[Paul Watson]

Josh, Anduril was described as a longsword and later as having a great hilt. It would never have been only three feet long as it was a sword used by Elendil who was specifically described by Tolkien as seven feet tall and by some of Tolkiens other descriptions up to about seven feet nine inches tall, as well as by Aragorn who was decribed by Tolkien as being at least six feet six inches.

[Joshua R]

Ah, very good. I had forgotten that bit.

Given that, however, it doesn't make much sense to limit things to British Dark Ages technology and forbid anyone else from using or possessing a longsword, if for no other reason than someone, somewhere (quite possibly a lot of someones) would want to mime the sword that cut the Ring from Sauron's hand. And from there, of course, it doesn't make much sense to limit armor to maille and leather.

[Chuck Russell]

except that LOTR was supposed to be a sudo- mythology for the British isles

[Randall Moffett]

Walter,

On the Contrary I think the items in the LotRs clearly does draw uipon the High Medieval period (1100-1300); long swords and some plate armours are clearly made mention in his works for example-

In the Fall of Gondolin some gear the elves had stock piled included greaves and vambraces of plate as which are seen on a few other occasions like the Swan Knights of Dol Amroth and with the Dwarves in Belegost.

Surcoats are fairly common in LotR the men of Gondor seem to have various ones to denote their more local lords/allegiance. Whereas surcoats are fairly common by the mid to late 12th century they basically do not exist by 1100 in a medieval context.

Long swords has been hit but I am fairly sure there is mention of elves in the first age having them as well. At one point I had thought some one on this forum even made a fairly large list where long sword had been found in Tolkien's works.

Another is men in mail head to toe, also not really a early medieval but High Medieval thing all the way.

To me several groups have very clear early medieval Anglo-Saxon or viking 'feel' but I'd hardly lump everyone in that as some have more a High Medieval or even ancient history appearance/look/culture. In the end Tolkien's world to me hardly should be pushed into the Early Medieval or Dark Ages, or High or Late Medieval for that matter, as it is a world unto itself. I agree P Jackson put far more plate armour into it than I would have but I have to admit I'd have been tempted to put the Gondorians, Swan Knights and others into some form of armoured surcoats....

That said my earlier comment was more about how a movie could/should be made in regards to weapons and armour, done to the best possible not just 'good enough'.

RPM

[Joe Fults]

Not even going to touch the historical accuracy of the picture for the most part because historically accurate is not what I expect from movies. That said I am going to note that:

I found the characters mostly uninteresting
Interaction between the leads had all the intensity of a frozen carp...in a working freezer
The story line really seemed to forget its point, twice (except for setting a sequal...they made sure to get that in)
Struck me as an under developed travel adventure tale bolted onto a confused version of the prince and the pauper
Was it two movies that were not long enough or one movie that was way too long
The Godless crusaders bit is getting stale
King John was the only character that was interesting...at all
The merry men were way, Way, WAY underused which is a shame because they could have put some life in the movie
The main villian had a scar...whooo...scary...sure wasn't any other depth or complexity to him
Finally...
Higgens boats? I mean seriously...Higgens boats?

In summary the high crimes of this movie against anybody going to a theater to watch it (other than the ticket price anymore...thankfully I was not forced to pay for Robin Hood 3-D) are jamming two incomplete story lines into one movie and not really doing anything with either of them. Casting leads who either don't like each other, can't act (r-i-g-h-t) or are disinterested (maybe) in the project. Failing to make anybody care about any of the characters, their goals, motivations, hopes or dreams and finally taking a darn long to do none of it. Historical accuracy to the period and the story are minor considerations by comparison to the crappy story telling that abounds in the film. Based on what I saw they should have just added Ewoks (or Elmo or Shrek and Donkey) as merry men so kids would like it more.

[Ken Speed]

Joe,

So...just so I'm sure....you didn't like the movie?

Gee...really? That bad? Wow !!!

Thank you Joe very much for discussing the movie for what it is; a movie. Hollywood makes movies and they are (ideally) successful on the basis of providing interesting characters and story lines, competent acting and directing, good production values and, if appropriate, believable action sequences. Sounds like this one fails on pretty much all counts.

I'd planned to see it this weekend but now I think I'll wait until I can see it at home and save myself the aggravation and frustration.

[JG Elmslie]

friends of mine were struggling not to laugh, as I was in the cinema foaming at the mouth like a tourette's sufferer having a seizure, as I was spotting 4 centuries of helmets being shown and making objectionable reactions...

in the 2 1/2 min long trailer.

I decided that gnawing my own kneecaps off was a bad choice, and have'nt seen the film itself. the trailer was too much for my eye to take.

[Joe Fults]

Late in the movie King John seems to develop a very interesting spitting problem whenever he has a line to deliver. So many of the lines really need any help they can get, so that's something to say for the movie. I guess.

[Marko Susimetsa]

I think it was a decent movie if put against all the movies that are released these days. But it was in no way a memorable or a great movie.

The story was riddled with completely superfluous side-plots, such as the hobbit pony riders who somehow became Galadrie... Eh, Marion's personal army at the end. Likewise, it seemed that Marion's arrival and role in the final fight was added after the main shooting had ended - they seemed so removed from the battle and its events (not that it was even shown properly) and the only reason she was there was to make Robin look a bit more heroic.

In essence, the movie was a nice adventure film that offered a few laughs - most of them unintended by the makers, I'm sure.

BTW: Who spotted the reference to Monty Python's Holy Grail? I almost spit my candy hearing that line.

[Adam D. Kent-Isaac]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

Well I had some time to kill after work the other day so I shelled out my $5 and watched it at a matine.

I was able to do as many here reccomend and disconnect my history mind initially and more or less enjoy it through the first act. In the middle, when I was glad to see Max Von Sidow and Cate Blanchette, who are both interesting to look at, I was starting to get distracted by the awkward writing and overall sillyness of many elements of the plot, partly because Max and Cate both seemed kind of embarassed, and partly because the small elements which make up the little world of this film were starting to unravel for the reasons already discussed in this thread. I wasn't looking for it, it wasn't a matter of trying to nit pick, but increasingly nothing made sense. The dialogue, the plot, the situation, and the physical environment were all starting to have the blandly surreal feel of a Star Trek the Next Generation set.

So I was gritting my teeth a little but still trying to stay onboard for the rest of the ride.

In the Third Act the six-foot latex larp axe / sledgeammer that 'littlejohn' was carrying was the first sign it was jumping the shark (though I liked Russel Crowes normal sized war hammer), the odd Lord of the Flies "hobbits" just didn't fit anywhere (again, because of a lack of context, they just seemed out of place... the filmmakers had no idea how to fit a plot element like that into a medieval world and didn't even try to explain them) the villains were right out of Sci Fi Channel bad-guy central casting (and French to boot to make the whole thing appealing to an American or British audience), but the whole thing really jumped the shark with the Medieval Higgins boats. I couldn't ignore that if I wanted to (and I did try) it completely threw me out of what little immersion was left. You don't have to be a marine architecht or a sailor to instantly know that boat don't float.

All in all, while mildly entertaining and not bad enough for me to demand a refund, it was a very forgettable film aimed at I can't really imagine what audience, the Idiocracy version of a Renaissance Faire maybe. It was a muddle, a waste of time and (a whole lot of) money, a fairly low mark in the careers of a once talented director and some good actors (and for Russel Crowe as well even though he hasn't done anything good since LA Confidential) and a furthering of various idiotic cliches in the pop culture about our ancestors, who as usual are presented as an incomprehensible muddle of Capital One Barbarians and stock villans with a few random elements thrown in like Lord of the Flies elf- children (who I gather will make up part of the 'merry men' for the sequel, maybe they'll make it a teen movie for the twilight demographic). I guess you can't make a Medieval movie any more without somebody fighting half naked with paint on them.

I think it was a classic example of exactly what I expected and what some of us have been discussing in this thread (and some others ignoring). It's not the trivial details, but the complete lack of basic understanding of (and utter contempt for) history which makes Hollywood fail completely at making historical films. Nothing fits together or makes any sense and the utter lack of internal consistency basically requires about a 5th grade reading level to be able to watch with a strait face and no sense of irony.

They would probably do best to stick to literary adaptations of pseudo-historical novels like the LOTR or just out and out theme park vehicles like Pirates of the Carribean, both of which had much more of a sense of internal consistency than any of these so-called historical films Hollywood has made in recent years.

J

[Bryce Felperin]

Films kind of run in my blood since my dad records and copies to DVD everything he can from TCM and my sister is a well known film critic who attends Cannes ever year (go ahead and Google her: Leslie Felperin).

What I am noticing more and more, aside from the common complaint about an utter lack of original scripts and formulaic plots, is that the writers are really bad these days in most all films I see. Things like continuity, pace and character development are really noticeably lacking in most films I see these days. I don't know if it's something to do with more script meddling by bad studio executives, directors and actors or if it's just bad writers are the norm now...but there seems to be more crappy scripts and writing in films than there used to be. I have to also agree that this Robin Hood falls into this category too. I too noticed a drop from a nice beginning in the film to utter dreck by the time of the final battle scene. In fact, the final battle, aside from its inaccurate history, bad props and unorganized camera angles, just plain failed to inspire me at all much less entertain. I guess ultimately, the NY Times review where they blame the director is correct, Ridley Scott's best films were in his past and he really hasn't made much of an impression in the last ten years.

In any case, I'll still attend the probable sequel to this movie...but I'll have to restrain myself from heckling it in the theaters. ;-)

[Adam D. Kent-Isaac]

Movies nowadays seem to have been created for an audience with ADD. The pacing is totally hyperactive. There's either a gag every two minutes or an action scene every two minutes, and furthermore they're always over-edited to hell - CUT CUT CUT with the camera angles, non-stop. When I watch older movies - like [img]Harold and Maude,[/img] just to give one example - I always think, "a movie could never be made like this today, because audiences wouldn't have the patience for it." The camera staying focused on one shot...for more than twenty seconds?! Unthinkable! Dialog sequences filmed in one take, with no cuts? Unbelievable!

[Joshua R]

[Roger Hooper]

[Adam D. Kent-Isaac]

Crowe is a fine actor. The story and dialog is what sucked in Robin Hood, not the acting. No actor could have done it any better with the material given.

[Joe Fults]

[Steven Reich]

I don't know, I think Crowe is a competent actor, but I don't think he stands out from the (Hollywood) crowd as a thespian.

Steve

[Bryce Felperin]

[David Wilson]

I actually enjoyed it, quite a bit.... the weapons were decent (except for that... maul-like object previously mentioned...), the armour and costuming? Not so much (the helmet variety has been mentioned previously)....

Okay, it's not the best "hysterical drama" ever. But there have been worse.... I mean, compared to Costner's Robin Hood, this one was a freakin' masterpiece....

Character development should have been better. I mean, the Sheriff, usually a pretty major character in the Robin Hood legends, was way underused here... and that's just one example.

A couple more points (with Spoilers!):


1. I do like that they tied the creation of the Magna Carta into the legend... but having Robin's birth father be the creator of the first draft? Corny....
2. Also previously mentioned: Higgins boats? Really??? Okay, these were made of wood and were rowed... cute... but still... wooden Higgins boats?
3. Those Lord of the Flies kids. Why did they even exist? What was their point? This was never really addressed. Oh yes, I understand, a bunch of kids from town ran off, and... zzzzz..... what I'm saying is that they added nothing to the story and were more a distraction than anything else.
4. Did anyone else notice the Valiant Armoury/Christian Fletcher Crusader sword? It looked pretty obvious to me (also, it looked like there were a couple Del Tins...).


Anyway, Scott's Robin Hood was definitely flawed, no doubt about that. But I still enjoyed it. But I wouldn't have missed much if I'd just waited for it to come out on DVD (I had a free pass to the theater, so it was definitely cheaper this way. Except for the popcorn and coke.... holy crap, the prices theaters charge for snacks these days is stupendously horrifying!!!!! Next time I get snacks at a theater I'll need to bring a co-signer for the loan...)