By the producers making it "DARK"...ooooooooh.... I can't wait to see YET another CGI blood bathmto satisfy the brain dead public. I mean, it's soooo cool and "realistic" and oh yeah...."DARRRKKKK". That means it is good.
Please note my sarcasm ;-).
How can Scott make a film as beautiful as The Duellists make one as bad as his new Hood movie?
What we have here is failure to communicate!share
There are many classic movies that are revered and this one is indeed one of my all time favorites. Remakes, reboots and re-imagining of characters happen all of the time for newer audiences and this will also be one of those cases when the audiences of today will completely miss out on the sheer spectacle that this movie is.
The costumes, the villians, the action will NOT be improved upon by making it grittier, darker, brutish and more real.
I could never get my 16 year old son to watch this and enjoy it the way I did when I was a kid and I wouldn't even try. For that matter I don't even see him wanting to watch the remake with Crowe. Come to think of it just WHO is teh target audience for this film??
I'm American and always loved Robin Hood. Is this new one for Aussies and Brits?? Just asking!!
share
Under new management!
[deleted]
This new revisioning of Robin Hood has made me want to view the OLDER versions in Blu-Ray. It is surprising the new life that these films get when properly transferred.
I'm seriously contemplating buying the Blu-Ray release of The Advetures of Robin Hood and Robin Hood Prince of Thieves even though I already own the DVD release of both.
share
Under new management!
Errr ... for your information, Errol Flynn WAS Australian and Claude Rains and Basil Rathbone were both English ... Russell Crowe is from New Zealand, so what on Earth are you rabbiting on about? ... oh,and by the way, for this Aussie the Flynn version is unbeatable.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
I think this arrow missed the rabbit as I don't recall questioning the nationality of Flynn, Rathbone or Crowe.
share
Under new management!
I'm sorry, I thought you comment regarding the casting: "is this for Aussies or Brits" implied that the casting of Australian and English actors somehow diminished the satisfaction for an American audience ... what did you mean?
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
WOW!!! That arrow hit a rabbit on an entirely DIFFERENT garden!!!!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0955308/board/inline/157311588?d=157311588 &p=1#157311588
I had no idea what the reference was but I do now. Within my post I questioned the grittiness and attempt at reality as shown in the trailer vs the faux pomp and glamor (glamour for you) in the Erroyl Flynn version.
I wondered if the studio had a specific audience in mind for this movie with some respect given the source material and the casting of Russell Crowe. Robin Hood is a very NON-American folk-hero. The Prince of Thieves used the controversial castings of Costner and Freeman and had a pretty fair box office especially within the USA.
"Aussies, Brits or WHOM" was a query but others posted vehemently that the Aussie/Brit market is soooooo small that the casting and the theme made them clearly NOT a target preference.
Now WHAT'S exactly your beef again with the title and or what was opined in the thread?
share
Under new management!
OK, let's just put it down to me being very old and probably a little befuddled.
Yes, Prince of Thieves certainly would have made more in America with American stars ... it's the reason why craven Aussie producers always had some "past their prime" or "B-list" US actor in their films until about 29 years ago ( eg:Kirk Douglas, Richard Chamberlain, Dennis Hopper,Ernest Borgnine), in what was an attempt to cash in on the mirage of finding a mass American audience for their movies.
When watching a movie, I am happy to say that the box-office receipts that a movie is likely to get is of no interest to me at all ... I have seen some great films in empty theatres ... bad news for the investors, but I couldn't care less.
Now, what were we talking about? ........
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
He couldn’t fill Errol Flynn's shoes in a million years. Quite apart from the fact that he is not nearly as charismatic, handsome, or dashing as Errol Flynn, the 1938 film effectively combined known history (such as Richard’s capture by Leopold of Austria) with the legends. Robin is said to have worn clothing of “lincoln green,” and never fought in the Third Crusade. Even if the writers of the screenplay for this classic film took liberties with the source material (and there was never a more or less “official” account of Robin Hood, as in the case of the “Morte d’Arthur,” but only a number of different ballads and pseudo-historical accounts, such as the one by John Major), they did succeed in capturing the essence of the Robin Hood legends, incorporating some of the more prominent episodes. While I just checked out the “Nottingham” message board, with its list of vigorous supporters, who crack jokes at the portrayal of Robin in tights, the fact is, gone are the days when Hollywood could produce high-quality, escapist entertainment featuring both Oscar-winning actors who were truly “stars” and great scene-stealing character actors, lush Technicolor photography, stirring and virtually inspirational scores, and breathtaking cinematography.
“The Adventures of Robin Hood” is, in my opinion and in the opinion of most critics and people with taste, the definitive Robin Hood film, which will NEVER be eclipsed. Even if there was a 12th-century outlaw whose exploits inspired a plethora of legends, how many people, when watching the recreation of a legend, want to see filthy, gritty, unromantic heroes in drab costumes and actors with rotten-looking teeth à la Johnny Depp’s crew in “The Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise? The Flynn version is true eye-candy. Although “Trail of the Lonesome Pine” (1936) was the first film to be shout outdoors in Technicolor, “The Adventures of Robin Hood” was the first three-strip Technicolor film in which the full colors of the spectrum were accurately reproduced (if beautifully exaggerated). Every scene is a feast for the eyes, the triumph of good over evil still inspirational, and the cast sheer perfection. It should easily be in the top ten greatest films of all time. Note: For those interested in the quest for an historical Robin Hood, I would highly recommend “Robin Hood,” by J. C. Holt. He comes to the conclusion that “the original Robin” would indeed have been active in the late 12th Century, as opposed to a later period, such as in the reign of Edward I.
P.S. I am a 42-year-old male, who was admittedly exposed to the Flynn version at a young age (7 or 8).
Me too. And nicely said.
shareI love the Robin Hood tale in all forms (from Errol to Richard Grene to Kevin to Jonas Armstrong - BBCTV) as I love medieval history. You can't compare each one to each other as all the actors give a different performance and perspective and they probably wouldn't even contemplate trying to fill Errol's shoes. Most people will compare though which is a pity.
Each movie or TV series should be judged by itself and not continually compared to Errol's Robin. When Russell's Robin comes out, I will be going to see it but I won't compare it because the style of film making has changed since the 1930's. Plus the era of swashbuckling sword fights and green tights is sooo last century. LOL
If you truly compare any other Robin to Errol's Robin, then you are doing yourself a disservice. Sure the "critics" believe that Errol's is the best Robin. So what? I don't listen to critics, I never have. Do I have a favourite Robin Hood? No. Do I have a favourite Guy of Gisbourne? Probably but not in the way you think. ;D
Hollywood will continue to keep making Robin Hood movies forever and a day. The public are now expecting realism courtesy of reality TV and technological advances. They don't want to see some 'hero' dressed up in tights swinging around on a vine with perfect teeth. Last I checked, the people of the medieval times brushed their teeth (only the privileged not the villagers) with a mixture of brick dust and honey. Plus the villagers wouldn't waste time taking a bath either. Of course their teeth would be rotten and they would be smelly too. If you want eye-candy, see something else.
Whilst I'm still on this planet, I will see every one of them but I won't compare them to Errol's.
P.S.: I am a 39 year old female who has seen a LOT of Robin Hood... :D
I think you're making too much of Raphael's comments, though I agree with you to a point. Comparisons aren't necessarily what it's all about, as you state. Different approaches to a subject or character are just that -- different, and do not necessarily make one way "better" or "worse" than the other.
But "preferences" make up a good deal of the comments found on these boards (they're fun, too) and comparisons may be appropriate. Raphael prefers the Flynn approach (as do I) to other later approaches, and he uses some comparisons to explain "why" he feels this way. Perfectly reasonable, in this case, to do so -- IMO.
Btw, you use an ancient Egyptian name as your signature. Why, may I ask? . . . Just curious.
Ah, cwente2, my old friend from all the Biblical threads!!! Yes, the dear lady is making too much of my comments, though I must commend her on her inventiveness with regard to choice of a username. Of course, virtually all armchair historians know that there were 4 Amenhoteps or “Imen/Amon-hatpis,” but I doubt whether as many know that Asenath was the daughter of the Egyptian priest of Heliopolis (Biblical “On”), whom Joseph married after he was raised to the second highest office in the land by one of the Hyksos Kings (at least, I think that it was under one such king that Joseph exercised authority). As for Errol Flynn as Robin Hood, not everyone can agree with our unassailably excellent taste (typed with tongue not so firmly planted in my cheek...haha).
shareLast I checked, the people of the medieval times brushed their teeth (only the privileged not the villagers) with a mixture of brick dust and honey.I'll wager that, even in a Robin Hood film made in today's allegedly "realistic" mode, with performers wearing ragged, grey clothes, sporting messy, greasy hair, and with pan-stick-dirty faces, the stars - in particular the lead female star- will not be displaying crooked or filthy teeth. Their agents and their vanity will absolutely forbid it.
Yup. And, the producers, too. Who's gonna plunk down all that money to see Angelina Jolie with a melon seed stuck between her canine and incisor. NOT the stuff that dreams are made of -- nor box office.
shareI think you are missing the point.
Errol Flynn WAS the definitive Robin Hood, and yes, the "critics" are right in their opinions.
The fact every "Robin Hood" remake is going to fall short is because the definitive one was so amazing. It was THE perfectly cast movie.
I do love EF as Robin Hood, and to me he is the best so far. But calling him the "definitive" RH bars the possibility that anyone, at any time in the future, will do better. That's very depressing. Not having a crystal ball to predict the future, I wouldn't call EF the definitive Robin Hood. Nor would I call, say, Vivien Leigh the definitive Scarlett O'Hara. It's going to be really, really tough doing better, but I like to think it's a possibility.
There is one huge difference between my two examples though. If a new actress starred in Gone With The Wind today, that movie would indeed be a remake, and one could easily compare both actresses, as they would play the same character, as adapted from Margaret Mitchell's novel. A new Robin Hood movie, unless stated differently, would not be a remake of this particular 1938 The Adventures of RH. It would be another RH story, not another adaptation from one piece of literature.
"Sometimes I'm callous and strange."
Very well put and reflects my thoughts exactly. If you don't mind I have forwarded your post to pelopen3bc in the message board for the new robin hood movie, as he/she feels that Errol's version is outdated, flawed, lacking in artistry, etc.
PS: I am just a few years older, and have watched most film and tv versions of Robin Hood save the Douglas Fairbanks version. LOL, as cheesy as it was, I liked the Disney cartoon one with Robin Hood played by a fox.
If you are referring to my post (which I am pretty sure you are), I would actually prefer not to have my posts forwarded, since I do not have the time to get into long arguments about the merits (or lack thereof) of a particular film. Besides, pelopen3bc is a pr***, who has already impugned my taste. In any case, I applaud you for defending the Errol Flynn version of Robin Hood.
shareI do not have the time to get into long arguments about the merits (or lack thereof) of a particular film.
Besides, pelopen3bc is a pr***, who has already impugned my taste.
You beat me; I am about to send a more detailed response.
shareNote: For those interested in the quest for an historical Robin Hood, I would highly recommend “Robin Hood,” by J. C. Holt. He comes to the conclusion that “the original Robin” would indeed have been active in the late 12th Century, as opposed to a later period, such as in the reign of Edward I.
Glad that I could help.
shareI'd like to chime in on a few points.
the 1938 film effectively combined known history (such as Richard’s capture by Leopold of Austria) with the legends.
gone are the days when Hollywood could produce high-quality, escapist entertainment featuring both Oscar-winning actors who were truly “stars” and great scene-stealing character actors, lush Technicolor photography
stirring and virtually inspirational scores
and breathtaking cinematography
Even if there was a 12th-century outlaw whose exploits inspired a plethora of legends, how many people, when watching the recreation of a legend, want to see filthy, gritty, unromantic heroes in drab costumes and actors with rotten-looking teeth à la Johnny Depp’s crew in “The Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise?
how many people, when watching the recreation of a legend, want to see filthy, gritty, unromantic heroes in drab costumes
While I just checked out the “Nottingham” message board, with its list of vigorous supporters, who crack jokes at the portrayal of Robin in tights
He comes to the conclusion that “the original Robin” would indeed have been active in the late 12th Century, as opposed to a later period, such as in the reign of Edward I.
“The Adventures of Robin Hood” is, in my opinion and in the opinion of most critics and people with taste, the definitive Robin Hood film, which will NEVER be eclipsed.
and people with taste
Well ... I, too, will venture to add a point or two:
"Instead today we have high quality productions, but instead of stars we have actors, which is quite preferable."
We do? I haven't seen this phenomenon so clearly as you have. Accepting for the moment your proposition, are you suggesting a star cannot be an actor? Stars like Olivier, Scofield, Brando, Muni, Hepburn, Laughton, Leigh, et al ... Tough I would think in an acting profession to become a star without being able to act - just a little. Oh well. In my inevitably provincial way, I'll take the non-acting "stars" of yesteryear over the "actors" of today -- if you please. But, of course, that's a purely subjective judgement. "High quality productions"? Subjective evaluation again, I think. Technical quality certainly. (What else would one expect over the time elapsed?) But the technical aspects of a picture are for me, at least, pretty low on the list of expectations attending a "quality" drama.
"... because plenty of music composed nowadays is much more stirring than anything from that period."
Another subjective judgement? I guess so. But, I don't think I can concur with your judgment on that. After all, one man's "stirring" is another man's "boring". And so it must be with us. Korngold's score is extraordinary and precedent setting, IMO.
"Some people don't need things sugarcoated."
Okay. But, "men in tights", I think, amount more to an understanding of an audience's "expectations" than "sugarcoating".
"In fact, most Robin Hood fans prefer the "Robin of Sherwood" (1984) series ..."
Hmmm. To quote you -- "No. Just your opinion." Unless, you've got some sort of survey or other imperical data to back up such a sweeping assertion(?). Further, and as you also say -- "don't confuse your opinion of the film for the fan concensus." Uh-huh.
"I'd also like to point out that anyone as woefully uninformed about modern movies as you has no right to be lecturing anyone on taste."
Setting aside for the moment my curiosity as to how you KNOW the OP is "uninformed" about modern movies, I'll simply accept that your own rather lengthy, opinion-laden post is NOT to be considered a similar "lecture" -- at least as measured by standards also your own.
We do? I haven't seen this phenomenon so clearly as you have.
Accepting for the moment your proposition, are you suggesting a star cannot be an actor?
Tough I would think in an acting profession to become a star without being able to act - just a little.
Technical quality certainly. (What else would one expect over the time elapsed?) But the technical aspects of a picture are for me, at least, pretty low on the list of expectations attending a "quality" drama.
But, I don't think I can concur with your judgment on that. After all, one man's "stirring" is another man's "boring". And so it must be with us.
Korngold's score is extraordinary and precedent setting, IMO.
Okay. But, "men in tights", I think, amount more to an understanding of an audience's "expectations" than "sugarcoating".
Unless, you've got some sort of survey or other imperical data to back up such a sweeping assertion(?).
Further, and as you also say -- "don't confuse your opinion of the film for the fan concensus." Uh-huh.
Setting aside for the moment my curiosity as to how you KNOW the OP is "uninformed" about modern movies
I'll simply accept that your own rather lengthy, opinion-laden post is NOT to be considered a similar "lecture" -- at least as measured by standards also your own.
You seem a little too angry to expect a good faith discussion to ensue. Some clarification is in order, however, as your response is based on some erroneous assumptions:
"A great many stars today distance themselves from stardom."
Oh? The "actors" you cite have seemed to me to have accepted the designation "celebrity" willingly, which, to me, seems much as "guilty" a term as the formerly used - "star". And I suspect many of the stars of yesteryear also sought to distance themselves from stardom, at least publicly. (Eg., Garbo, Jean Peters, Gene Tierney, Gable, Scofield, Olivier, Gielgud . . .) Frankly, I see no difference in the formation of the egos of "actors" today than those of the "stars" of yesterday. . . But if you do, that's fine.
On stars and actors -- "... the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. However, they usually are."
Another, shall we call it, supernatural assertion, ahhh -- based on what? Possibly your own "reasonable" (and possibly debatable) "standards"?
I think it was John Ford who swore no blood in his movies. One of those damn sugarcoaters, yes?
I've seen none of the Robin Hood films you mention, nor have I heard any of the work of the composers you mention. My comments are not "judgments" about any of your specific examples but are, rather, general comments based on general observations. There's no reason to doubt, in my mind, your judgement and adulation of both the films and the composers. Glad you find happiness in all. I further concede, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn sometimes. However, the stuff I've seen in theatres recently has been, IMO, horrible -- ESPECIALLY the scores (boring). That, by the way, is an opinion. Am I permitted?
So three of how many(?) composers "didn't seem to want to follow Korngold"? just guessing here, but I suspect that's a pretty small percentage.
I wonder how many people interested in these films actually participated in the "poll", or are active on IMDb or Google? We'd have to speculate a lot wouldn't we? I'm, nevertheless, dubious of your "certainties", which I suspect are more passionate than objective.
It seemed irrelevant to me whether your earlier comments were directed at an "OP" or to Raphael. Why is this important to you?
No, I don't care to re-read anything on this thread. Not sufficiently interested. You've made your points. I don't agree.
Btw, I don't "try to be witty". I am witty.
"The Adventures of Robin Hood" is "based" on the "legend" of Robin Hood. It says so in the titles. Lots of leeway there. It's unpretentious and unself-conscious (unlike so many films of today). Every element of the legend in the popular imagination is seamlessly integrated into the story. And the story itself is given direction and continuity through the use of a righteous rebellion as its principal structure. It's a story of freedom vs. tyranny, charity vs. avarice, courage vs. cowardice, and, ultimately, right vs. wrong. The "stuff" of legends. The film is perfectly cast, especially Flynn and Rathbone (ideally masculine), and DeHavilland (appropriately feminine - but strong). It's beautifully photographed in early technicolor and offers a magnificent and appropriatly rousing score by Wolfgang Korngold, which drives the nearly perfect pacing of the whole. It's brimming with energy, humor & provides the obligatory (given its legendary source and family sought for audience) happy ending -- not to mention a simple and uncluttered presentation of the moral certainties upon which Western culture has depended for centuries. A classic in every sense of the word. Oh, yeah, thrilling swordfights, too, choreographed by one of the great such choreographers of the era. Damned if I can remember his name. No slo-mo or relentless quick cuts needed, thank you.
You seem a little too angry to expect a good faith discussion to ensue. Some clarification is in order, however, as your response is based on some erroneous assumptions:
Oh? The "actors" you cite have seemed to me to have accepted the designation "celebrity" willingly, which, to me, seems much as "guilty" a term as the formerly used - "star".
I've seen none of the Robin Hood films you mention, nor have I heard any of the work of the composers you mention. My comments are not "judgments" about any of your specific examples but are, rather, general comments based on general observations.
I further concede, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn sometimes.
However, the stuff I've seen in theatres recently has been, IMO, horrible -- ESPECIALLY the scores (boring). That, by the way, is an opinion. Am I permitted?
So three of how many(?) composers "didn't seem to want to follow Korngold"? just guessing here, but I suspect that's a pretty small percentage.
I'm, nevertheless, dubious of your "certainties", which I suspect are more passionate than objective.
It seemed irrelevant to me whether your earlier comments were directed at an "OP" or to Raphael. Why is this important to you?
No, I don't care to re-read anything on this thread. Not sufficiently interested. You've made your points. I don't agree.
Btw, I don't "try to be witty". I am witty.
Every element of the legend in the popular imagination is seamlessly integrated into the story.
Hmmm. . . I guess I'VE been told! Therefore, I'll tuck my tail between my legs and retreat into the first sentence of my last post, amplifying it thus: It's impossible to have a "good faith" conversation with someone who's rhetorical style quivers with condescension, and who habitually INSISTS on deliberately misconstruing the "obvious intent" of ideas offered (in "good faith").
P.S. -- I am interested (with requisite humility of course) in learning your source(s) for that long list of composers who've pronounced they were unaffected by the contributions of Korngold. Armed with the imparted wisdom perhaps I can inch my way up the intellectual ladder to a place only slightly below that of your own.
Good luck!
While you seem articulate and obviously have a good knowledge of history (and I never intended my post to be a lesson in Norman-Saxon relations), your rudeness merits an equally rude response. And indeed, what a rude, pompous turd you are! I could care a less what you think about me. “The Adventures of Robin Hood” has plenty of ardent admirers who express themselves as well as I, and appreciate the 1938 classic just as much. Of course, there are many in your “camp” as well, but you are greatly outnumbered.
Am I confident with regard to my taste? Yes – just as you are. I am not wishy-washy, nor am I afraid to express my opinions. What would I know about taste? ONE HELL OF A LOT. I have enough sense to see that Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, and Poussin were all more talented than someone like Jackson Pollock, who simply flung paint on a canvas, and produced compositions less interesting than some artwork that I have seen which was done by elephants! Unlike many, I am not a sheep who simply nods his head when he enters an art gallery and agrees that some worthless piece of s*** is “bold” or “daring” simply because critics say that it is.
As for being “woefully uninformed,” although higher education does not necessarily mean that one is any more intelligent than someone with a Grade 5 education (like my maternal grandfather, who was very articulate and talented), since I DO have a Master’s degree in Classical Languages and Literature (and a published thesis), I am quite conceivably better informed about literature, history, and art than you are, unless you are talking about quantum physics or a discipline that is not germane to the present subject. In addition to having studied Classical and Homeric Greek, Latin, Classical Hebrew, and one year of Sanskrit, I speak Italian fluently, some French, and am a published poet, and have just completed a novel. I have studied Ancient Near Eastern/Biblical History in depth, as well as Mediaeval History. In addition to my knowledge of Classical Mythology (which, in view of my degree, I would obviously possess), I have been reading folk tales, Arthurian Romances, and books on Robin Hood since I was a child. Moreover, I have studied Art History and Film; and I have watched thousands of movies, including every major recent release, as well as lesser known MODERN ones (which you seem to think I have not, by posing such questions as: “Do you listen to many modern scores?” and “Do you not get out much?”).
You typed: Instead, today we have high quality productions, but instead of “stars” we have actors, which is quite preferable.
First of all, “The Adventures of Robin Hood” cost almost 2 million dollars (and that was in late 1937-early 1938); so it can hardly not be called a high quality production. And there were PLENTY of fine actors in the Golden Era of Hollywood. Great acting was not born with “the Method.” In addition to fine actors who came from the stage and who were not all histrionic, plenty of STARS could turn in performances just as well as present-day actors and actresses who lose 50 or more pounds for a role and imagine what type of underwear a particular character would wear if he/she existed. In my opinion, acting is lying raised to the level of an art form. There are different roads to take; and, regardless of which one takes, a perfectly believable performance can be achieved: one can simply use one’s imagination (perhaps unconsciously drawing upon sense memory in some cases) or one can submit to the rigours of the Stanislavsky or Stella Adler technique(s) and also create magic on screen. To the former group belong such true stars as Charles Laughton, Humphrey Bogart, Spencer Tracy, James Stewart, Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, Katharine Hepburn, Barbara Stanwyck, and Judy Garland – just to name a few great artists. To the latter group belong such artists as Marlon Brando, Kim Hunter, James Dean, Julie Harris, Al Pacino, and Daniel Day-Lewis. The performances in “The Adventures of Robin Hood” are hardly hammy. Some (but not all) of them are more theatrical than many seen today, but that acting style has its own unique appeal, which I am not alone in appreciating.
You can’t simply claim that I am “wrong” with respect to my views on the greatness of the score and cinematography of “The Adventures of Robin Hood,” any more than I can claim that you are wrong – even if YOU are in the minority in not considering it to be the definitive Robin Hood film. Of course, being in the minority does not mean that you are necessarily wrong, but in this case I feel that it does. Taste is obviously subjective. Nonetheless, no one would question that I have good taste, although my SPECIFIC tastes are open to criticism, just as yours are.
I doubt whether very many critics would agree with your laughable statement that “The Adventures of Robin Hood” “look(s) bland and uninspired.”
You typed: In fact, most Robin Hood fans prefer the “Robin of Sherwood” (1984) series with Michael Praed, and call that the definitive version. I submit that both “Robin of Sherwood” and “The Legend of Robin Hood” (1975) both easily eclipse The Adventures of Robin Hood. As far as films go, both Robin Hood (1922) and Robin and Marian (1976) can match The Adventures of Robin Hood for quality and storytelling.
Where on earth did you come up with all this? Did you take a survey? You mention the 1922 version and yet clearly imply that modern films are generally superior to the older ones. Mark my words: this latest film will fade into obscurity like most other Robin Hood films have. I have seen most of the others, including the lamentably poor one with Kevin Costner, and do not have to sit through this latest one to be in a position to judge it. The trailer was substantial enough to enable me to make a judgment about it and convince me that it would not be worth spending any money on.
And indeed, what a rude, pompous turd you are!
Of course, there are many in your “camp” as well, but you are greatly outnumbered.
I am quite conceivably better informed about literature, history, and art than you are, unless you are talking about quantum physics or a discipline that is not germane to the present subject. In addition to having studied Classical and Homeric Greek, Latin, Classical Hebrew, and one year of Sanskrit, I speak Italian fluently, some French, and am a published poet, and have just completed a novel.
Great acting was not born with “the Method.”
There are different roads to take; and, regardless of which one takes, a perfectly believable performance can be achieved: one can simply use one’s imagination (perhaps unconsciously drawing upon sense memory in some cases) or one can submit to the rigours of the Stanislavsky or Stella Adler technique(s) and also create magic on screen.
The performances in “The Adventures of Robin Hood” are hardly hammy. Some (but not all) of them are more theatrical than many seen today, but that acting style has its own unique appeal, which I am not alone in appreciating.
even if YOU are in the minority in not considering it to be the definitive Robin Hood film.
Of course, being in the minority does not mean that you are necessarily wrong, but in this case I feel that it does.
Nonetheless, no one would question that I have good taste
Where on earth did you come up with all this? Did you take a survey?
You mention the 1922 version and yet clearly imply that modern films are generally superior to the older ones.
Mark my words: this latest film will fade into obscurity like most other Robin Hood films have.
I have seen most of the others, including the lamentably poor one with Kevin Costner, and do not have to sit through this latest one to be in a position to judge it. The trailer was substantial enough to enable me to make a judgment about it and convince me that it would not be worth spending any money on.
It's been a while since this board was so lively. Good thing! I look forward to reading all of the above posters' responses (and others'). But since responses are so rich, shouldn't we seize the opportunity to open some new threads, devoted to specific bits and pieces of argumentation, weighing the pros and cons of some precise aspects of the film? This I hope will be taken as a very humble suggestion, from one who would happily take part, but who does not want to intrude onto a perfectly good argument. If this should disrupt in any way the discussion, please don't take any notice.
"Sometimes I'm callous and strange."
You are very polite, and make some good points (that is, about starting new threads), but my time here is almost done. If you care to read my next post, you will see why I took such offense at the remarks of pelopen3bc.
sharepelopen3bc: I am not going to make this as long as it could be (which I am sure you will be relieved to hear). I refuse to waste too much time in replying to someone who, among other wild exaggerations, states that he speaks Latin, a language which, apart from its use in the Vatican, is dead. Mind you, I know that your ridiculous claims were not meant to be taken seriously; but you had no justification in accusing me of faking credentials or calling me a liar. I could accept being called “arrogant” (an adjective that could be equally applied to you), but one thing I NEVER do is exaggerate; my obsession with accuracy and compulsive fact-checking prevent me from doing so. We all have our faults, but I feel that having strong convictions is admirable. You are EVERY bit as opinionated as I am. You cast the first stone; I therefore responded with a vitriolic reply.
My thesis (entitled “Greek Perspectives on Cyrus and his Conquests”) can indeed be found in Mills Memorial Library, on the campus of McMaster University, in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Go to: www.mcmaster.ca Under Library, click on Library Catalogue, select Author, and type in Clothier, Stephen. I am #3. I assure you that the thesis IS there and was entirely written by me. Although I dealt with Greek and Latin sources, as well as scholarly commentaries in Italian and French, alas! I had to consult the cuneiform texts in transliteration and translation, as I do not (yet) read Akkadian. I would hardly pick such an obscure title to claim as my own; it would be more appropriate to pick a work on the Plantagenet Dynasty, given the hero whose cinematic depictions we are discussing.
As for my novel, at present I am collaborating with a writer in Maine on a sequel to his trilogy. While he and I are as different as our writing styles (which nonetheless are successfully meshing), he is extremely talented and far more technically adept than I with respect to the creation of websites. I gave him leave to post most of the 1st chapter of my own novel on his website (“Timothy Goodwin’s Rendered Realities”). The hard copy has been notarized and I would prefer to have it published in the traditional way, as opposed to being made available as a PDF file. Those who wish to, may go to the following site: http://orion005.webs.com/stephenclothier.htm
Incidentally, I DO give things a chance. I gave “Troy” (2004) a chance; and, after 15 minutes, walked out of the room. Overall, “Helen of Troy” (1956) is closer to The Iliad and contains fewer anachronisms, even though it too deviates from the source material quite a bit. I like German Expressionism as well, and am particularly fond of “Nosferatu.” However, I prefer Hitchcock’s later films: from “Rebecca” (1940) to “The Birds” (1963). And one of my favourite films was released in 1957: “Witness for the Prosecution.”
P.S. I will acknowledge that it was immature to call you “a turd,” but you are the one who was initially insulting. You were obviously very annoyed by my dogmatic assertions, but had no business calling me “woefully uninformed about modern movies,” since I never stated that ALL recently filmed productions were devoid of merit. Take a good look at this message board: you will find some unfavourable comments, no doubt, but they will be far outnumbered by comments that indicate how much affection, admiration, and love people have for this film, which is not nearly as theatrical as some later films. And just who is to say that subtlety is always desirable, anyway? It is strictly a matter of taste.
Stephen Stranges Clothier
pol-edra: Good suggestion, I'd be game for it, though I don't know how active I'd actually end up being.
I am not going to make this as long as it could be (which I am sure you will be relieved to hear).
I refuse to waste too much time in replying to someone who, among other wild exaggerations, states that he speaks Latin, a language which, apart from its use in the Vatican, is dead. Mind you, I know that your ridiculous claims were not meant to be taken seriously;
but you had no justification in accusing me of faking credentials or calling me a liar.
but one thing I NEVER do is exaggerate; my obsession with accuracy and compulsive fact-checking prevent me from doing so.
Incidentally, I DO give things a chance. I gave “Troy” (2004) a chance; and, after 15 minutes, walked out of the room.
You were obviously very annoyed by my dogmatic assertions, but had no business calling me “woefully uninformed about modern movies,” since I never stated that ALL recently filmed productions were devoid of merit.
Go to the message board for the Errol Flynn classic: you will find some unfavourable comments, no doubt, but they will be far outnumbered by comments that indicate how much affection, admiration, and love people have for this film,
And just who is to say that subtlety is always desirable, anyway?
There's no arguing the fact that until you've seen the film, your judgment of it is invalid.
Pr*ck Turd, PhD. Funny. Ironically, the very terms which a few messages ago I had begun to regret applying to you now seem entirely appropriate. Kudos to you, Dr. Cornwell, for having written an historical novel and published several other books. But as if I would buy any of them! Even if the subject matter appealed to me, I would be putting money into the pocket of someone who has now at least 3 times challenged the FACTS about my education. My truthful claims were relatively modest. I did not say, for example, that I had discovered a papyrus scroll on which the vowel system of Ancient Egyptian was revealed, thereby enabling Egyptologists to meaningfully insert the correct vowels between those pesky clusters of consonants. I told the truth, and nothing that I said was outlandishly extravagant. How can I prove what I say? Well, I am not fortunate enough to have books for sale on Amazon, and you are unlikely to visit the university library that I mentioned and then compare the name of the author on the title page to that listed on my birth certificate and Health Card!
My only error was in not immediately deducing on the basis of your verbiage that you were not “the average Joe.” So, you have a Ph.D. As Bette Davis said (to another arrogant Brit, in “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?”): “How nice for you!” I could have claimed to have a doctorate, but I did not. With a solid A average, I dropped out, half-way through my Ph.D. degree, because my epilepsy had increased in severity. But I have no real regrets and nothing further to prove. I am quite satisfied that I have an M.A. and a thesis published. I am working on a variety of projects, including a history of Ancient Israel (I am a Maximalist); I have completed the horror novel, the first chapter of which you could, if you wished, read; and, as for the poetry that I have written since the first poems were published, they will only see the light of day when they are enclosed within the boards of a book bound well enough to contain them. Several of them are written in a quasi-Miltonian style, and I am jealously guarding them. I WILL make a name for myself, I assure you. I have the time and the financial freedom to do so. Time is on my side. I was born in 1967, not 1944.
If you had not challenged my education, I might indeed respond to your ENTIRE argument and “touch on” every single oh-so-crucial point that you made. As if it is valid to compare “Robin of Sherwood,” a series that had a fairly good run, to a 102-minute feature film! The comparison is ludicrous! Consult other sources and consider how the Flynn film consistently scores top marks; some abysmally poor films or mediocre ones, like “Groundhog Day,” can get an absurdly high rating on this site if enough teenagers log onto the site and vote. How else do you explain the inordinately high position of “The Dark Knight”? If “Raiders of the Lost Ark” were so high, then justice would be served. But enough of this. Why should I elevate my blood pressure by typing messages back and forth to someone whom I shall never meet and who has repeatedly implied that I am a liar? Is it any wonder that I feel somewhat disinclined to engage in conversation with you??? Cwente2 very succinctly summed up the virtues of the Errol Flynn film in his closing paragraph. You do not have a monopoly on eloquence. He is evidently as bored and irritated by you as I. Spare your fingers the wear and tear, and do not bother replying to this. I do not need lectures by you on film history or on any other topic.
Et nunc: Abi in malam crucem.
P.S. The system did not allow me to insert Greek characters; they appeared as a series of numbers...and what I made up was quite colourful!
Kudos to you, Dr. Cornwell, for having written an historical novel and published several other books. But as if I would buy any of them! Even if the subject matter appealed to me, I would be putting money into the pocket of someone who has now at least 3 times challenged the FACTS about my education.
I did not say, for example, that I had discovered a papyrus scroll on which the vowel system of Ancient Egyptian was revealed, thereby enabling Egyptologists to meaningfully insert the correct vowels between those pesky clusters of consonants.
I WILL make a name for myself, I assure you. I have the time and the financial freedom to do so. Time is on my side. I was born in 1967, not 1944.
If you had not challenged my education, I might indeed respond to your ENTIRE argument and “touch on” every single oh-so-crucial point that you made.
As if it is valid to compare “Robin of Sherwood,” a series that had a fairly good run, to a 102-minute feature film! The comparison is ludicrous!
Why should I elevate my blood pressure by typing messages back and forth to someone whom I shall never meet and who has repeatedly implied that I am a liar?
Is it any wonder that I feel somewhat disinclined to engage in conversation with you?
Spare your fingers the wear and tear, and do not bother replying to this. I do not need lectures by you on film history or on any other topic.
Et nunc: Abi in malam crucem.
Well, pelopen is certainly full of SOMETHING! Could it be -- himself?
(Somehow, I'm reminded of Lincoln when reading his posts -- "He can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I have ever met.")
Well, thankfully, our "dialogue" has ended. I did not respond to his last message. I will readily admit to being opinionated and having strong convictions, but as to him...Oh, my God. At any rate, we and other fans of classic films will continue to enjoy every glorious minute of "The Adventures of Robin Hood."
Stephen
Indeed we will, milord :-)
let the scurvy varlet and those of his ilk continue to wallow in the mire of high-handedness and self-righteousness.
Who would have thought that a 72 year old movie could still incite such passions? And 5 pages of topics? But it's been a whole bunch of fun. Reading these posts has been like watching Errol and Basil going at it in the last scene!
cinefreak
I am very passionate about films and other art forms (and thus extremely defensive). Your comparison is a very reasonable one! I see that many of the films on your list of favourites are special to me as well.
Stephen
Actually, without making any judgements at all as to the quality of the new film, I will make a prediction. It will not become a classic largely because the generation that will make up the bulk of it's box office receipts generally has no use for anything that came out prior to the week before last. It'll make a bunch of money in it's opening run and then be forgotten.
cinefreak
''Robin Hood using a longbow (not around yet, really), Friar Tuck (there were no Friars yet), and his loyalties make little sense.''
Where did you read that longbows did not exist in the 1190s? They certainly did. The oldest longbow found in the British Isles was from 2665 BC. I believe the oldest longbow in the world was found near Hamburg. Robin Hood could quite easily have a longbow, and they had, in fact, been used successfully in 1138 by the English at the Battle of the Standard.
''Why would he support Richard (who he should rightly hate) and not Prince John (who tried not to bother Saxons and rewarded Normans loyal to him)? The fact is, putting him in the period opens up a number of problems that films simply don't address. Novels like Richard Thorpe's Hodd address the contradictions. ''
Now this is a good point, however, the world of Robin Hood seems to exist in the same world as the Matter of England, which contains the heroic portrayal of King Richard as a wise king and knight who cares about the people of England. You see, the people of England knew that the king was not in England oppressing the people physically so they transformed his indifference towards England into a love of England. John got the blame because he was a very real and present threat to the peasantry, whereas Richard seemed so distant. I guess it gave them hope.
If you are sick of the ''I love Jesus 100% signature'', copy and paste this into your profile!
Well the new Robin Hood came and went. Nobody cared. This is still the best version.
share[deleted]
They don't make 'em like this anymore. This is a top budget "A+" movie made in the old classic, lost Hollywood "style," directed by European-bred director Michael Curtiz. You can see the way they put this story together on film is not unlike the style used in the silent movie era of filmaking (title cards, etc.). No expense was spared in script, sets, cosutmes, musical score, etc. This was a great early talkie.
shareDon't sell Russell Crowe short; he has a very decent track record. Certainly his GLADIATOR is one of the most popular movies regularly screened on cable TV.
God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein)
Agreed. Russell Crowe is a good, charismatic actor who is a great choice for the part.
shareEvery time I watch this film, I finish with a feeling of great satisfaction. It's one of the few perfect films.
I'm not bothering to cite facts and expert opinions and polls. I like it. I can watch it a couple of times a year without tiring of it's perfection and beauty.
As for the new one...The trailers are long enough, these days, that people can get a very clear idea as to whether a film is, in their opinion, worth the price of admission.
"sometimes we leave everything to find ourselves"
Yes, it is almost a perfect movie.
A great follow up to the first Errol Flynn/Olivia de Haviland/Basil Rathbone adventure from four years earlier -- Captain Blood.
This one was kind of like an adult fairly tale, like Camalot or something. Great photography, sets, colors, actors, acting, music -- comedy, action, happy ending, etc., etc.. Only Errol Flynn could look cool in those green tights.
Let's face it, it's the most perfect storybook version of "Robin Hood" that we'll ever see in our lifetime. Amazing in its Technicolor beauty, it has the perfect cast, the perfect score and a wonderfully witty script. How could it lose? It's still enormously popular today and the newly restored two-disc DVD does it justice. It defines what a swashbuckler should look like.
With a cast headed by four great stars--Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, Basil Rathbone and Claude Rains, it has my deepest respect and fully deserved its Academy Award nominations. Korngold's score is outstanding.
It's foolish for anyone to even suggest that it's not a Grade A production.
"Somewhere along the line, the world has lost all of its standards and all of its taste."
Flynn was made for these type of pictures. He had the right amount of rebel in the role. You have the 'Skipper's' dad, Allan Hale Sr, Basil Rathbone, Claude Raines and Olivia DeHaviland. Perfect cast.
share[deleted]
I've seen many incarnations of the story of Robin Hood, but they will never top this!
What we have here is failure to communicate!share