Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews5
jdmu7's rating
First let me state the good aspects of the film.
And now that we've dealt with that, here's what went wrong. The cardinal sin of this production was the acting (or lack thereof) from every principal member of the cast. Two Australians were handed the main roles, one (Blanchett) doing a solid impression of an English accent while Crowe's imitation hovered in quality between downright awful and Dick Van Dyke. Also, the Welshman looked and sounded Scots/Irish/Klingon while the fourth "merry man," who's name I can't recall ever being mentioned, was decidedly American.
Expanding our critique of the acting from just the accents, I have rarely seen a character with less depth than Crowe's take on Robin Hood. No affectation, no plausible back story and simply no distinction whatsoever. A character such as Robin Hood would have charisma and personality. Crowe was the inverse.
Second on the hit list, the story-line (without dropping in any spoilers). This is a film that had one of the greatest folk legends to draw upon, a depth of material and detail not commonly found. Instead, Ridley Scott decided to deviate and invent his own version which shared almost none of the common elements of the standard version(s). This sudden outburst of originality would've been excused if there was some phenomenal acting but sadly its absence just compounded by already negative view of the film.
I have never seen a great film adaptation of Robin Hood. Or rather, a dramatic rendition. Men in Tights was dynamite. This is because a legend like that of Robin Hood requires an extraordinary amount of detail and time to do justice in its retelling. And yet, 2hrs 40min was far too long for this film.
Anyone wishing to see a truly great adaptation of Robin Hood, one that has such broad depth of acting and scripting, beautifully shot, faithful to much of the old tales but successfully modernized, you must turn to the television. Namely, the BBC series from 2006-09.
Great actors are capable of defining roles for a generation. For example, Basil Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes and Jeremy Brett's version some 50 years later. Jonas Armstrong is very much the modern Robin Hood. I would go so far as to say he is the best ever, better even than Flynn, Richard Greene, or the aforementioned Rathbone. Likewise Keith Allen is the supreme portrayer of the Sheriff, genuinely one of the most evil yet darkly hilarious performances I've ever seen. The series has charm as well as tragedy. In fact, every part of the series, from its music to its costumes has the beating of its counterpart in this massive-budget squib. Andy Price's score alone does more for exposition than any of Russell Crowe's wooden clichés.
Best of all, the TV version has no dodgy accents.
And now that we've dealt with that, here's what went wrong. The cardinal sin of this production was the acting (or lack thereof) from every principal member of the cast. Two Australians were handed the main roles, one (Blanchett) doing a solid impression of an English accent while Crowe's imitation hovered in quality between downright awful and Dick Van Dyke. Also, the Welshman looked and sounded Scots/Irish/Klingon while the fourth "merry man," who's name I can't recall ever being mentioned, was decidedly American.
Expanding our critique of the acting from just the accents, I have rarely seen a character with less depth than Crowe's take on Robin Hood. No affectation, no plausible back story and simply no distinction whatsoever. A character such as Robin Hood would have charisma and personality. Crowe was the inverse.
Second on the hit list, the story-line (without dropping in any spoilers). This is a film that had one of the greatest folk legends to draw upon, a depth of material and detail not commonly found. Instead, Ridley Scott decided to deviate and invent his own version which shared almost none of the common elements of the standard version(s). This sudden outburst of originality would've been excused if there was some phenomenal acting but sadly its absence just compounded by already negative view of the film.
I have never seen a great film adaptation of Robin Hood. Or rather, a dramatic rendition. Men in Tights was dynamite. This is because a legend like that of Robin Hood requires an extraordinary amount of detail and time to do justice in its retelling. And yet, 2hrs 40min was far too long for this film.
Anyone wishing to see a truly great adaptation of Robin Hood, one that has such broad depth of acting and scripting, beautifully shot, faithful to much of the old tales but successfully modernized, you must turn to the television. Namely, the BBC series from 2006-09.
Great actors are capable of defining roles for a generation. For example, Basil Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes and Jeremy Brett's version some 50 years later. Jonas Armstrong is very much the modern Robin Hood. I would go so far as to say he is the best ever, better even than Flynn, Richard Greene, or the aforementioned Rathbone. Likewise Keith Allen is the supreme portrayer of the Sheriff, genuinely one of the most evil yet darkly hilarious performances I've ever seen. The series has charm as well as tragedy. In fact, every part of the series, from its music to its costumes has the beating of its counterpart in this massive-budget squib. Andy Price's score alone does more for exposition than any of Russell Crowe's wooden clichés.
Best of all, the TV version has no dodgy accents.
Frankly, in my highly biased opinion, this is one of the greatest television series to escape onto screen. I won't even bother to explain why to any great length. Watch it. If you don't like it, fair enough. Robin Hood is like Doctor Who in that respect. Its fans absolutely adore it while skeptics think it's a bit weird.
There are flaws. A few moments come off as quite "cheesy." The fighting, while quite solid and aggressive, doesn't set off any fireworks. However, no series has finer acting or is more beautifully shot. Some are on a par but you can't exceed perfection.
It didn't have the legs to go beyond three series but the majority of those episodes were sublime. The best version of Robin Hood by a 12th century country mile.
There are flaws. A few moments come off as quite "cheesy." The fighting, while quite solid and aggressive, doesn't set off any fireworks. However, no series has finer acting or is more beautifully shot. Some are on a par but you can't exceed perfection.
It didn't have the legs to go beyond three series but the majority of those episodes were sublime. The best version of Robin Hood by a 12th century country mile.
Top Gear is the most informative car show, but also the funniest. It surpasses all its rivals, and Jeremy Clarkson, James May, and Richard Hammond are the best trio of presenters currently on TV. From burning expensive rubber on expensive cars to destroying two caravans via a large scale game of conkers, this show is a classic. They have also created the magnificent spectacle of watching celebrities embarrass or cover themselves in glory inside a Reasonably Price Car. And of course, there's the Stig.
Top Gear has the X factor that it looks for in its cars. It's factual, funny, and just downright brilliant.
Top Gear has the X factor that it looks for in its cars. It's factual, funny, and just downright brilliant.