Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Robin Hood (movie)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I saw it opening night. I was thoroughly unimpressed personally.

What about it did you or did you not like? I admit I'm always a sucker for action and so I enjoyed the battle scenes. I also thought the characters were portrayed richly, especially King John, the old nobleman Locksley, and Marian. Finally I liked the message of what happens (what MUSt happen, really) to lawful men when subject to arbitrary and punitive rule.

Would be interested to hear your take on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was pretty good. The most positive development was the re-writing of Robin Hood from a criminal who "robs from the rich and gives to the poor" to the man trying to get King John to sign a Magna Carta. The 20 minutes of film devoted to this theme was the only part I found moving.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought it was pretty good. The most positive development was the re-writing of Robin Hood from a criminal who "robs from the rich and gives to the poor" to the man trying to get King John to sign a Magna Carta. The 20 minutes of film devoted to this theme was the only part I found moving.

It wasn't a rewriting, this was a prequel. That does not start until the next movie.

As for what I didn't care much for it, I will post about it tomorrow as it is late.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SkyTrooper, the earlier beginnings of the legend of Robin Hood are unknown, but it always had as it basis Robin Hood protecting England from evil King John (resulting in Magna Carta). At first (circa 1250 +), he was portrayed as an ordinary outlaw. Since his political stance and defying John become more and more important, the legend took on the twist that well, yeah, he was an outlaw, but he gave to the poor who were robbed by evil John. It was more of a political "spin" than a philosophical statement. I think Rand was unduly harsh on the legend. THe real purpose of the legend has always been Robin besting King John, and that has turned him into a folk hero. The rest is "spin."

Link to post
Share on other sites

The philosophical content surprised me. The parts that expressed a philosophers foundation of a rights respecting gov. As well as representation where unexpected. The last couple of lines where stupid socialist propaganda though. "everyone has equal shares at natures table" or some such crap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Marion's line at the end was a big suckerpunch. It's like she was celebrating the fact that they went from tyranny of a single man to tyranny of the collective. Mixing the two themes, individual liberty through law with collectivism is plain stupid, but I give them the benefit of a doubt in that maybe they meant every one has equal opportunity and the ability to excel based on individual merit. But it almost killed the movie for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to see this movie just because I'm kinda fan of Ridley Scott and I liked Russell Crowe in other epic movies like Gladiator

Once seated in the theater realizing that Cate Blanchett and Max von Sydow were also part of the cast was my first pleasure, second pleasure was finding that it wasn't the "socialist" movie I was expecting thanks to my sort of "Objectivist prejudice" --> Thanks Ridley :)

It is a solid movie about the greatness of a "simple man" with intelligence, integrity, bravery and some luck. It seems Scott did a good research about the real origins of the legend and the way people lived in these times

I was very glad to recover this character from my childhood, my father use to talk a lot about the adventures of Robin Hood and there was an old book in the family's library with that cheap illustration in the cover... (nostalgic)

I loved the legend when I was a kid and I practice archery now probably in part due to these old stories of my infancy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked it okay, but thought it was the weakest of Ridley Scott's historical epics. The first half was confusing, and the second half is way too preachy. It also tries too hard to put Robin Hood at the center of English history. Robin Hood is supposed to be a bandit who lurks in the woods and makes life miserable for corrupt royal officers. I know this was a prequel, but I've just never heard of a depiction of Robin Hood where he is a high-profile military commander and chief negotiator of the Magna Carta. I would have liked it better had they not tried to turn him into some hugely important historical figure.

Having said that, I'll probably get it when it comes out on blu-ray. The guy who played King John was freakin' awesome...particularly at the end, when he declares Robin Hood "AN OUTLAAAAAAAAW!!!"

For the record, I think everyone's impressions of "Robin Hood" are mistaken. Though the popular idiom is "stole from the rich and gave to the poor," this is a gross oversimplification of the story of Robin Hood. I've never seen or read an actual depiction of Robin Hood that has him as some sort of socialist hero. Yes, he steals from the rich, but they got rich by literally (not just in the Marxist sense) stealing from the poor. He has always been, first and foremost, anti-corruption.

Edited by The Wrath
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I thought it was a pretty lame movie.

The writing was confusing throughout, as if multiple plotlines and premises had been hastily smashed together. I was never sure if I was supposed to focus on: French invasion, King John's rise to power, Robin Hood's origin as a Luxley impersonator, Robin Hood's development into a bandit who stole from the government and gave back to the poor peasants, his love affair with Maid Marion, King John's relationship with the French princess, that guy he kicked out of his court, or what. There was way, way, way too much going on and far too little character development to make me care about anyone. Max von Sydow's character was the most well developed and acted but he got way too little screen time.

The battle scenes were ponderous. I could never tell what was going on because the camera wouldn't stay still for even 1 second. They were also boring because I never really cared for Robin Hood's cause; the movie had never spent enough time making me care.

Russel Crowe can't act, period. He had the same blank expression throughout the movie. Also, why would an archer be so ridiculously muscled? That's just ugly and not believable. He's not a freaking blacksmith.

The bee grenades that Friar Tuck used were stupid and cheesy. And the SOLE reason his bee keeping was put in the movie was clearly so that he *could* throw those stupid bee grenades.

The dialogue was blunt and on-the-nose. That's OK on a first draft, but not on the final product. Robin Hood said "I love you" to Maid Marion right after kissing her. No artifice to the script at all. I love you? The kiss didn't tell us that already? And sure, in real life people say "I love you," although they typically say a lot more than just that. This is a movie, it's supposed to be dramatic.

There was very little emphasis put on Robin's actual taking from the government and his philosophy. It seemed almost like an afterthought in fact.

Overall, I thought the movie lacked focus and so I never really cared about it. I really, really wanted to like it but I just couldn't. Shame on Ridley Scott after making such masterpieces as Blade Runner and Alien.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

The movie is not in theatres anymore, at least not around here, but I thought I'd throw my two cents in anyway. The movie was disappointing.

The parts I liked:

Maid Marion wasn't 12 or 20, she was a realistic age for the part.

The prequel nature of the story. It was interesting to see the development of the Robin Hood character.

The parts I didn't like:

Historical inaccuracies were littered throughout. The major one that irked me - anyone other than royalty drinking out of a glass cup. It may be a minor detail, but it was irksome.

Robin Hood is an archer, so why did they put him in the position of using blades so frequently?

Why would Maid Marion and her little band of misfits ever EVER go into battle? They wouldn't. The whole thing was an obvious set up for Robin Hood to have to save her.

Someone else mentioned that the plot was cumbersome. While I didn't have any trouble following it, it did seem needlessly complex. It was like they were trying to explain too many things, rather than just following the basic story of the development of Robin Hood's character.

Overall, I'm not sorry I saw it, but I wish I had waited for it to come out on DVD.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...