OK so I just spent 2 hours watching this movie...its the worst movie of all time! I sat down thinking "hey its got sean connery and audrey hepburn in it, its gotta be great" and then I watched it. "I LOVE YOU" so she friggin kills him? what kind of sense does that make? its just a really bad version of romeo and juliet. And even Romeo and Juliet don't put on such a pathetic performance! This movie was just a waste of time...
shareI just saw Robin and Marian for the first time and believe that it's a terrific film, with an ending that acknowledges the suffering of pain, the harsh plight of life for the underprivileged in medieval England, and the ambiguous consequences of such chivalrous values as pride, honor, and valor. From the opening image, the film imparts a sense of unease and fatalism, even though it's also graced by poignant romanticism and laced with lyrical humor. Ultimately, that fatalism manifests itself in the tragic denouement of this nuanced romance, one that's sinewy and yet sensitive. The film also prospers from intricate, mature acting performances, evocatively autumnal cinematography with excellent attention to landscape, composition, and color, graceful editing, and a hauntingly romantic score from John Barry. Robin and Marian manages to be both enchanting and tragic, romantic and brutal, and that's a difficult combination to successfully achieve. Thankfully, the film does so with aching grace.
shareWonderful review. Captures it perfectly.
sharesee my reply to quintshawfan. it fits for your knee-jerk reaction as well.
shareI mostly liked the movie, but I must agree with the original poster. The ending is absurd, and unnecessarily depressing. I know the original legend, so I wasn´t expecting Robin to make it. I knew he was supposed to be killed. But being murdered by Marian is one of the worst ideas I have ever seen. Even worse, Robin DOESN´T wants to die! He calls John the moment he knows the truth, and only accepts his fate when he learns it´s too late to be saved. Also, Marian´s action deprives the people in Sherwood from a man who could have saved them or at least given them hope. In the original legend, Robin kils the Sheriff, and end in a truce-like balance with King John and the people of Nottingham. More or less, you could say that he achieved his goal. Here, people comes to him, he defeats the Sheriff, but afterwards his troops massacre his men, and capture Will Scarlett and Friar Tuck, who no doubt would be executed, since Robin´s death left them with no one to intercede or try to rescue them. In any case, Marian´s actions no only end in the murder of Robin, but also in the inevitable defeat and murder of dozens of innocent villagers who put their faith on Robin Hood. The movie made her look more of a paranoid, demented woman, than a madly in love person she was supposed to be.
shareThe key word, of course, is LEGEND. As opposed to historical fact. Certainly, people don't want to see the death of Robin Hood any more than they want to see the death of Tarzan or Santa Claus, but the funerals won't REALLY happen, will they? At the end of the film, the Sheriff is dead, but Robin is old and finished as well. Guess what? We grow old. We die. Sometimes our loved ones, one way or another, assist us out the door when no other alternative exists. Sometimes, they join us. Recall that Marian drinks the poison FIRST. That's the nice thing about legends- they're not inflexible. They don't dabble in fact, they try to tell the truth.
shareWhat Marian knows (and Robin comes to accept - "I'll never have a day like this again, will I?") is that by going out at that moment while his epic battle with the sherrif is still fresh in everyone's memory he'll be remembered - a legend. Alive he'd just be another old man reminiscing about 'the good old days' - forgotten as soon as he's buried and most likely before that. A couplet I once read sums it up (I believe it's a traslation of a Roman poet - Ovid?)
'Better the hero to die in his prime
Than live on as an old man saying "there once was a time........"'
"Woof. In tones of low menace"
As has been noted elsewhere, screenwriter Goldman used various old ballads as part of his source material. There are many ballads that have Robin dying as a result of a woman's treachery. In his introduction to a paperback version of the screenplay that was published in the 70's, Goldman claimed to have found a ballad that had Robin dying at the hand of Marian.
Since Goldman wanted to play up the romance, he did not care for the most obvious scenario: to have Marian poison Robin for abandoning her. The ending that appears in the film, in my opinion, is a comprmise. Robin dies by the hand of one who loves him, but it still can be can be considered a treacherous act.
I hated the ending!!!
I would have spent my last remaining moments making sure Marian went out in a symphony of pain and suffering. She had NO right to take his life.
I have to admit that my feelings are that it is great that you hate the ending. At least it is a feeling! The film appears to try to reflect the traditions of old world story telling. There are many stories that follow this tradition and all follow a similar pattern. The hero must die! This film was a bit weak in that Mariam took it upon herself to try to bring peace in the end by killing Robin but it works for me. Odder things have happened.... It is a very memorable film!
share'Better the hero to die in his prime
Than live on as an old man saying "there once was a time........"'
heh. I think I heard a translation of that which was
"It's better to burn out
'cause rust never sleeps...."
What I had in mind was boxing the compass.share
Not a movie for the movieplex generation maybe? I suppose those brought up on Simpson and Bruckheimer dross would miss the nuances and beauty of this movie. As to the ending - Robin is clearly mortally wounded and in agony (just like Mr Orange gut shot in Reservoir Dogs). Marion's love for him leads her to take away his pain. He can't be saved so she spares him the inevitable agony. Not exactly betrayed, Robin realises why Marion has done this and accepts it. He dies and the legend is born.
shareShe was not bringing peace, but preserving the legend. They went out together and no one defeated Robin. What's wrong with that?
share That is definitely another way to look at the ending; Robin and Marian moving from life into legend(which would never have happened in the highly-unlikely-event that he lived long enough to be captured by the soldiers).
I don't think Marian was "psychotic" or betraying him at all. She did what she did because she's very clearsighted and knows there's no way he can live, and she doesn't want to be without him again(think about it: reunited after twenty years only to see your true love die in agony? Not a pleasant prospect)which is why she drinks the poison as well.
I tried to dance to Britney Spears/I guess I'm gettin on in years
or as the Kurgan said:
Better to Burn out, then to fade away
Am I the only one who sees something slightly crazy and destructive about Robin's behavior? He basically starts the fight which nobody wants and then leads his men to their deaths when they could have stayed safe in the forest. To me he seems to be trying to relive his past by starting an old fight over again. The situation had changed. He no longer had a rightful king to fight for and so no real hope of victory. He couldn't keep up the fight forever and people would just get killed the more he tried. Marian seemed to be the voice of reason every step of the way but he kept forcing the issues. Quite frankly he started the mess trying to relive his youth. This isn't really a diatribe against Robin for I quite like what Sean Connery brought to him and he does seem to genuinely care about people and causes. I just don't think he has a firm grip on the reality of the situation. And I like the complexity of having a character who may well be doing the wrong things for the right reasons. At any rate that is his last day of triumph (for him personally, not his men) and the rest of his life would have to be spent in hiding and on the run. But he doesn't see any of that.
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNK
It's as simple as the answer to this question: Who is cooler? James Dean or Marlon Brando? ... Jim Morrison or David Crosby? Hallowed are the heroes that die before the harvest.
shareYeap i think its piece of crap.
After watching the Error Flynn version, back when i was in grammar school.
None of the Robin Hood movies have been quite like it. I think this one is one of the worst Robin Hood movies ever made.
All of you guys and gals are missing the point. This is not your well worn traditional swashbuckling arrow shooting Robin Hood movie. It belongs to the genre of films made to appeal to the pretentious cognoscenti who incline towards the philosophy of existentialism with a healthy dose of epicureanism. Get it? They love love and the pleasures of life but then they view life as meaningless and hopeless. They live for the moment. Morals and eternal truths hold no cache for them. Recognizing it for what it is, I enjoyed it but I don't subscribe to the ideology behind it.
shareRidiculous observations, with no foundation. This is just blanket anti-intellectualism. Besides, didn't Marion kill Robin because he was dying? Also, the Erroll Flynn Robin Hood took place during his youth. Isn't it a fact of life that people often have a sense of loss and disillusionment as they grow older? How many years have you been around? Perhaps your tender years explains your inability to appreciate the film's theme. How could you possible infer from this film that certain people "lack morals" because they have the audacity to give the film an unhappy ending (which is very similar to the way the actual Robin Hood legend ends, by the way)? This is a disagraceful and libelous statement and totally unfair! I suppose Shakespeare is an "epicurian", "elitist" feind because he wrote tragedies?
This is a bittersweet tragic love story, not a Marxist political tract. There is no "ideology", or whatever the heck it is you claim is in this film. It is a tragedy about a disillusioned old man, much like King Lear, who lives to see his way of life becoming obsolete. The world no longer needs or wants men lke him. Sounds an awful lot like Cervantes' Don Quixote, or the Peckinpah's Wild Bunch. I would love to hear your critique of the book Don Quixote, it would be priceless. We mustn't corrupt our youth and pull that Communitst, epicurian piece of filth off the High School reading list, mustn't we? Oh my! People getting old and disillusioned! Can't have our kids reading that sort of thing, can we?
Disillusionment should not equal psychosis. Why did the film makers choose to have the female character so... so...VICTORIAN??
shareThis movie was so bad it made me laugh. The ending was absolutely ridiculous, and made no sense to me either. I also cracked up at how bad robin hood was at swordfighting in that one scene. He kept tripping over his own feet. Yes, this movie is only good to make fun of.
share[deleted]
In the version of the Robin HOod stories that I read as a child Robin was murdered as by an abbess who was his cousin...he is ill and goes to her to be medicinally bled and she leaves him to bleed to death...somehow he still manages to shoot the bow to show where to bury him...he also refuses to allow little john to take revenge on a woman, even a murderess....compared to that Marions poision was downright merciful
It is not our abilities that make us who we are...it is our choices
Existentialism is right. It had been around for 30 years or so in lit. but film didn't really start to catch on to it until a bit later.
The focus here is that Marian (and Robin too, even though he initially resists) knows that there is no greater meaning to life, which would refute all of Marian's time as a nun, as would her murder and suicide. I think this version is wonderful, especially the ending.
Yea the swordfighting is pretty dated, but I bet you didn't see the result coming.
If you are going to claim a film as crap, please provide more answers than "didn't like the ending". Because you didn't like the ending does not make a film crap.
I recommended this film to many of my friends that are very well read, as this does help when retroactively analyzing the film.
The ending was beautiful. Imagine being lucky enough to be loved like that.
share> If you are going to claim a film as crap, please provide more answers than "didn't like the ending". Because you didn't like the ending does not make a film crap.
I didn't watch this film, but I don't think viewers of this film are the only one that watch a film for about 2 hours and that the ending is so disappointing that it is such a let-down that a person would have preferred to *not* have watched the film at all. And really, I doubt many people pick apart movies due to film quality (although it's takes away from some of the film's enjoyment) and use that decide whether he or she thinks the film is "good" or "bad" (which is really just another way of saying whether a person liked the movie), instead of by his or her enjoyment by the whole film or the outcome.
she kills him? thanks for spoiling it. You shouldn't use such an attractive subject title especially when you have spoilers in.
e.g. Subject : How to enjoy life (really)
Body text: Bruce Willis is dead in 'sixth sense'. Nicole and the kids are dead in 'the others'!
NOT GOOD!
If you come to a message board for a movie you haven't seen, then you do so at your own risk.
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"
I think it's a mediocre movie with a few great scenes. Sure, Connery and Hepburn are good, but they're the kind of actors who could make a compelling movie reading recipe books for two hours. The action scenes were wildly mixed in quality, the direction was lazy, the screenplay (save a few scattered memorable lines) was unmemorable and dull, the good cast was pretty much wasted. Richard Harris provided the movie's best scenes; he was the only one who seemed to have any life in him at all.
"Great, but why do they always use so much blood? Ruins the realism, don't you think?"
I agree with the original poster. This movie sucks for one reason -- Marian killing Robin. This would have never happened. Period.
shareOK everybody, chill on the marian bit.
it's a very stylzed reading of the times it was portraying, or rather the times that the legend developed: the age of chivalry and romance. To judge it any other way is ridiculous. Coz you don't like it looking at it from a 21st Cent perspective misses the whole point of this film. This whole film is a 'still life' of the middle ages. Does anyone recognize the Breugal painting of the 3 blind men on the road? This film has a historical realism that is only surpassed by it's witty dialogue. Look at the detail of sets and extras, etc...
Combining Goldman's wryness with Lester's tongue in cheek makes it one of the greatest dramedies of all time. The acting is great and the action is fine. 3 musketeers' fight director William Hobbs brings a realism you never see in action/sword flix: hurling a heavy sword for a five minute fight scene is bloody exhausting! Usually the hero dispatches 25 baddies without breaking a sweat. In the final fight between Robin and the sheriff they're falling over themselves and it's not just because their middle aged.
Connery's Robin is also marvelously flawed, making him both sympathetic and heroic as well as a bit sad. Compare this to Costner's pathetic performance.
Obviously i think this is one the great films of it's genre and if you think it's crap, look at it again, this time in context. You may see it's brilliance.
1. you are a rude moron. when you intend to comment on a movie's ending, at lease be courteous enough to mark the title of your thread accordingly for spoilers.
2. you are a rude moron. Romeo and Juliet have never "given a performance"