Cool News
The New Ridley Scott ROBIN HOOD Trailer gets the job done, I'm very interested now
Hey folks, Harry here with the latest trailer for ROBIN HOOD - and it really is the best trailer they've done. Showing us that they will tell us the story of ROBIN HOOD beginning as a child, the ethics that his father reenforced in him and lastly... badass old school action. I have no fear that this will supplant my love for Michael Curtiz's perfect ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD - but it does look like a damn fine alternative take. I'm interested. How about you? I still want Wes Anderson to do ROBIN HOOD - using the puppets from FANTASTIC MR FOX - to create a 3D Stop Motion Animated ROBIN HOOD based on their animated version. But that's probably just me. Click here to see this new ROBIN HOOD trailer
Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus-
+ Expand All
-
Just an FYI.
-
that is, I get a quicktime with a question mark..and I know I am up to date
-
What gives?
-
I still feel like Ridley's done. I can't remember the last movie of his that blew me away; he seems a textbook case of someone who lost the passion. His movies aren't terrible, they're just... there. Russell Crowe's slightly chubby, satisfied demeanor perfectly encapsulates Ridley's attitude, to me.
-
rights.
-
What's with the echoing voices? More distracting than anything. Or was that a glitch?
-
Epic of Gilgamesh movie? Or something other than Robin Hood or King Arthur?
-
All the previous material really had me uninterested (is that a word?) This is a step in the right direction, but it's still not getting me too excited. Errol Flynn rules. Even Kevin Costner's version had a lot of fun moments. This still looks glum to me - but at least now, some of the establishing shots of castles, etc; make it look like it has some scope. Something that all the previous clips and posters were lacking. I just don't see anything new here, worth putting onto such an incredible icon.
-
I just rewatched Tron.
-
and what's with the cock-rock music?
-
I can already feel myself being grossed out on multiple levels by the big shiny movie. Ahm such a h8r.
-
its true
-
I thought this was an R movie, like all of Ridley Scott's movies. That right there kills any enthusiasm for this project. I mean Kingdom of Heaven was R for crying out loud, why isn't this. PG-13 medieval war movies don't work at all, the combat ends up being all shaky-cam and blurry, without any impact. This is going to be King Arthur all over again.
-
I've been saying they need to make an Epic of Gilgamesh movie since we went over it in high-school. Someday, perhaps, someday.
-
Thought the other trailers were ok but the final minute of that trailer has my ass in the seat!
-
Ridley Scott has churned out a number of turds over the years, but when he sets his mind on something he usually gets it right. I'm more psyched for the Alien prequel (it will feature alien induced ASS RAPE - holy fuck!) but RH will rawk pretty well.
-
someone with some fuckin balls needs to do something new and interesting in a medieval setting.
-
That looks fucking BORING. Christ, we've seen this all before! Utterly predictable and a waste of talent. What happened to the Ridley Scott that gave us Alien, Blade Runner and yes... even Legend because the art direction and Tim Curry alone are 10,000X cooler than anything Robin Hood has to offer.
-
Sounds like Crowe's been working on his British accent, too.
-
Best Robin Hood ever
-
The guy who gave us the Boggy Creek movies and Town that Dreaded Sundown died march 5. Will be missed and his fascination with the creepy goings on in the dark dogwoods that we all wonder about.
-
I want to be known as that from now on thank you! VM// O_o HHH
-
If, you know, you actually want to watch it.
-
I'm not interested.
-
Wait, so the old guy in the movie (there never was a boggy creek part 1) died? Damn...
-
But this trailer/ film does not excite me at all. I hope it's good.
-
Was part 1 the 1972 one? He was the guy with investigator with the hate in part 2 that featured the bigfoot radar or was that 3 because there was another one before it.
-
is it from the mst3k episode prince of space?
-
with the *hat
-
I love Gladiator so this one is a no brainer for me. I really have no desire to see another Robin Hood movie, but I am definitely seeing this one! Looks great!
-
You need a "no brain-er" to see this movie. Ha! You see what I did there? Ha!...oh, I'm so lonely.
-
fail
-
Looks cool, but untold story? Give me a fucking break. Is that what the marketing people came up with?
-
To Quote Worf "I am not a merry man!" But seriously, where's the merry? Seems so serious.
-
At around 2 minutes and 16 seconds into the trailer there seems to be a shot from Saving Private Ryan and they added in some CGI oars to the landing craft.... of is that just me?
-
It's just played out now.
-
It felt like I was just getting hit over the head with 'epic'. Everything was turned up to 11. Which doesn't seem like Robin Hood to me; it seems more like Robin Hood is just an excuse for them to make a crazily huge war film.<p>It also looks like, predictably, the villains have been amped up into absurdly sadistic cartoons. The 80s ITV series got it right in that regard--the Sheriff was cruel only out of insecurity, and was often 'scared straight' by working with worse allies; Guy of Gisborne was a thug with human failings who could be thwarted.<p>These bad guys look like they're purposely made so gleefully sadistic that the audience will feel no moral qualms about the painfully tired, stale, outrageous revenge-kills at the end (which will include Marian getting her shot in, just you watch).<p>But it's Robin Hood, not Conan the Barbarian. This looks like Gladiator + Braveheart, a tired retread draped, ill-fittingly, over an icon with an altogether different character. And drained of all joy.<p>I hope it's not any of those things, but this trailer sure makes it look that way.
-
Stunningly, darkly beautiful aspects to that film. Curry's devil was so incredibly well realized. Still one of the most striking characters to ever appear on screen. It may have been a flawed film, but it aspired to crazy heights. I'll take that over tired formula and market-tested staleness any day.
-
So while they're the same shape and apparent function as the WWII ones, it's not a scene from another movie. No idea if it's at all historically accurate to have 'em in there.
-
Private Ryan. For a second I was waiting for executive produced by Tom Hanks credits to roll by. LOL! I think it was based on Leonado Davinci sketches...yeah right!
-
98G3SV8CgE
-
It's just unfortunate that the story's been around so long that it's sort of the template for lots of other movies which have pretty much ripped it off. You can't really tell a Robin Hood story without the basic aspects of injustice vs. liberty. <p> What I do find interesting, is that he seems to be referencing real life with it. English history is full of people who challenged the system to varying degrees of success. I've been studying the American Revolution lately & to Americans, it's often seen as a very American way of thinking, but reading about it, most of the guys who spearheaded that were inspired by old English writers & theologians, some of whom lived around the same time that this tale originated. The same things happen over & over again. Or is that the Cylons? Not sure.<p> On the one hand, this has lasted so long, because it's a story that appeals to people's basic sense of liberty. But it's also so popular that we know it inside out. <p> I guess we can really only judge it on how cool the head chopping is.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He3re43P2zo
-
I should have added that I like boobies & beer. & Harry's a fishmonger.
-
Oodelally!
-
March 10, 2010, 10:52 p.m. CST
Other than the landing craft, interesting trailer....
by theycallmemrtibbs
I don't think I've ever seen a Robin Hood movie where it's not entirely in Sherwood Forest. The beach shots and Robin leading an army into a full scale battle could be entertaining on a Gladiator opening scene level. The PG-13 rating unfortunately could spell out one thing, shaky cam induced vomiting.
-
Now why won't someone give us a full blown, fantasy, sword and sorcery version of Robin Hood, set in an alternate history Sherwood/Barnesdale.
-
I'll rent it. But the dialogue still sounds cheesy.
-
. . . is a story of Robin Hood where Robin is the VILLAIN and the sheriff and Sir Guy are the heroes. In true medieval times, if Ridley truly wanted to be historically accurate, outlaws were cutthroats and murderers and peasants feared to be near them. Sure, many people (just like today) are innocent but fight the law anyway, but let's just do something new and see it from the sheriff's side for once.
-
In this new trailer, I like the castles and ships, but all it made me think of was the old "Defender of the Crown" Cinemaware game. I say, instead of more Hood and Arthur movies, let's have a "Defender of the Crown" movie, or rather, a new telling of "Ivanhoe", or Charlamane, or something medieval without it being the same-ol' same-ol'.
-
""The Sheriff of Nottingham," by Richard Kluger. Amazon link: http://tinyurl.com/yzvhc5f
-
Robin as a Saxon landowner, or king's yeoman who gets the gig as the Reeve, and becomes disenchanted with the onerous role of taxing the poor locals and punishing them for poaching, so he uses his insider knowledge to rob his own caravans and make sorties against the king's forces eventually turning his little corner of the world (Barnsdale/Nottingham/Sherwood) into a rogue state.
-
I love Russell Crowe. I do. If he were before me I would presently fellate him with enthusiasm. But everything I see from this film inspires in my a big ol fart of indifference.<p>I mean, they're not even <i>blue.
-
it just seems like the russel crow version of bravehear. I didn't see any plotline or special to the contrary.
-
the flick needs a hotter Maid Marian!
-
What gives?. Clicked on link and got prompted for a username and password.
-
oh yes. Don't let me down Ridley
-
Crowe gets his license to punch and throw phones at hotel staff back<p> thug
-
Copy and Paste http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=64080
-
Looking forward to this.
-
...oh, wait! No they wouldn't! BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
-
Cate Blanchett's in her 40s isn't she? Any woman that old and still a virgin back in the days when girls were wed in their teens doesn't HAVE to carry a dagger to bed with them. Obviously, no man wanted her in the first place.<p>This film looks BAD. And not 90s, cool "bad." Traditional, just plain bad.
-
So don't get your hopes up too high.
-
Looks like a lower budget Gladiator which actually might be a good thing. I would probably put Gladiator on my top 10-20 list. I bet the clerk deserved to get his head bashed in with a phone.
-
I knew you wouldn't let me down Mr. Scott. Come on guys, it's Ridley making the shit he loves and is good at. I'm looking forward to this. Fuck Costner!
-
UNTOLD??? REALLY!!!
-
... head over to filmtwats.com - it's embedded over there. Enjoy!
-
It's the other way round. <o> One of the reasons people complain about Braveheart is how historically inaccurate it is. If anything, the Braveheart people took a guy who was really just a thieving, murderous thug & made a Robin Hood movie.<p>
-
Every time I watch trailers for this, it's the only thing going through my head.
-
That was actually the rumored plot outline for the movie before they went into production. The main character was going to be the Sheriff of Nottingham, the story was going to be told from his perspective and the movie was going to be named "Nottingham", not "Robin Hood". Or maybe that actually was the plot and they rewrote the script. Either way, it would've been way more interesting than seeing the same old rise of Robin Hood story.
-
Singin' songs, makin' friends, 'n fightin' 'round the world!
-
Fuck, Sir Ridley has really perfected his craft. This man just keeps pumping out these ridiculously epic films. MONOPOLY's gonna be fuckin nuts...
-
And post a link here! Plz Plz!
-
Ahh this is bad news considering Gladiator had balls to be a 15. This has me concerned.
-
Because, like, a movie directed by Ridley Scott isn't interesting enough in itself?
-
An Epic Of Gilgamesh movie would be sweet. The problem, however, would be that most filmmakers today would make a Scorpion King-like movie out of it, which is a far worst fate then no movie at all. Besides, there's the whole religious aspect to the epic that wouldn't be anavoidable, namely, the fact many of the stories of the bible, specially the Flood, are taken directly from this sumerian myth. The retard neo-con fundie asses from the midwest would burn the theaters just for the mere notion that their beloved fabvorite bronze age myth book they call the Christian Bible took stuff from older pagan texts.
-
its just rambling otherwise.
-
That long cut of Kingdom was so good. (The short cut, genuinely rubbish.) If ROBIN HOOD hits those heights, it would be great. After all, Russell Crowe is 100 times better than Orlando Bloom. But, one question: When are you going to do another Master & Commander, Mr Crowe? Pretty please?
-
Vote what fucking shit movie review I will write this weekend now
-
What needs to be done for a medieval movie genre is to do it historically accurate, which hollywood so far hasn't done. They sometimes (SOMETIMES!!) get the production design correct, but most of the time they fuck up the era, they mix centuries with gay abandon, just because it looks "nicer". But worst, hollywood rarely, if ever, portaits accuratly how a person in medieval times would act, think and behave. Little wonder, as for today standards, all those medieval people would look like blood-seeking murderers and psychopathic brutes. But that's no excuse for not trying, as we can see form the example of the series ROME, you can portait ancient people accurate to the way they acted back then and still create audience friendly enthralling characters. But Holywood is just too coward and unimaginative to actually produce an accurate medieval movie.<br><br>Besides, Hollywood can't understand proper medieval times. for instance, all that bullshit of the importance of a damsel's honour, aka, virginity, that's victorian bulshit, not medieval. In the middle ages, if one would come up with the notion that woman had no sexual desires, they would think you were mad. Also, and contrary to popular belief, medieval people were far more skeptical of such stuff as witchcraft then most think. in fact, superstition grew AFTER THE MIDDLE ages, at the time when protestanism ad catholicism was fighting for supremacy in Europe after the 16th century. Sexual mores were far more lax in the middle ages as well. Puritanism only came afterwars, again a result of the fight between catholicism vs protestanism.<br><br>Also, and going against a common misconception, people in the middle ages knew for certain that the Earth was round. Even in Europe.
-
Just a mixtape of Ridley's old hits in a shittier package.
-
A movie about castle raiding/sieging between Saxons and Normans with Robin as a cool side character could be quite interesting.
-
March 11, 2010, 5:53 a.m. CST
At the same time, many modern ideas in the middle ages would be
by AsimovLives
Too many movies made today, and set in middle ages, are about one hero who screams to the plebs for freedom and personal freedom and democracy and such stuff. And this ideas would had been completly alien to them. Even for a man of the people, to tell them of a system of government whose power come from the people, they would think you would be raving mad. The concept of social system, of class system, was so ingratiated as to be taken for sure, and anything else would be mandness at best, devilish for sure. Everybody believed the noblemen were their best, and the only reason the peasants and the people would go against a lord would be if he failed as a governor, and to be replaced by another, better govenor, nobleman. So, everytime i see a Hollywood movie or TV show whwre the hero rallies th epeople for a freedom and democracy, i want to throw shit at the screen. It's a total "give me a fucking break" thing.<br><br>Another thing, the concept of personal freedom didn't existed. To be free meant you wer enot a serf, but that didn't meant you were free from obligations to an overlord. The medieval life was a sucession of people being under the authority of another, and it didn't evne stoped at the king, because he could be a vassal to another, more powerful king. and all king were under the authority of God. In fact, during the midle ages, the church tried to boss over the kings on account of that occnept, while kings believe they were under the authority of only of god directly. Others decided to kiss the ass of the Church, just in case. But freedom as we think of it today was a totaly alien concept. Futhermore, freedom itself was for such things as a country. People would think themselves free if their were not under the govern of a foreign power. Like, say, the scotish wanted to be free from english overlordship. that for a medieval mind was to be free, to be a scotsih governed by a scotish king, and not an english one. The scotish king might even be harsher and more tyranical then the english, but still a scotsih would think himself a more of a free man then under a more benevolent english king.
-
God, i loved that movie back in the day! Couldn't get enough of it.
-
That movie almost happened, and under ridley Scott's aegis too. in fact, one of the earlier incarnations of Scott's ROBIN HOOD was called NOTHINGHAM, and would be a Robin Hood tale told from the point of view of the Sherriff.<br><br>And you are right about medieval outlaws, they were the equivalent of today's gangs and mafia gangs. And interestingly, all of them worked for some nobleman lord. The trade-off was, the nobleman would offer them protection in their castle if the gang were chased by the law, which could not touch a nobleman and his guests. The outlaws, in exchange, would give the nobleman half or most of their loot. And an outlaw only needed to miss being caught and brough to trial 3 times to get all the accusations dropped. After that, he would be a law abiding citizen again, and no harm could be done to him without proper judicial procedure. An outlaw, if he had been profitable enough for the lord he worked for, he could even be sponsored by that lord for a nobiliatic title himself, and die a lord.
-
It was a computer game! And i loved it! Darn hard to play, if the other saxon lords decided to wage war agaisnt you. As if the normans weren't dificult enough.
-
That game is just pure awesomeness. Though is has some strange anacronisms, like they made my country Portugal exist almost 100 years before. Though it's cool to play with it, or couse. But one needs to unlock it by first completly defeat it. Which means i have to play with the "Spain" (technically, the Castille Kingdom) to do so.
-
March 11, 2010, 6:38 a.m. CST
If Hollywood can't get modern-day life right in movies...?
by Gislef_crow
...why expect them to accurately portray medieval life?
-
You're the first person I've met who doesn't believe the "They thought the world was flat" bullshit.<p> People knew the world was round at least as far back as the Iron Age. Possibly even the Stone Age. I may be wrong, but I believe it was Columbus' biographer who made up the courtroom argument to make the story more interesting. <p> He was actually looking for what we now know as Japan, which he'd been told was paved with gold. He was a lucky fuck up basically. But I guess a man on a mission makes for a better hero tale than that of a greedy imperialist.
-
There'd be a nigger waiting in a bowl of rice ready to bring up the super-duper-extended director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven. Give it a rest, people, we have to read about it EVERY FUCKING TIME . . .
-
Too old I say. And i didn't even watch the trailer. This is my JJ Abrams. They're too old!!
-
& those peasants need a tan.
-
The Earth was first proved to be round by the ancient greeks, namely by Eratosthenes in 240 BC, who through trignometry calculus calculated the circunference of the Earth with only an error of about 5%. But the notion of the Earth being round had already been accepted by the greeks 3 houndred years before already. One of the first clues to the sphericity of the Earth is it's shadow on the Moon during eclipses. In fact, if any persisting idea of Earth not being round but flat still was used in the midieval times, it would be from biblical literacists, as the Bible imported the flat Earth concept from ancient sumeria. But no monk or clericmen would believe a flat earth, they were too learned to know the truth, they knew the Earth was round.<br><br>All that bullshit about Columbus coming up with the idea that Earth was round and the church authorities claiming it was flat is based on a "historical" book writen in the 19th century, which was very popular at the time, took sway of the public imagination, and people took it as fact. Bullshit. In fact, the one who was wrong was Columbus. Columbus believed, blindly, in the calculus of a medieval geographer who miscalculated the Earth's circunference and claime dit was half it's real size. The spanish authorities that reviewed Columbus's case they knew for certain how really large the Earth was, and they knew that Columbus would had everybody killed if he took the trip. They know how wrong Columbus was. The reason columbus survived his trip was because of this incredible geographical accident called THE AMERICAS. Had not the american continent being there, Columbus would had failed and die.<br><br>By the way, you know why the continent is called America and not Columbia? Because columbus went to his grave convinced he had reached Asia. Itr was the italian geographer Americo Vespucio who realised, and proved without a doubt, that columbus had reached a completly different continent, then unknown to the europeans. that's why the continent was named after him, because he was actually it's real discovered, he was the first to understand what it really was. Besides, it was only centuries later that it was associated the Americas to the land the vikings had reached went they sailed west of Greenland in the 9th century.
-
The fake "world is flat" thing & the naming of America etc. But not in quite so much detail. Cheers.
-
You're welcome.
-
Why has no one ever suggested making a movie of Cuchalain? Now THAT's a legend tight enough to be filmed and brutal enough to make a gritty, battle-based epic without revisiting Robin Hood or King Arthur or any of the reboot contenders yet again!
-
Here's a link that works: http://robin-hood-movie-trailer.blogspot.com/
-
March 11, 2010, 9:32 a.m. CST
The best robin hood ever to appear on screen. Sorry Ridley....
by brassai2003
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av NSz8MxlGo
-
Because I don't see how anything new is going to be brought to this story in a pg-13 format. Although I support Cate Blanchett for everything.
-
You know what pisses me off about many Hollywood historical movies? It's that the art department bust their asses making this big sets and lots of clothing, soemtimes they even bother with accurate historical detail, but they always fuck up in the more important thing, to accurately depict the times.<br><br>Kingdom Of Heaven, for instances, has quite some anacronisms, specially in the chracter's attitudes, but they were very good in a form of transposing some modern sensebilities to depict the different christian factions of the time. For example, from today's standards, it wouldbe every hard for us to see the difference bewteen a rabid anti-muslin christian and a tolerant one. for our eyes, the differences would be subtle to the point of almost invisible. Thus, the movie needed to inject some modern day sensebilities to the tolerant characters of the story. however, it would had been a challange for the filmmakers to depict that historically accurate, but they would need lots and lots of screentime to acustom the "average" non-historical literate audience that a movie can't afford, only a TV show like ROME.
-
Specially a naked Cate Blanchett.
-
Ugh. You are a weird little fucker Asi. I don't get Cate appeal as an actress either. I guess if you can't get Tilda or Partricia you settle for Bland.
-
anytime i go to see a trailer on one of yer reviews or announcements, the link never works. such is the case here.
-
Are you kidding? Cate Blanchett is not pretty enough for you? Get out of here!!
-
... now i have mixed feelings. No, really, now i have mixed feelings. I can't shake this feel of disapointment, really. I hope to be proved wrong, i really do.
-
..like in D-Day in Robin Hood's time? Because I saw some in this trailer.
-
No, there was no landing crafts back in the day. This is a ridley Scott movie, which means i'm genetically predisposed to at least be sympathetic to it, but i have to say, those landing craft is just bullshit. Why, Ridley, why?? Why have you forsaken me? Really, i felt retard just by watching that stuff!! If you need to know, back then people landed from boats either from smaller row boats, like lifeboats, or, and this is what mostly happened, the vast majority of the ships bakc then were very small, and they just run them ashore, like the viking drakkars, and people just jumped directly from the ship to the beach. What the movie depict,s i'm affraid, i just pure bullshit.<br><br>Fuck's sake, has Ridley Scott made another White Squall/GI Jane? Oh, the pain!
-
March 11, 2010, 1:18 p.m. CST
And really, what kind of an idiot would invade england...
by AsimovLives
... by landing at the cliffs of Dover? They are quite a set of natural fortress walls. That's why when William the Conqueror invaded England, he landed on Pevensey in Sussex. Give me a break, man!
-
... people invading england, then why ddin't he do a biopic of William The Conqueror? Lot's of drama, and ass kickery in that story. He could even portait William as a bad guy, even though it was he who really created modern england with his invasion of normans. He could had make it all the tragedy of Harold Godwinson, a man who, if it had not been for William's invasion, would had gone down in history not only as a great governant, but a brillanty military leader. He was also the richest man in England too.
-
Just asking. Because going by just the talkbacks on AICN, the vast vast majority of people on this site hate movies, so I ask myself, if you hate movies so much, why are you spending your time on a 'movie' site.<p> As for me, I like stories all kinds of stories in all types of media format:books, movies, TV, video games. So, having said that I'm looking forward to Ridley Scott's Robin Hood story because I like Ridley Scott, I like Russell Crowe, and I like Robin Hood and I like stories, so it's all upside for me. I'm there on opening day.
-
...ALIEN and BLADE RUNNER.
-
That was lame. For you, to like movies is to like anything made, without any capacity for critical judgement? I just should shut up and eat it all up? Do you watch movies for free or something? It doesn't cost you to pay a ticket for a movie? Really, what the hell, dude?
-
That's two more then the vast majority of filmamkers can ever claim.
-
Fuck this movie. Ridley stop it with the sword and sandal epics for god's sake, do some sci-fi, change it up a little man, you're devolving as a filmmaker into hackdom.
-
Now call it "Robin IN DA Hood", and I think we might have a movie worth watching. These historical epics have become as mundane and predictable in their own way as Romcoms have. origin story, cool badass scene, meet the chick, she takes a while to warm up, get into trouble, gear up for battle scene, big "henry V" speech, bigass battle scene. <br><br><br> MEH.
-
Out of all the movies made in a year, maybe a couple are truly original, maybe even less. We don't hate movies, we like movies circa the 1970s...back when cinema was being pushed and treated like the art form it is. Today it's all studio market driven crap. The majority of movies made now are either comic book adapts, sequels, video game adapts, prequels, vulgar, gross-out comedies, TV show adapts, or remakes of far superior foreign and/or movies from the past (and they're remade into shit). It's hard to take a serious look at movies today and not become utterly miserably depressed and bitchy. Personally I don't blame anyone on this talkback because they're right. How many god damn Robin Hood movies do we really need? I'd understand if the last Robin Hood was from the black and white era, but we had a very good Kostner version. I know there have been leaps in bounds in the CGI arts since then, but do we really need to see a few extra CGI boats to make this a worthy flick? We're pissed because there are literally thousands of unproduced, very good scripts sitting in studio vaults that are original and would make fantastic movies directed by Scott, Fincher, Spielberg, Jackson, whatever...yet we keep seeing the same fucking shit over and over and over and over again; with newer stars and updated visual FX. That's the only reason these movies are greenlit...they are safe bets for the studios because of name recognition and the latest magazine cover stars. The most interesting cinema is being done overseas, yet everything they make a great movie, instead of giving it a wide release here in the states, Hollywood remakes the god damn thing. For fucks sake did Scorsese really need to make The Deprated? That was a remake of the excellent (and superior) Infernal Affairs. Do Spielberg and Jackson really need to make Tin Tin?...Jackson hasn't touched an original property since 1996!!! Filmmakers out here don't take chances anymore. What happened to the Spielberg that made Close Encounters, one of the riskiest movies ever made. That movie doesn't haven an antagonist for god sake! District 9, Inglorious Basterds and There Will Be Blood are what I'm talking about. Those movies were pushing cinema. But those movies are too few and far between.
-
You are my new best friend.
-
So what? If your last great movie was released in 1982, and you churn out overrated, mediocre shit for the next three decades, odds are you aren't the genius everybody wants you to be. GLADIATOR was his last chance with me (after years of horseshit like BLACK RAIN, GI JANE, and WHITE SQUALL) and even that is a bloated, boring, plastic "epic" saved solely by Crowe's performance. And what has he given us since then? HANNIBAL, MATCHSTICK MEN, A GOOD YEAR, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, AMERICAN GANGSTER, and BODY OF LIES. BLACKHAWK DOWN was okay, but not particularly memorable. This guy strikes out far more than he's ever hit, and I can't see why people still get excited whenever he puts out something new.
-
...does NOT hold up well. I watched it again recently, and it's embarrassing how thin and cartoonish the characters and situations are.
-
to just go to the Yahoo movies website? I can imagine you retards endlessly clicking the link like fucking chimps rather than type the address into your browser. Great trailer!
-
this mutha fudgin site!!!
-
Exactly. Scott is a very good director (mostly a glorified cinematographer/production designer), but he sucks at picking material. Besides Alien and Blade Runner, Hannibal is the only other movie I like. I loathed Gladiator with a passion. Scott should have stuck with directing commercials after Blade Runner...his cinematic drivel is just pretentious garbage...he's like the gentlemen's MTV director. At least his brother doesn't pretend to be all artsy-fartsy.
-
Does ANYONE at this site give a shit anymore?
-
The so what thing is that the vast majority of filmmakers can't even claim one single movie to be called great, be they made last year or 30 years ago. ridley Scott, evne if his list of great movies would only count for two, still has reasons enough to be proud of his career, at least two to be proud of. More then most can say. It counts.
-
It's because Tony Scott doesn't even atempted to any level of artistry (after THE HUNGER) that is why he's such a bad filmamker. And now that he's old and is trying to be artsy, as seen form his deranced editing and cinematographic choises for movies such as MAN ON FIRE and DOMINO, he just fucks it up. Because he has no knowledge in how to do it. As for Scott, i still take any failure form him then most other's sucess. and i hate White Squall and GI Jane, but i understand what he tried to do. Filmmakers like Ridley Scott, when they fail, they fail interestingly. And i rather have an interesting failure form a good filmmaker then a "sucess" from an hack like his brother Tony. Filmmakers SHOULD TRY to have some artistry to their movies. That's what seperate the talented ones from the hacks, the way i see it. That atempt by filmmakers at making entertaiment with artistic value is what made the 70s such a glorious decade for Holywood, it's best yet. I see little of that now, specially in holylwood mainstream filmmaking, with the possible exceptions of such rare fellows like Michael Mann and Christopher Nolan.
-
I'm an history geek, if that counts.
-
Sorry, pressed 'Enter' and it went off in my hand, officer. Seriously, did they get THIS far before anyone noticed the landing craft looked a bit out of place? And I've read that they ARE the very ones from Private Ryan, covered in plywood. Given the average age of the cast, it should be the story of Robin Hood's last days, not his 'origin'. With luck, someone close to Ridley Scott will tell him, as a friend and someone who doesn't want people to laugh at him, to take out the D-Day Landing craft. Then they'll explain that Crowe plays the first of a few men who assumed the Robin Hood name. Given the average life expectancy back then, he's got *maybe 10* years to reach folklore legend status, and he'll be creaking through the last half of that.
-
This means that i have an harder time enjoying so-called historical movies when they fuck up everything that they are supposed to portait. This my both interests in movies and history makes me hate movies like TROY and KING ARTHUR, two travestries of movies that can only be called historical by somebody with no conception whatsoever of the subjects they delt. This is also why i worship at the altar of HBO's ROME, because that series perfectly exemplfied how to make historical fiction right. Even if they comrpess or change true historical facts and events. But what they get right far surpasses what they didn't. and it's evne obvious what they didn't do right was because of a deliberate dramatic choice, and not crass ignorance or disrespect or desinterest, which was the case of those two aforementioned TROY and KING ARTHUR pieces of shit movies.<br><br>But when a movie or a Tv show gets it right, an historical movie/TV becames far much better and enthralling.<br><br>My conception of an historical movie is that they provide an window to a diferent time when things were different and people though and act differently then us today. An historical movie in conception is, literally, an escape from today's world, an oportunity to leave our world of today and immerse in another time. The past is as alien as any extra-terrestrial planet Science Fiction can provide. This is why i react badly when i see so-called historical movies which are clearly populated by today's dudes acting and talking like today's dudes. Not only it betrays the lack of talent the filmamkers had in cocneptualise and visualise the past, it also betrays the very cocnept and intentiojn of an historical movie, as a time travel experience to the past. I'd one thing to be topical and use events from the past to shed a light to current events, as THE MISSION and KINGDOM OF HEAVEN did. Ity's another to see a parade of modern day dudes talking and acting like today's dudes but dressed up with exotic skirts, like the aformentioend TROY, KING ARTHUR, and i'm affraid i have to add, BRAVEHEART. speaking of the later, the more time passe,s the less pacience and enjoyment i get from it. If i had to chose the true scotish historical kick ass epic of the mid 90s, that would be ROB ROY, who mannages the double feat of presenting an interesting adventure with being very accurate to the historical milieu of the time. That's how you do it.
-
Actually you did hit to an interesting point and that is, indeed Robin Hood was a generational thing, but not exactly as you think. You see, "Robin Hood" was a medieval term to describe an outlaw robber. The same way today people call "Johns" to a pimp, for example. In medieval english court acts, many criminals are named "Robin Hoode", which is short speak to describe an outlaw, specially a robber. Which gives rise to the notion that all those earlier ballads about Robin Hood might had not been about one specific guy, but about different people who later coallaced into one single figure, a romantic outlaw who lost all his sheen of criminal and became a protector. Hell, doesn't take long tomake people stop seeing a criminal as a criminala dn see them as a sort of protector/savior, you only have more recent examples such as Jesse James and John Dillinger, during their own lifetimes.
-
... yes, it's retard. Which is why, after watching the trailer, it gave me pause about this movie. I confess, some of my enthusiasm for it died right there. And i hate that, because it's Ridley Scott.
-
FUCKING PRICELESS! As Harry's mom lay trapped in flames, crying in agonizing pain as her flesh wilted and fell off--she had one thought to that helped ease her mind as she died…”At least Harry will have my insurance money to ensure a rich and fulfilling life”. HA HA…FAT FUCK GOES OUT AND BUYS A COMPUTER TO PLAY FUCKING DOOM!
-
Ridley has had way too many failures though, even if they're interesting...I can let stuff like Hook and Always slide when you deliver Schindler and Saving Private Ryan. Spielberg has had his ups and downs. But Scott just has one massive down... he had Alien and Blade Runner and this massive gap afterwards, with only Hannibal IMO being any good. At some point you gotta wonder whats up with that man. He seems to get so caught up in the details (he's a great detail man) that he loses sight of the whole picture.
-
I think I've got a bit of an advantage over the US crowd here and some other Brits. My part of Derbyshire's close enough to Nottingham for at least one school trip there. Add one rambling but interesting history teacher, and viola! Schoolboy Robin Hood fan. The TV show (Michael Praed & Jason Connery) used the idea to carry on the series after it should've wound up.
-
i gues si'm more of a fan of Ridley Scott then you. Because of his great movies in also count THE DUELISTS in it. And KINGDOM OF HEAVEN: Director's Cut is pretty close to a great movie as anybody made this days. I know that today it's kewl to dismiss or belittle GLADIATOR, but that movie really is good to great. i know many people think their manlihood will drop off if they claim any liking to THELMA & LOUISE, but that movie is really as good as it once hyped made it look like to be. LEGEND is terribly underrated... well, the director's cut is, the american cut is abominable! BLACK RAIN could had been better, but what's good in it is fantastic. I agree with you that HANNIBAL is underrated. BLACK HAWK DOWN is pretty sweet. AMERICAN GANGSTER is underrated. MATCHSTICK MEN is lots of fun. BODY OF LIES is also underrated, no masterpeic,e of cours,e but far better then most anti-Leo care to admit.<br><br>Movies that Scott made that i have no problem calling them bad are WHITE SQUALL and GI JANE. And even they have one or two moments of cinematic brillance that would surpass most director's better movies. As for A GOOD YEAR, i never cared to bother watch it, but then again, i didn't knew then that Marion Coutilard was in it, which now gave me a bit of curiosity to check it out. Because of her.
-
I watched the first two episodes of Robin Of Sherhood, and i can understand it's appeal. Certainly somebody with a bit of brain wrote the thing, that's evident. I bet back in the day it must had looked like nothing else made before about Robin Hood. And it has Ray Winstone kicking ass! What's not to like?
-
I don't find Gladiator any better than something like A Knight's Tale...at least that movie knows it's silly and just goes for it. But I can't stand the self important stuff Scott churns out. I think he's too in love with his own details to see the whole picture...his movies rarely work for me. Like I said, he's good, but he's one of the worst at picking projects and can't see the forest for the trees, no pun intended for this topic.
-
You may call it self-importanc,e i call it otherwise. I call it a serious atempt at making soemthing worthwhile. I appreciate the effort. It's then same spirit that made bLADE RUNNER and ALIEN the jewels they are. Without that sense of "self-importance", BLADE RUNNER and ALIEN would not be what they are, but just those discarted forgatable comic book movies which would had been today mere curiosities forthe most obsessed movie geeks, instead of the remembered and beloved classics they are.<br><br>That kind of "self-importance" spirit, which i call artistic dedication, is also what evelavated and made Christopher Nolan's Batman movies so good, or John Carpenter's THE THING as well.<br><br>Also, that sense of self-importance is why in the 70s filmmakers like William Friedkin, Francis Fod Coppola and Martin Scorsese made such movies as THE EXORCISTS, THE FRENCH CONNECTION, THE GODFATHER PART I and II, THE CONVERSATION, APOCALYPSE NOW, TAXIS DRIVER, MEAN STREETS, to name a few. It weas why Stanley Kubrick had a career filled with masterpieces. Me, i'm a fan of that "self-importance" style. It's what seperates the filmmakers who actually care about what they are doing from the hacks.
-
...and importance directed at the material...IMO anyway and falling in love with your own detailed choices. We just have different definitions of the same terms, not a problem. All those movies you mentioned are great, Scott's films are not of that caliber, besides Alien and Blade Runner.
-
http://tenthmedieval.wordpress.com/2010/02/14/knight-landing-ships/
-
but I think that Alien and Blade Runner are just so astronomically better than most of his other work. This isn't putting down his other work, it's saying, 'HOLY SHIT THOSE MOVIES ARE ABSOLUTE FUCKING MASTERPIECES.' But at least the guy continues to make films and he cares in his own way... I too think that American Gangster is way underrated. <p>And with regards to the argument about self-importance directed at the movie or at those little decisions that all add up, the two are hard to separate but I kind of see what Colt means. I do think that, from what I've seen, Scott revels so much in details of light and set design that he loses the bigger picture, like you said. I also think he enjoys being "Ridley Scott", the guy who can put together five huge productions at once and command them all like a general marshaling studio resources to create above the bar HOllywood fare. Nothing wrong with enjoying that role, but I think that's what you mean in that perhaps when he did The Duelists, Alien, and Blade Runner, he still bowed a little more at the alter to cinema rather than the one for his his own ego. I actually think that's a bigger problem among all the filmmakers who've come up in the last 20 years. Guys like Spielberg and Scorsese still seem to just get a kick out of the very idea that they're allowed to use all this money to tell their stories. Even Kubrick's wife said he never took that for granted and that he often said, "I'm still fooling them." Sorry, I just don't get that from guys like Fincher, David O. Russell, Alexander Payne, and even Wes Anderson to a certain extent, even though I love some of their films.
-
Asimov is right in that those directors (and I think Colt mentioned CET3K), yoked genre and an artistic (often realistic)hard hitting style. Godfather is a gangster movie. Exorcist is a horror film. Star Wars is sci-fi/fantasy. And don't tell me that Star Wars ruined everything, that first 40 minutes, pulled out of historical perspective and viewed objectively, is like The French Connection on another fucking planet. You're thrown into the middle of a bizarre fucking world with ZERO explanation. That was 70's filmmaking whether it made a gazillion dollars or not. <p>Getting back on track, this is ANOTHER problem I have with all the directors whining that they can't get movies made like that anymore. There are those who get it, like Nolan, injecting his artistry into a comic book movie, and those who don't but I still love their movies - Aronofsky being one of them. The 70's had a lot of movies that I love now but they didn't make money then either - Scarecrow and Straight Time to name but two. Even then, it was easy to market Dog Day Afternoon as a heist/bank robber movie but then you go see it and it has a lot more artistry to it than just being a typical bank robber movie, just like The Exorcist and horror. <p>Don't blame the studios, blame the directors who can't just shoehorn their art into a genre like everyone did in the 70's but few seem to remember it that way. Now the 80's... that's a different story altogether. I think they had artistry pretty much locked out of the system unless it was the old school kind that you can see on display in E.T., Back to the Future, and even something like Midnight Run.
-
I like everything you said, and you related what I meant about Scott wonderfully. I think it's the directors, because Spielberg, Scott, Scorsese, Fincher, they can make any movie they want and the best they can come up with is your average blockbuster? I don't get it. They're not interesting in pushing anymore, they're old, married, kids, lost the fire, etc...why can't they shoehorn their art into genre films? CE3K, Alien, Mean Streets...those were genre films that really pushed boundaries...today Scorsese just makes a standard gangster movie like The Departed. Today Spielberg makes a standard sci-fi movie like Minority Report (you could cite A.I.) but he did that out of obligation to Kubrick. Today Scott makes Gladiator? I just don't understand what the hell happened.
-
Just to follow on from your 'Is there a historian in the house thread', the answer is 'yes' - I'm a history graduate and I agree with a lot of what Asimov has said re: the historical inaccuracy if this and so many other films. Ignoring the fact that neither 'Troy' nor 'King Arthur' were based on historical fact but are rather film dramatisations of well known legends, I agree that these two films are great examples of just how wrong Hollywood can get it, but in different ways: 'Troy', for example, took history's original written epic poem - the first true dramatic narrative of the human race, no less, and one of the greatest stories of all time to boot - and changed it. They changed it!! Never mind the modern sensibilities, the awful direction and - save for Eric Bana - the cartoonish acting; they changed the story!! Unbelievable, and shows how little respect they have for sacrosanct subject matter (although they did keep an element of the homo-eroticism, which was amusingly criticised!!); 'King Arthur', on the other hand, was a travesty in that it billed itself as 'the true story' whilst being completely and utterly historically inaccurate! The Romans and Saxons did not overlap in Britain, they were two hundred years apart!! And why oh why would they open the gates to Hadrian's Wall to let them in for a battle!?! And don't get me started on the fact that the narrator - Lancelot - dies at the end of a film that he narrates in the past tense (last bit isn't a historical comment, it just annoys me!!). Anyway, long story short: Hollywood can suck at history. It CAN do it right (I agree on Rob Roy - excellent) and it can do it well (Braveheart - the story is not historically accurate by any means [despite the fact that it has since become gospel in Scotland!] but the period work is spot on and, let's face it, it's a great movie!! Same goes for 'Gladiator', in my opinion - flawed in many historical respects but I'd be a pedant to allow that to detract from it's place as a bloody entertaining movie), but generally we go to the cinema expecting shit if it's an epic such as this. Having said all of this, I do have to question a few of Asimov's historical assertions. Of which there have been A LOT in this talkback. Most have been right and, of the ones that MIGHT be wrong due to their being the subject of considerable academic debate rather than the hard and fast facts that he reports, there was nothing too glaring (although I did nearly write when William Wallace was referred to as a blood thirsty murderer or some such - may have been Asimov or may have been someone else, I'm not sure. Whoever it was is wrong, though!!). Until, that is, the assertion that 'Robin Hood' was a common name for outlaw in Norman Age England. No, it wasn't. Ever! It is and has always been the name of a particular legend and nothing more, regardless of what Wikipedia may say on the subject! 'Robin Hood' was not a job title and nor has this claim been made by ANY historian with even an ounce of credibility or the slightest evidence to back it up! Just thought I should say!
-
Great post, and always glad to see soembody who also cares about history posting in here. Helps seperate the geekasm bullshit from true interest on the subject.<br><br>My accertion that the term "robin hoode" was used as a nickname description of an aoutlaw, i didn't pulled that our of thin air. I saw that told in a english documentary presented by non else then Terry Jones. A few years ago he had a series called Terry Jones' Medieval Lives, and one episode was dedicated to the outlaw, where he debunked many accumptions (mostly created by movies) and enlighted on stuff unknown by most. One of the most interesting is when they hit on the topic of Robin Hood, and an official from the Sherrifate of Nothingham shows a court transcript from the 14th century i believe, and there's indication of the trial of a Robin Hoode, which then gets repeated in other trails from diferent ages. The offical then says that their conviction is tha thte term robin hoode was used back then as a short-hand to describe a specific type of outlaw, mostly highway robbers. Their conviction is that robin Hoode is not so much a name, but as a description of a type of individual who exerts a certainy type of outlaw activity.<br><br>In fac,t one of the conclusions ofthe show is that AT THE NORMAN TIME where most stories attributed to Robin Hood took plac,e there was no robin hood. The robin hood character and what it would represent, were stuff from later centuries, the 15th and 16th cenbtury, which were retconned to the 11th and 12th century. Well, that's what i took from the show, anyway.
-
They have been a great read, very interesting and entertaining. Well, if not nothing else, this movie as provoked some to share some interesting thoughs and facts about the medieval times. Kudos for that, pals. By the way, in case it interests anybody, i'm not some american who just watched some medieval movies and now think i have knowledge of those times. I'm a continental european. More specifically, i'm portuguese. Of interest about the englishmen is that my country Portugal and england have the oldest still standing alliance in history. Also, as an european, and i'm sure all other europeans in here will agree with me (and that includes our british counsins), the medieval era is not some abstract notion for us, it's not something we see in some disneyfied theme park. It's real. For us, the Middle Ages was and still feels real. It's real. We can get direct physical evidence from those times, be it a castle, a church, ruins. Myself, all i need is a five minutes walk to the higher stop of my own hometown and look in the direction of Lisboa beyond the river and i get to see the medieval walls that once protected that city. A 20 minutes drive by car and i can visit a medieval castle in Palmela. It's as easy. The middle ages are things we can see and know directly with our own senses. And i suspect this is why mos tof the time americna filmmakers fail at making a convincing medieval movie, while european ones are far more adept (even when working with an Hollywood crew), generally speaking. I only need to offe rthe examples of two movies, FIRST KNIGHT directed by the american Jerry Zucker and EXCALIBUR directed by the irishman John Boorman. and notice that while the later, evne though it tells a story with fantastical and magic elements, still has a strong sens eof reality to it, a believalbe world, while the former looks, at best, like a Disney theme part that was open yesterday with fake sets and actors not even bothering to pretent they are playing medieval characters. This two examples are very illustrative of this.
-
March 12, 2010, 6:32 a.m. CST
Wow! An R-Rated Robin Hood movie in the vein of Gladiator!!!
by DeNiro4Prez
Yeah, I thought it was too good to be true as well. Fucking Hollywood! Please take note, Mr. Stallone.
-
... well, yes, it seems they existed as far back the 10th century, and it was the byzantines that invented them. howeve,r let me say that in that article that our nice talkbacker linked, they refer to crafts created by nations whose seafaring operates in the Mediterranean. And the Mediterranean is a far calmer body of water then the English Channel, whihc is notorious for being anything but. Yeah, those medieval landing crafts existed, but they operated on far less rougher seas then the one shown in ROBIN HOOD's trailer. Those medieval landing crafts operating in the North Sea and the English Channel, they would be broken to pieces and sunk in an heartbeat.
-
Yep, you're right about the landing crafts - best they could do were ships and boats, not the 'amphibious assault vehicles' that the craft in the trailer resemble. And you're also right about the fact that what craft they DID have wouldn't work in the channel - there is a very good reason that England has been so lightly invaded in it's two thousand year history; it's just so hard to land any men here!! On the subject of outlaws being referred to as Robin Hood, it's accurate that there are chronicals and court logs from the Middle Ages in which this was said, but when you read them they are all using the name as a description based on the exisiting legend, e.g. "this 'Robin Hood' targetted travellers for two years' etc - basically the legend was in place and later applied to people who aped rye character. Much like calling a skilful lightweight boxer a 'pint sized Muhammed Ali', I guess! So whilst the references DO exist, they actually came about because of the legend rather than perhaps being the reason behind it. Terry Jones' show was excellent though, incidentally!!!
-
It is just you.
-
You may be right. It's like calling a very competent soldier a "Rambo". I understand your point, and you might be very right. Good job.
-
... well, you just have to realise you are talking from somebody who came form a country with a long sailing tradition, and thus perkemy my interest in all things naval. As i understand, those medieval landing crafts which had frontal opening were all row galley-type ships. And as you very well pointed out, there's a very good reason why Galley endured in the Mediterraneum AND The Baltic Sea until late middle ages, but where completly absent in Nortern Europe shipping, including the English Channel: Those are enclosed seas, where they are normally placid, where storms are of a more rare occurence. In the northern Sea and the english Channel, storms are almost a monthly occurence. The average seas condition in those bobies of water are quite rought. Galleys are competly wrong for that type of seafaring. This is why Viking Longships like the Drekars were the perfect ships to sail there, perfeclty able to deal with the constant tall waves. Those ships were the basis for all futher design of north europe medieval ships. And none of those designs would allow for a front open landing craft.<br><br>I know it looks liek i'm bitching a lot about a "minor" detail, but let's be frank here, this is ridley Scott wer are talking about, a director infamous for the attention for detail. This type of "screw it" attitude is so strange and suprising from Soctt as the be troubling. I just hope that is not a foreshadow of things to come.
-
...THIS SITE SUCKS !!!
-
but the channel was bitchslapping his ships around the entire operation.
Top Talkbacks
- Spoilery early review of MAN OF STEEL!! -- 199 total posts 167 posts
- Holy Crossover!! Magneto’s Boy Quicksilver To Speed About In Whedon’s AVENGERS 2 And Singer’s X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST?? -- 282 total posts 70 posts
- A review of Refn and Gosling's ONLY GOD FORGIVES, direct from Cannes!! -- 72 total posts 53 posts
- Ron Howard's latest trailer sure is a RUSH!!! -- 53 total posts 24 posts
- Green-Band and Red-Band trailers for the new Jason Sudeikis & Jennifer Aniston VACATION ripoff, WE'RE THE MILLERS are here!! -- 116 total posts 24 posts
- Papa Vinyard thinks that HANGOVER: PART III was a paycheck grab for a buncha people who are already rich!! -- 198 total posts 23 posts
- Harry dives into STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS' spoilers to reveal the truth behind the blockbuster we're seeing! -- 1428 total posts 21 posts
- Jon Stewart casts Gael Garcia Bernal for his directorial debut, ROSEWATER!! -- 22 total posts 20 posts
- That rumor about Sony selling SPIDER-MAN? Don't you believe it for a second! -- 445 total posts 17 posts
- The METALLICA THROUGH THE NEVER Teaser! -- 201 total posts 16 posts