Robin Hood

Lamont Cranston · 05.13.2010, 05:55 AM

Robin Hood sucks, do not go and see it.

atsonicpark · 05.13.2010, 06:10 AM

The irreducible ontological unit is pontifical in its ubiquity. What are the truth conditions of necessary truths? How can we come to have justified truths about modalities of qualified propositions? Arguably all else must be non-sanguine, seldomly maximal. Modality, therefore, is or isn't alethic. It is to this all correctivity is elevated. Remember, keep a strict eye on the eulogistic and dylogistic -- they must deploy and be accurate.

nicfit · 05.13.2010, 06:12 AM

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEH!!

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
click meeeee!

Glice · 05.13.2010, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nicfit

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEH!!

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
click meeeee!

The legendary...

gualbert · 05.13.2010, 07:08 AM

Why do people want to see this story over and over and over..?
That's the 30th version or something.
I stick to Errol Flynn, and John Cleese for fun.

Rob Instigator · 05.13.2010, 08:59 AM

I loved reading Robin Hood as a kid. Read it so much. The movie looks like the same claptrap bullshit where they add more explosions and dirt and grime and harshness and make it suvck shit.

like sherlock holmes

that shit SUCKED

space · 05.13.2010, 09:05 AM

I came into this thread to say "in b4 was robin hood a real person?"....and I FAILED.

pokkeherrie · 05.13.2010, 09:30 AM

^^i was surprised to see it took more than 1 post before we got there.

don't have anything to say about the movie other than that i didn't know they (who?) were making a new one.

space · 05.13.2010, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gualbert

Why do people want to see this story over and over and over..?
That's the 30th version or something.

because movies aren't about what people want to see so much as what's easy to write.

just take a look at 2010. not even fucking JOHN CUSACK could save that beast.

Rob Instigator · 05.13.2010, 10:02 AM

“Robin Hood” is a high-tech and well made violent action picture using the name of Robin Hood for no better reason than that it’s an established brand not protected by copyright. I cannot discover any sincere interest on the part of Scott, Crowe or the writer Brian Helgeland in any previous version of Robin Hood. Their Robin is another weary retread of the muscular macho slaughterers who with interchangeable names stand at the center of one overwrought bloodbath after another.

space · 05.13.2010, 10:14 AM

yes, I deleted what I wrote about "with SFX" because I have no idea if this robin hood has them. I assume so.

will there be car chases, with horses replacing cars? I assume that as well.

Rob Instigator · 05.13.2010, 10:19 AM

this robin hood is sux.

Little by little, title by title, innocence and joy is being drained out of the movies. What do you think of when you hear the name of Robin Hood? I think of Errol Flynn, Sean Connery and the Walt Disney character. I see Robin lurking in Sherwood Forest, in love with Maid Marian (Olivia de Havilland or Audrey Hepburn), and roistering with Friar Tuck and the Merry Men. I see a dashing swashbuckler. That Robin Hood is nowhere to be found in Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood,” starring Russell Crowe as a warrior just back from fighting in the Third Crusade. Now Richard is dead, and Robin is essentially an unemployed mercenary. This story is a prequel. It takes place entirely before Robin got to be a folk hero. The idea of taking from the rich and giving to the poor was still in storyboard form. Grieving Richard the Lionhearted and now facing the tyrant King John, Robin leads an uprising.

This war broadens until, in the words of the movie’s synopsis, “it will forever alter the balance of world power.” That’s not all; “Robin will become an eternal symbol of freedom for his people.” Not bad for a man who, by general agreement, did not exist. Although various obscure bandits and ne’er-do-wells inspired ancient ballads about such a figure, our image of him is largely a fiction from the 19th century.

But so what? In for a penny, in for a pound. After the death of Richard, Robin Hood raises, arms and fields an army to repel a French army as it lands on an English beach in wooden craft that look uncannily like World War II troop carriers at Normandy. His men, welding broadswords, backed by archers, protected from enemy arrows by their shields, engage the enemy in a last act devoted almost entirely to nonstop CGI and stunt carnage in which warriors clash in confused alarms and excursions, and Russell Crowe frequently appears in the foreground to whack somebody.

Subsequently, apparently, Robin pensioned his militia and retired to Sherwood Forest to play tag with Friar Tuck. That’s my best guess; at the end the film informs us, “and so the legend begins,” leaving us with the impression we walked in early.

Keeping It Simple · 05.13.2010, 03:53 PM

http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/...asp?FID=134778

TheMadcapLaughs · 05.13.2010, 03:56 PM

i like men in tights. the mel brooks movie is pretty funny too.

Dr. Eugene Felikson · 05.13.2010, 04:38 PM

Why do people even bother going to the movies these days? I don't get it.

Lamont Cranston · 05.14.2010, 04:37 AM

To see films Eugene.

pbradley · 05.14.2010, 05:03 AM

Nobody can top the Cost.

Keeping It Simple · 05.14.2010, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbradley

Nobody can top the Cost.

The best thing about that movie was Alan Rickman stealing the movie as the Sheriff of Nottingham. I read a lot of Alan Rickman's scenes were cut out so he wouldn't totally steal the movie, yet he still managed to steal it. Not surprising when Kevin Costner was as wooden as the trees of the forest.

batreleaser · 05.14.2010, 01:00 PM

I thought Ridley Scott (the most wishy washy big director in the world) would at lrast made it an R rating to make it at least worth seeing.

batreleaser · 05.14.2010, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by space

because movies aren't about what people want to see so much as what's easy to write.

just take a look at 2010. not even fucking JOHN CUSACK could save that beast.

or Woody

05.13.2010, 05:55 AM	#1
Lamont Cranston 100% Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 725	Robin Hood sucks, do not go and see it. __________________ This is how it will all end: not with floods, earthquakes, falling comets or gigantic crabs roaming the Earth. No, doomsday will start simply out of indifference.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

05.13.2010, 06:10 AM	#2
atsonicpark invito al cielo Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 28,843	The irreducible ontological unit is pontifical in its ubiquity. What are the truth conditions of necessary truths? How can we come to have justified truths about modalities of qualified propositions? Arguably all else must be non-sanguine, seldomly maximal. Modality, therefore, is or isn't alethic. It is to this all correctivity is elevated. Remember, keep a strict eye on the eulogistic and dylogistic -- they must deploy and be accurate. __________________
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

05.13.2010, 06:12 AM	#3
nicfit invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: banana boat Posts: 15,570	EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEH!! ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ click meeeee! __________________ 11:11 11-11-11 I Ascended.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

05.13.2010, 07:08 AM	#5
gualbert the end of the ugly Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,088	Why do people want to see this story over and over and over..? That's the 30th version or something. I stick to Errol Flynn, and John Cleese for fun.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

05.13.2010, 08:59 AM	#6
Rob Instigator invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the land of the Instigator Posts: 27,991	I loved reading Robin Hood as a kid. Read it so much. The movie looks like the same claptrap bullshit where they add more explosions and dirt and grime and harshness and make it suvck shit. like sherlock holmes that shit SUCKED __________________ RXTT's Intellectual Journey - my new blog where I talk about all the books I read.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

05.13.2010, 09:05 AM	#7
space expwy. to yr skull Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,553	I came into this thread to say "in b4 was robin hood a real person?"....and I FAILED.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

05.13.2010, 09:30 AM	#8
pokkeherrie invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 4,289	^^i was surprised to see it took more than 1 post before we got there. don't have anything to say about the movie other than that i didn't know they (who?) were making a new one.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

05.13.2010, 10:02 AM	#10
Rob Instigator invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the land of the Instigator Posts: 27,991	“Robin Hood” is a high-tech and well made violent action picture using the name of Robin Hood for no better reason than that it’s an established brand not protected by copyright. I cannot discover any sincere interest on the part of Scott, Crowe or the writer Brian Helgeland in any previous version of Robin Hood. Their Robin is another weary retread of the muscular macho slaughterers who with interchangeable names stand at the center of one overwrought bloodbath after another. __________________ RXTT's Intellectual Journey - my new blog where I talk about all the books I read.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

05.13.2010, 10:14 AM	#11
space expwy. to yr skull Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,553	yes, I deleted what I wrote about "with SFX" because I have no idea if this robin hood has them. I assume so. will there be car chases, with horses replacing cars? I assume that as well.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

05.13.2010, 10:19 AM	#12
Rob Instigator invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the land of the Instigator Posts: 27,991	this robin hood is sux. Little by little, title by title, innocence and joy is being drained out of the movies. What do you think of when you hear the name of Robin Hood? I think of Errol Flynn, Sean Connery and the Walt Disney character. I see Robin lurking in Sherwood Forest, in love with Maid Marian (Olivia de Havilland or Audrey Hepburn), and roistering with Friar Tuck and the Merry Men. I see a dashing swashbuckler. That Robin Hood is nowhere to be found in Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood,” starring Russell Crowe as a warrior just back from fighting in the Third Crusade. Now Richard is dead, and Robin is essentially an unemployed mercenary. This story is a prequel. It takes place entirely before Robin got to be a folk hero. The idea of taking from the rich and giving to the poor was still in storyboard form. Grieving Richard the Lionhearted and now facing the tyrant King John, Robin leads an uprising. This war broadens until, in the words of the movie’s synopsis, “it will forever alter the balance of world power.” That’s not all; “Robin will become an eternal symbol of freedom for his people.” Not bad for a man who, by general agreement, did not exist. Although various obscure bandits and ne’er-do-wells inspired ancient ballads about such a figure, our image of him is largely a fiction from the 19th century. But so what? In for a penny, in for a pound. After the death of Richard, Robin Hood raises, arms and fields an army to repel a French army as it lands on an English beach in wooden craft that look uncannily like World War II troop carriers at Normandy. His men, welding broadswords, backed by archers, protected from enemy arrows by their shields, engage the enemy in a last act devoted almost entirely to nonstop CGI and stunt carnage in which warriors clash in confused alarms and excursions, and Russell Crowe frequently appears in the foreground to whack somebody. Subsequently, apparently, Robin pensioned his militia and retired to Sherwood Forest to play tag with Friar Tuck. That’s my best guess; at the end the film informs us, “and so the legend begins,” leaving us with the impression we walked in early. __________________ RXTT's Intellectual Journey - my new blog where I talk about all the books I read.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

05.13.2010, 03:53 PM	#13
Keeping It Simple invito al cielo Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 3,721	http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/...asp?FID=134778
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

05.13.2010, 03:56 PM	#14
TheMadcapLaughs 100% Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: SF, CA Posts: 819	i like men in tights. the mel brooks movie is pretty funny too.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

05.13.2010, 04:38 PM	#15
Dr. Eugene Felikson invito al cielo Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 7,571	Why do people even bother going to the movies these days? I don't get it.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

05.14.2010, 04:37 AM	#16
Lamont Cranston 100% Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 725	To see films Eugene. __________________ This is how it will all end: not with floods, earthquakes, falling comets or gigantic crabs roaming the Earth. No, doomsday will start simply out of indifference.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

05.14.2010, 05:03 AM	#17
pbradley invito al cielo Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: SoKo Posts: 10,621	Nobody can top the Cost.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

05.14.2010, 01:00 PM	#19
batreleaser invito al cielo Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: New York, NY Posts: 5,155	I thought Ridley Scott (the most wishy washy big director in the world) would at lrast made it an R rating to make it at least worth seeing. __________________ listen to pink reason
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|