today didn't existed back then. Which in the end is my point. You know why? Because if one is to nickpick that the normans were not french but vikings, so then we have to nickpick on the english under king Harold, who were, in fact, vikings too! they were saxons, which were a dannish people that invaded and conquered england."<p> "So, if we are to claim that england was not conquered by french but by viking normns, then i have to say that the viking normans conquered the saxons which had previously conquered and kicked the ass of the english."<p> What do you mean conquered the ass of the English? THERE WERE NO ENGLISH WHEN THE SAXONS TOOK OVER! The people who inhabited Briton before, during, and after the Roman occupation were people of different tribes and cultures. An English people didn't exist back then. "If we are to nickpick about normans being vikings and not french, then the english even look more the loser because it makes them TWICE CONQUERED." Then English look even more the loser? First, England wasn't conquered twice since the Romans but three times: 1) Saxons, 2) traditional Norse Vikings, 3) Normans. Second, which brings me to my next point, you're whole goal here seems to be to say, "Oh, the English are a bunch of losers, ha ha ha!" Why else would you then accept the that the Normans weren't French, but then go on to try take a swipe at England and say something to the effect of, "See, even if you're right about the Normans, I still win because I demonstrated that England was conquered more than once! Haha!"<p> As I said, I'm arguing historical fact. All I kindly ask is that you don't feed other people with misinformation. If you want to criticize England then go ahead! I highly doubt anyone will really care. Its one thing to hate another country, but its totally different to skew historical fact for that very purpose.

  • Jan. 29, 2010, 6:05 p.m. CST


    by doorlestoaster

    Dear whoswho101, Do you know the meaning of irony? Of course Ridley Scott has used cgi, and ow he has used it is brilliant. Frankly whoever the company that did the vfx on this movie has done some sublime effects and goes to show that visual effects can be used at any level of film making. Well done Sir Scott. Good enough?