Robin Hood
2+ hours to get to Robin and his merry band into the forest. That's pretty long to set up for a sequel in which something interesting might happen. In our group yesterday we were split with one like, one dislike, and I was in the middle with sort of liked.
Since everyone knows the story let's get into it. New version - everyone is older except the bizarre Peter Pan children. Not sure why the film makers felt it was important to have feral boys in the movie. Three story lines are going on here. 1) Future King John decides a french mistress is better than his English wife and he fights with his mother. 2) Maid Marion is the lady farmer and the church is corrupt and taking the grain seeds. 3) Robin is busy fighting until King Richard is killed and then Robin is done with fighting for kings.
Sound like three random movies? It was like watching them at the same time. At some point everyone gets together in the movie for a big action sequence that signaled the beginning of the end of the movie.
Coming in a distant second to Iron Man 2, things don't look good for a Robin Hood sequel. That's too bad because now that all the set-up is done, I think a second film would actually be more of what people are looking to see in a Robin Hood adventure.
What was good? The side character casting. The movie was far more interesting when the King Mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine was involved, evil Godfrey (the villain, not the Sheriff as you might think) and even the French mistress of King John had a good story going. Russsell Crowe and Cate Blanchett were good together. Friar Tuck was okay. He rolled a few kegs, gotta love that!
Robin's Merry Men are interchangeable and really were more fun in Star Trek Next Gen than in this movie. The Peter Pan boys were useless. The filming was so dark that one would think that it was perpetual dusk in England. The end credits were the brightest thing on the screen.
Since everyone knows the story let's get into it. New version - everyone is older except the bizarre Peter Pan children. Not sure why the film makers felt it was important to have feral boys in the movie. Three story lines are going on here. 1) Future King John decides a french mistress is better than his English wife and he fights with his mother. 2) Maid Marion is the lady farmer and the church is corrupt and taking the grain seeds. 3) Robin is busy fighting until King Richard is killed and then Robin is done with fighting for kings.
Sound like three random movies? It was like watching them at the same time. At some point everyone gets together in the movie for a big action sequence that signaled the beginning of the end of the movie.
Coming in a distant second to Iron Man 2, things don't look good for a Robin Hood sequel. That's too bad because now that all the set-up is done, I think a second film would actually be more of what people are looking to see in a Robin Hood adventure.
What was good? The side character casting. The movie was far more interesting when the King Mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine was involved, evil Godfrey (the villain, not the Sheriff as you might think) and even the French mistress of King John had a good story going. Russsell Crowe and Cate Blanchett were good together. Friar Tuck was okay. He rolled a few kegs, gotta love that!
Robin's Merry Men are interchangeable and really were more fun in Star Trek Next Gen than in this movie. The Peter Pan boys were useless. The filming was so dark that one would think that it was perpetual dusk in England. The end credits were the brightest thing on the screen.
Comments
Post a Comment