Capone calls ROBIN HOOD not all that bad…and not all that great!
Hey everyone. Capone in Chicago here.
I'm kind of over people (critics and others) who see the film world in black and white terms (unless, you know, they're talking about a B&W movie). There are so few films that come out in a given year that are so without merit that they warrant the label "suck." All of the digital ink that has been wasted on people trying to explain how terrible Iron Man 2 is or Top 5-10 lists of how it could have been better--give me a fucking break. I'm not saying it's a classic effort, but is it really so terrible that it deserves this much attention? Of course not. But here's the big secret: negativity in the extreme translates into readership.
I have literally looked someone in the face who told me they were so-so on a film then turn around a give that same film a scathing review. Why would they do that? Simple. Because being luke warm on a film doesn't grab anyone's attention. Recommending someone "Rent It" is boring. And that's a shame because most of the films I see in a given year fall into that middling zone. And while I've certainly been known to thrash on a shitty film from time to time, I try to save my venom for films that actually deserve it and not for ones that simply missed the mark. And it's these so-so works that deserve the most attention because inevitably there are some very good components to such films along side whatever shortcomings they may have, and to be fair and balanced, one should talk about the good and the bad of every film.
Does everyone's opinion have to agree with mine? Of course not. It is possible for someone to truly hate a film that most people like? Without a doubt. I'm also not here to defend or talk about Iron Man 2 today; I'm simply saying that if you see a startlingly negative headline over a film review, nine times out of 10, that's about as strong as the negative opinion gets. Pick your battles, people. Otherwise, you just look like cynical douches, and we all know that Conan O'Brien hates cynics.
Case in point, I've heard a few people railing on Ridley Scott's Robin Hood. While this is a talky, slightly overlong work that might only truly appeal to those who care about English history and British law of olden times, it still features massive battles helmed by the single-greatest large-scale action director living today. No one can hold a candle to Scott when it comes to staging warfare, and Robin Hood is proof of that--maybe not the best proof, but there you go. And with the exception of Russell Crowe, who plays the title character in a timeframe prior to the more familiar adventures that have been portrayed in films countless times, all of the performances are particularly strong and interesting. Due to his age and his apparent contempt for the material, Crowe is simply the wrong choice to play Robin Longstride, a returning Crusader under King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston), who comes back to England with no prospects or skills beyond being a soldier.
There are issues with Brian Helgeland's script, but I don't think they are so problematic that they are the things that keeps this film from being great. And I don't mind the prequel idea of watching Robin become a protector and supplier of people under the cruel fist of England new ruler (after Richard's battlefield death) King John (Oscar Isaac). We are all familiar with the story of Robin Hood, so I didn't mind not getting it retold to me yet again. Instead, we get the story of how Robin met Marion Loxley (Cate Blanchett) and Friar Tuck (Mark Addy) and these particular Merry Men (Kevin Durand's Little John, Scott Grimes' Will Scarlet, and Alan Doyle's Allan A-Dayle). The Sheriff of Nottingham is on hand, although not nearly as terrifying as he's been portrayed in the past, and a handful of new names join the fold.
I like the idea that Robin took the name Loxley from a dead man and was asked to do so by the dead man's aging, blind father (the fantastic Max Von Sydow), who explains that the only way his son's widow, Marion, can keep the land when Max kicks it is to have it appear that his son made it home alive from the Crusades. Despite what you've seen in the trailers, King John isn't only a raging maniac intent on taxing the life out of his subjects and killing anyone who refuses to pay. That's close to what he is, but there's a bit more. He's cunning and smart enough to know when to keep quiet when he senses the crowd is turning against him. It's nice to have a filmmaker decide to have a classic movie villain at the heart of his film without making him an idiot, driven purely by emotion. King John is capable of looking at the long term. He also knows how to make promises to calm the storm against him, even if he has no intention of keeping them. There's a complexity to him that surprised me and I found refreshing.
Blanchett is probably the best thing in Robin Hood., but that statement is almost without meaning since Blanchett is usually the best thing in any movie she's in. There's a bitterness about her character's station in life that I'm guessing many women felt at the time. Marion barely knew her husband before he left to fight, so news of his death doesn't crush her. But she's also very much devoted to his family and will do what she had to to protect them. Unfortunately, Blanchett is also at the center of one of the worst scenes in the movie involving her joining the climactic battle between French and English forces. I didn't buy it, and there's absolutely nothing leading up to that moment that would lead us to believe Marion would try anything resembling what she does in this movie. Her charging into battle feels like Scott & Co. trying way too hard to entice women to see this movie. Just tell the story and stop worrying so damn much about the demographics of your audience.
One of the more interesting new characters is Godfrey, played by the tremendous Mark Strong. Why Strong isn't one of the biggest names in movies is beyond me. Between this film, Kick-Ass, Sherlock Holmes and upcoming turns in John Carter of Mars and Green Lantern (he's Sinestro), he probably will be soon. Godfrey is an Englishman who has essentially sold his soul to the French, and is leading brigades of French killers across the English countryside, paving the way for the armada invasion. Godfrey is perhaps the character I was most curious about, simply because of his duplicity, and Strong adds depth and soul to a man that could have easily been played one dimensionally by another actor.
So do we get to see Robin shoot some arrows? You bet, and as I said early on, the action sequences are perfection. Scott keeps in mind something very important when he directs these sequences: he makes sure the geography of the battle is clear--who is surrounding or outflanking who, who has who outnumbered, what is the terrain. These things are always clear and they make all the difference. And I still love watching hundreds of arrows go in the air at the same time; can't help it. There are some spectacular arrow death moments, and I tended to look forward to those far more than death by boring old sword. Is there some stealing from the rich, giving to the poor activity? A little, but that really doesn't kick in until the years that come after the events shown in Robin Hood. This film is about the birth of a legend. Ridley Scott loves his history, and I'm sure there are all kinds of references to real-life people and events. But the true test is whether those moments feel real to the audience, and most of what we see here does (Marion charging into battle does not, by the way).
And while mediocrity is nothing to aim for, Ridley Scott's Robin Hood is rip-roaringly mediocre, bordering on tedious. There's a great deal to enjoy here both in the performances and storytelling, but in the end, what comes together is wildly uneven. And when you're talking about a film that clocks in around two hours and 20 minutes, uneven and tedious are not a good things to be. All of this being said, I'm guessing that Scott has got a better, R-rated version of this film saved up for a DVD release down the road, and based on the vast improvements I saw in the extended Kingdom of Heaven cut, I look forward to seeing what a longer Robin Hood has in store. The theatrical release simply misses the mark, but not enough to dismiss it entirely. Some of what Scott accomplishes with Robin Hood is quite good, just not enough of it.
And now, I prepare to suffer your slings and arrows of outrageous comments. Have at thee...
Follow Me On Twitter
Readers Talkbackcomments powered by Disqus
+ Expand All
May 12, 2010, 10:08 p.m. CST
May 12, 2010, 10:09 p.m. CST
It doesn't suck. But it's not very good. IMO.
May 12, 2010, 10:12 p.m. CST
May 12, 2010, 10:22 p.m. CST
Might be the only thing that gets decent movies made sometimes. I like cruel reviews because I have seen films that are literally so devoid of creativity that they are an insult to their audience because the filmmakers have LIED about the value of the film. I can't throw heads of lettuce and rotten tomatoes at the creators, so I read and write these kinds of reviews. I am absolutely horrified at how little respect so many filmmakers have for their moviegoing public. And how little foresight they have as businessmen- for example, rushing movies out (Pirates 2 and 3 anyone?) in order to make sick amounts of money, but ignoring quality and the fact that some things have the potential to make a fortune down the road (like Star Wars) if treated with respect. Most of these movies could be fixed by one visit to any writing workshop in any college across the nation. They don't respect the screenwriter at all, but somehow expect a movie to flow well???? ARGH! Oh, and if Iron Man 2 sucks, people need to trash on it so that the Cap or Avengers movies don't. Focus your rage, the people who make them will listen if we all stand together for better cinema!
May 12, 2010, 10:22 p.m. CST
At least you gave a well rounded view instead of just trashing it because you have some fantastical view of what Robin Hood should be.
May 12, 2010, 10:24 p.m. CST
Filled with mediocre action and mediocre reviews. It's going to be the most mediocre summer in recent history.
May 12, 2010, 10:29 p.m. CST
Thankyou, that needed to be said. Hate now for a better tomorrow...making sure Avengers is pushed in the right direction (a well paced story that's thick on good action). We criticize because we care. Mediocre is not good enough.
May 12, 2010, 10:30 p.m. CST
I agree with Capone's comments. As a filmmaker, and someone who searches for meaningful, thought provoking reviews, I am usually out of luck. It's so easy to be negative, especially for people who don't fully understand what makes a film work (or not work). The internet means it's that much harder to wade through the "reviewers", their typos and mediocre thoughts that couldn't illuminate a hummingbird-sized light bulb.
May 12, 2010, 10:31 p.m. CST
When does "Inception" come out? In Nolan We Trust.
May 12, 2010, 10:32 p.m. CST
by Nasty In The Pasty
Keamy is cool.
May 12, 2010, 10:37 p.m. CST
Its kind of laughable that I put "Star Wars" "make a fortune" "down the road" "treated with respect" in the same sentence, but i meant for the original trilogy. The populace waited 3 years for Jedi, and it's a perfect example of creative people giving a shit about each one almost equally- so people were not horribly disappointed. That's why it makes so much fucking money even now, because if even ONE of the movies sucked and one was mediocre, I don't see it continuing to be so huge.
May 12, 2010, 10:41 p.m. CST
by maybe banana-nut
enjoyable movie with very mediocre ending. Totally watchable.
May 12, 2010, 10:43 p.m. CST
There are two types of really negative reviews. One hurts my brain and does nothing, and the other saves me money. I DO think that people should trash the shit out of a film if it ruins the characters or shows no respect for fans and instead just attempts to be flashy and glossy, expecting us to only use one of the three moviegoer's tools (sight, hearing, and thought) at any given time. Do we really need to go through another Batman and Robin fiasco? If it wasn't for unanimous cruel booing, we would have to. Lets do it for the mediocre ones too and see what happens.
May 12, 2010, 10:47 p.m. CST
I don't understand all of the Iron Man 2 hate. Is it as good as the first one? No, but I sure as hell enjoyed it. And please, it's "Marian", not "Marion". "Marion" is generally the masculine spelling.
May 12, 2010, 10:51 p.m. CST
July 16, 2010
May 12, 2010, 10:55 p.m. CST
"(Ridley Scott is the) single-greatest large-scale action director living today"(??!???!?)
May 12, 2010, 10:59 p.m. CST
Iron Man 2, while it lacked momentum it did not suck. Next time you to go to the movies stop blowing your boyfriend and watch the fuckin movie.
May 12, 2010, 11:03 p.m. CST
by Mr. Lahey
Google "Great Big Sea"
May 12, 2010, 11:12 p.m. CST
by Six Demon Bag
May 12, 2010, 11:23 p.m. CST
by vic twenty
Not as good as the first one, but still a very good time at the movies. Think of all the other superhero FAILS that have come before it. So much shit, and people are acting as though IM2 is a crime against nature. <p> Just Fuck Yuz already.
May 12, 2010, 11:49 p.m. CST
by Star Hump
May 13, 2010, 12:09 a.m. CST
IS prevalent in film criticism too. God, I fucking hate the FCC for allowing movie studios to start streaming films into homes the day they open. IT no longer matters what critics think. Everyone will download shit simply bc they can. Never mind the fact that they are, in fact, bringing shit into their homes.
May 13, 2010, 12:13 a.m. CST
... just tell Harry to fuck off with his idiotic review. I feel like Capone was stretching toward that conclusion with this one, but of course, he wouldn't do it. Ah well.
May 13, 2010, 12:24 a.m. CST
And if you disagree check to see if your over the age of 12 and your not braindead.
May 13, 2010, 12:27 a.m. CST
of course he's gonna shit all over this.
May 13, 2010, 12:30 a.m. CST
May 13, 2010, 12:33 a.m. CST
Actually in this film, the spelling is Marion, although it has been Marian in previous film versions. Don't know why, but I got it right. As for telling Harry to "Fuck Off," if you're referring his review vs. mine, that would have been impossible because I didn't read his review until after I wrote mine. I wasn't talking about his review at all in my opening remarks. I wouldn't have a problem doing so, but typically I don't read other reviews of films until after I've written mine. I tell Harry to "Fuck Off" in private all the time, if it makes you feel any better.
May 13, 2010, 12:49 a.m. CST
by Stereotypical Evil Archer
May 13, 2010, 12:51 a.m. CST
by Stereotypical Evil Archer
May 13, 2010, 12:53 a.m. CST
by D o o d
is that Ridley Scott has recently been making terrible films and then "supposedly" re-editing them for home release to make them better. Now call me dumb, but shouldn't you get that done right off the bat...?<p>Even in Capones defense of this movie, he refers to Ridley doing tweaks for home release. Well I for one am not having it. This is the behaviour of an amateur and not someone who's been in the business for such a long time.<p>Before you bring in the argument that they have to edit it for a certain length of time for cinema releases, well coming in at 2hrs 20 minutes, you should be able to come up with a good movie, providing that's what you made in the first place...!!
May 13, 2010, 12:59 a.m. CST
did the studios interfere with his theatrical cut? either way the movie kinda sucked, both versions.
May 13, 2010, 1 a.m. CST
I want to see that quote on a poster!
May 13, 2010, 1:13 a.m. CST
I felt that it had more character development than any comic film made, and was very very faithful to the comic. All the new details and revelations about the tech, the evolving suits, the b/g info on Stark's dad... it was actually a comic book film, not a movie based on a comic. I give mass props to Justin Theroux and will support all his movies if he keeps writing at that level.
May 13, 2010, 1:19 a.m. CST
Capone is spot on with his assessment. The movie did have beatiful cinematography. It is one of Scott's best shot movies I have ever seen. I look forward to a director's cut as well. Kingdom of Heaven was absolutly brilliant on the DC version. I like it better than Gladiator!
May 13, 2010, 1:49 a.m. CST
a letter grade?
May 13, 2010, 1:54 a.m. CST
May 13, 2010, 2:22 a.m. CST
Spielberg's re-invention of war in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN outdoes anything Scott has directed. It literally changed the way war/battle scenes are staged, shot, and even processed (the way he played with the film stock). Scott is behind, still copying Spielberg (notice how he similiarly treats the film stock). As for Scott's first battle in GLADIATOR - it's lesser stuff. The film geography/composition & editing mismatches all over the place- it's like he's still shooting a commercial after all these years. To this day, incredibly, Mel Gibson's staging of the big battle in the middle of BRAVEHART is still the zenith for savageness, violence and clarity in midieval battle/action scenes... of shot composition, lighting & editing. Scott's work is more concerned with how many 3-frame cuts he can sandwich into a minute of film.
May 13, 2010, 2:23 a.m. CST
May 13, 2010, 2:34 a.m. CST
...little concerned that Ridley's non his game for this :s
May 13, 2010, 2:45 a.m. CST
You're concerned that a movie called Alien 5 will suck? Really compared to the shits that was Aliens 3 and 4?
May 13, 2010, 3:10 a.m. CST
by Ray Gamma
Capone sorta likes it, and Harry hates it. Clearly it must be a pretty good film, because Harry Knowles has repeatedly proven that he has the worst fucking taste in films of any movie critic in the history of all mankind.
May 13, 2010, 3:28 a.m. CST
Try The Two Towers,
May 13, 2010, 3:34 a.m. CST
bah, not sure that's possible.
May 13, 2010, 3:35 a.m. CST
I'll wait til Robin Hood hits netflix. And IM2 is actually decent.
May 13, 2010, 3:45 a.m. CST
...'Army of Darkness' is the best 'medieval' film simply because of the background mutterings of the villagers. And no-one can do 'the flying arrow shot' without ripping Raimi off anyway.
May 13, 2010, 4:02 a.m. CST
The action set pieces in Two Towers and Return Of The King were fucking DREADFUL. They had no sense of geography or logic. Characters were traversing large distances in no time at all, army sizes seemed to vary wildy scene to scene (the Rohirrim went from ten thousand to a few hundred in the blink of an eye - wtf?) all the horses magically disappeared at the Black Gate without any explaination....stupid, stupid, stupid. Scott, Cameron and Spielberg are the masters of action full stop.
May 13, 2010, 4:12 a.m. CST
Dear Capone, you are my favorite critic on this site and i seem to agree a lot with your views but i must take acception when you call Ridley Scott "the single-greatest large-scale action director living today. No one can hold a candle to Scott when it comes to staging warfare" - i find his battle sequences dramatically muddled and chaotic. I hardly ever know what i am looking at and have no (dramatic) overview of what is happening. He has a gift for art-direction and creating beatifully lit and composed shots. He is a genius in creating 'worlds'.But i think he is a weak dramatic storyteller. And this is also clear in his action sequences. I find directors like Spielberg, Cameron, Gibson and Jackson far better in their dramatic staging of big battle sequences. The best example would be the big battle in the second LOTR or any of the battle sequences in Braveheart. I agree however (again) with your first statement on negative reviews. Well done!!! There seem to be far too many black and white opinions out there. All the best from Amsterdam....
May 13, 2010, 4:31 a.m. CST
there seems to be a divide between how the traditional media are reviewing this film and how web sites are reviewing it.
May 13, 2010, 4:35 a.m. CST
Capone is 100% right when he notes the tendency to declare a movie either "great" or "lousy", as if it isn't possible to fall somewhere in between. In truth, many movies fall into this middle ground - probably most. The tendency to judge movies at either extreme, constantly, is tiresome - and not very helpful, when it comes to reviewers.
May 13, 2010, 4:49 a.m. CST
Capone, you seem to ignore the other extreme. Namely, the AICN-type hyperbole-filled über-positive review, which I think those overtly negative reviews are a reaction to, partly. Either way, the positive ones are just as big of a problem, if not more so, because they certainly don't help make better films.
May 13, 2010, 5:27 a.m. CST
by Mr Gorilla
The Robert Downey Jnr character basically was an asshole.
May 13, 2010, 5:31 a.m. CST
I specifically said Two Towers, everything you mentioned was Return Of The King, which I agree was awful in almost every regard.
May 13, 2010, 5:44 a.m. CST
The press and trades seem to love this thing, online fanboys seem to hate it or simply say "meh". You could probably draw your own conclusions from that.
May 13, 2010, 5:49 a.m. CST
He doesn't give a toss anymore
May 13, 2010, 5:50 a.m. CST
Sci Fi. Fuck historical in the woods films, let's space out !
May 13, 2010, 6:09 a.m. CST
by Darth Scourge
Saw it yesterday afternoon. Decent battle sequences, as we've come to expect from Scott. Kudos for getting the true origin of the Robin Hood figure too, that he was from Yorkshire. But yes, Crowe's regional English accent is all over the place... sometimes sounds like he's from Liverpool, other times sounds like Sheffield.
May 13, 2010, 6:14 a.m. CST
ROTK battles has a sillier vein to them. Oh, but no dwarf-tossing, at least.
May 13, 2010, 6:49 a.m. CST
I have to agree with Capone in that the hyper negative or positive review always gets the most traffic. Too many times critics feel the need to turn up the venom or praise so that they get readers. I saw Harry's review coming a mile away. He pretty much told us all in his post last week on another subject how he wasn't sure about this Robin Hood because of how he holds the Flynn version in high regard. So hats off to Capone for admitting that the film is so so, and allowing his review to reflect that instead of sensationalizing it for the sake of readership.
May 13, 2010, 7 a.m. CST
Is the best battle of all time. Oliver Stone actually put some strategy into the army's movements.
May 13, 2010, 7:02 a.m. CST
...was fuckin' awesome! Had some good lines in it too: "The more the merrier!" You can hate it if you want, I fuckin' loved it.
May 13, 2010, 7:12 a.m. CST
...and the theater version got exactly the same kind of theatrical reviews that this is getting. I think I'll wait to see the undoubtedly superior version down the line, which undoubtedly some company hack with no artistic or aesthetic vision pulverized into "mass audience pleasing" shite.
May 13, 2010, 8:04 a.m. CST
Everything Capone said about mediocrity in film is dead on. I don't agree (as have many of you) about Scott's direction of large scale action, but I wouldn't say by default he's the worst at it. The point here is to have us think critically about film as we would any other form of art and that means while we may be underwhelmed by mediocrity does not mean something is "terrible".
May 13, 2010, 8:26 a.m. CST
The purpose of a critic is to "critic"ize. If they're trying to make a name for themselves, they'll trash a film other people like, just to get noticed. Now that being said, I don't have high hopes for this movie. I remember how boring THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN was, and this reminds me of that. Yawn fest.
May 13, 2010, 8:34 a.m. CST
I guess you did hate it, but for some reason don't want to lead with it. Do you do the 'how does it sit with me test?' A few days or weeks later, is it even more a steaming pile of doo doo?
May 13, 2010, 9:02 a.m. CST
Why did I think it was again? Anyway, this summer is all about INCEPTION and EXPENDABLES... The rest isnt even on my radar...
May 13, 2010, 9:11 a.m. CST
Ive never seen either version of the fim because i cannot stand orlando bloom. im not sure why but he grates on my nerves. he didnt mess up lord of the rings for me or anything , just a personal thing i guess. what makes the directors cut of koh so much better. now im thinking about seeing it
May 13, 2010, 9:21 a.m. CST
especially when this site publishes 4 to 5 film reviews of movies we all know will be shitty like Old Dogs, and then each review tries to out-hate each other.
May 13, 2010, 9:58 a.m. CST
Not reading other critic's reviews before you post your own. It seemed like you were definitely referring to other critics' negative review of "Robin Hood" in your opening paragraph, very negative ones like the review Harry posted. <p> Either way, I'm glad you tell him to fuck off enough behind the scenes that you don't need to do it here. That makes me happy.
May 13, 2010, 10 a.m. CST
No one WANTS to know the "true story behind the legend"--we want the fucking legend! Because there was no true story you idiots! When the legend is way better than the made up true story, why are we telling it? And oh, BTW, if you purport to be realistic about that time of history, why are you showing Marian as a warrior princess when NEVER IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF MEDIEVAL ENGLAND DID EVER, ONE SINGLE TIME, A WOMAN FIGHT IN THOSE BATTLES? Because we have to make up a role for Blanchett (who I love) and the regular role that women had back then wasn't enough for her. What a horrible concept of a film.
May 13, 2010, 10:29 a.m. CST
Thankyou, for actually putting a spoiler warning on a review. It restores some hope that future reviews you make without the warning might actually not have spoilers in them for a change.
May 13, 2010, 11:43 a.m. CST
May 13, 2010, 11:49 a.m. CST
May 13, 2010, 11:53 a.m. CST
Action sequences were great? Are you serious? I'm waiting on the director's cut... because the current cut is so bland and sterile... the battle.
May 13, 2010, 11:57 a.m. CST
His comments on the best battle scenes.
May 13, 2010, 2:12 p.m. CST
by Coled Slawter
Maybe Lady Marion was inspired by Joan of Arc who fought the English and then died in England. Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut was a fantastic movie. I never saw the theatrical cut because I despised Orlando Bloom.
May 13, 2010, 2:39 p.m. CST
Richard Lionheart never learned english while he lived. He despised England, only spent 9 months of his life there, and he hated the people there, he only used them as cannon fodder for his armies, and the country for taxation. In his mind and heart, he was french 100%. The whole One Hundred Years War was a french civil war, anyway. It was the fight between two french royal houses, one of then just had possessions in England and accumulated the english crown, that's it. It was ony after the defeat that the english royal house started to see themselves as english, because they knew they would never get the french crown, so they settle themseves as english, and created an english identity.<br><br>Other then this silly historical blunder, i'm still quite interested in watching this movie. An historical movie that doesn't just rely on battles but also on story and characterization to tell it's tale? And portaited in RidleyVision? I'm sold!
May 13, 2010, 4:56 p.m. CST
It seems unanimous here the KOH director's cut was stunning (I concur) -- the theatrical cut isn't worth your time on any level. Maybe we can hope the same for ROBIN HOOD. As for movie criticism, I don't think any critic or criticism (whether individual or aggregated) can change filmmaking or filmmakers -- it's an incredibly complex process with a village of people who have an opinion and various MOs. That any movie made these days is actually good is pretty near a miracle... That said, we should all spend more time CELEBRATING what we love and why and far less time SMASHING what we hate... we'd all be better for it.
May 13, 2010, 5:10 p.m. CST
to say this,but Orlando,whom i despise,was really great it it.
May 14, 2010, 2:41 a.m. CST
..woe is me...
May 14, 2010, 4:51 a.m. CST
by Darth Scourge
One of the concepts underpinning the Robin Hood legend was the ongoing struggle of the Anglo-Saxon people against the imposition of Norman culture and the heavy taxation imposed by Franco-Norman royal houses, still a bone of contention even a century or more after the Battle of Hastings.
May 14, 2010, 5:08 a.m. CST
Harry says Nightmare On Elm Street is utter genius the rest of the site regulars jump in to point out "well, actually no it's kind of terrible" - which it was. Then Harry calls Robin Hood "a colossal failure" and here's Capone again doing damage control, pointing out the reality. Does Harry have some sort of bi-polar condition that the rest of the writers on this site are trying to hide and they are told "once Harry posts his OTT nonsense get a post up which counteracts it" or has it got to the point where he's as much an embarrassment to them as he is to himself?
May 15, 2010, 8:20 p.m. CST
by The E
<p class=MsoNormal>Through reading these Robin Hood talkback posts I keep seeing mention of how great Kingdom of Heaven: Director’s Cut was.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>So I set aside 3hrs today to watch it.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>I previously saw the cinematic version and was disappointed by how slow and confusing it was.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>I was hoping the Director’s <span class=GramE>Cut</span> fixed all of that, but I was wrong.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>I will say the Director’s cut was a lot less confusing and a better film.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>However, it’s still slow as hell, boring and somewhat confusing at times.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Completely overrated on these talkbacks.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>I can’t believe some are comparing it to Gladiator, and even saying it was better.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Gladiator was a much better movie, in the sense it was actually fun and watchable.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>In fact, they shouldn’t even be compared as they are very different movies.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Gladiator was essentially an action movie dressed up as a dramatic/ ancient era piece.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>However, KOH is really a deep, thought provoking, ancient era cinematic film.</p> <p class=MsoNormal>Sorry if I turned this into a KOH talkback, but was tired of hearing KOH praise w/o other points-of-view.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Here’s my high level synopsis:</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal'>GOOD:<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal'>+ Acting is great across the board, world class thespians</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal'>+ Great special effects</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal'>+ Battle scenes</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal'>+ Cinematography</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal'><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal'>BAD:<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal'>- Very boring, slow, like watching a history documentary on A&E</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal'>- Villain has little depth, purpose, <span class=GramE>seemed</span> to just be evil to be evil</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal'>- Seemed directionless, jumped all over the place</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal'>- Too pretentious</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal'>- Bloom didn't seem to fit the role, lacked gravitas</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal'>- Overall confusing story, hard to understand dialogue at times</p>
- Ages And Genders!! Casting Breakdown For Seven Characters Headed For J.J. Abrams’ STAR WARS: EPISODE VII?? -- 244 total posts 244 posts
- Mary Jane Watson is NOT going to be a part of THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2! -- 242 total posts 242 posts
- AICN COMICS PODCAST: The @$$Holes take stabs at MAN OF STEEL, plus a review of Scott Snyder’s SUPERMAN UNCHAINED! -- 147 total posts 140 posts
- Sweet knights of Colombus!! A new trailer for ANCHORMAN 2: THE LEGEND CONTINUES has been unleashed!! -- 134 total posts 134 posts
- Harry's 25th Picks & Peeks of 2013!!! With THINGS TO COME, OCTAMAN, Bette Davis, STOKER, HOWLING, LIFEFORCE & more! -- 352 total posts 132 posts
- JAMES GANDOLFINI 1961-2013 -- 122 total posts 122 posts
- A Few Nice "Making Of' Pics From THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2!! -- 117 total posts 117 posts
Jonathan Demme To Direct
AMC’s First Sci-Fi Pilot!! -- 99 total posts 99 posts
- PROMETHEUS 2 now has a writer!!! -- 726 total posts 87 posts
- WWZ blah-ditty, blah, blah, blah! AICN HORROR’s got a truly unique zombie film you should check out instead called THE BATTERY! -- 92 total posts 87 posts