Robin Hood movie reviews
Movie directors often have reinterpreted the story of Robin Hood, which originated in ancient ballads and was set down in print as early as the 16th Century in A Gest of Robyn Hode. In early chracterizations, old RH was "a violent yeoman who steals from the dishonest and helps those whom he pleases," according to a study by the University of Rochester. Only later did he become more of a folk hero for the oppressed. Not having a definitive text allows a lot of artistic license when it comes to movies, and today we get another look at the charismatic guy who takes from the rich and gives to the poor. Here are excerpts from reviews of "Robin Hood," a Russell Crowe/Cate Blanchett prequel that is dividing critics: (More movie adaptations are here.)p> Los Angeles Times -- Simultaneously simplistic and over-plotted, revisionist and predictable, this "Robin Hood" has trouble getting untracked and, once it does, proves an awkward mix of international geopolitics, repressed memory, old-fashioned villainy, human rights advocacy, the Magna Carta and pigeons that send secret messages. Chicago Tribune -- I liked it. It's on a par with [director Ridley] Scott's "American Gangster": No revelations, but a satisfying, large-scale genre movie, toned up by its cast. Philadelphia Inquirer -- Shot in glorious widescreen ... Robin Hood boasts graphic battle scenes and ingenious intrigue, a sense of history that may not be accurate but feels authentic, and a love story that smartly plays with gender and Hollywood stereotypes. Wall Street Journal -- It's an ersatz epic about men in fights—grim fights, grinding battles, clanking combats that are repetitive and, in a movie that runs 140 minutes, all but endless.
Comments
Some good reviews with contrasting oppinions. I personally liked the movie, but thought the overall story could have been better. If anyone is interested and it's ok with the publishers you can read our opinions of the movie at:
www.epic-reviews.com/2010/robin-hood/
Posted by: Graham Roberts | May 14, 2010 11:38 AM
This review is really awesome. I found another site also where you can get movie reviews. Check out movies.desimartini.com
Posted by: Movie Reviews | May 15, 2010 5:47 AM
I wanted to point out a potential inaccuracy in the new Robin Hood movie. They mentioned planting seed for corn; I don't believe that they had corn in Europe in the 1200s, we imported it from the Indians after America was discovered in the 1400s. Thomas Dillon
Posted by: Thomas Dillon | May 15, 2010 3:36 PM
Thomas Dillon mentioned a potential inaccuracy in that corn was brought to Europe and Asia from the New World only after 1492. I'm not sure if the script writers knew this, but the word "corn" in Old Europe didn't refer to maize (the New World's "corn") but rather generally to grain, and more specifically to wheat. So it would have been normal at the time to talk of planting seed for corn.
Posted by: Steve Staley | May 16, 2010 12:38 PM
History lessons for Ridley Scott.
1. Long bows were never used on horseback.
2. The odd feather is nocked away on the bow.
3. Were those barges borrowed from the Normandy Landing?
4. With all the padding under armour if you fall in water, how can you get up to fight?
5. Wet arrows won't shoot straight. An arrow is balanced with the tip.
6. Did Russel Crowe buy that undershirt at Walmart? My son recognized that right away. In fact he has one.
7. By the way did he get that haircut at Walmart too?
8. The English are Anglo-Saxons. King John looks like my wife's Puerto Rican cousin, Carlos.
9. Did the Irish rule England at that time. I love the Irish music.
10. I know the corn planting is inaccurate, but you do not broadcast corn seeds.
Posted by: Dwight Marshalleck | May 31, 2010 11:01 PM