[Daniel de Castro Caputo]

Ed s. wrote:

I don't know, I'm a bit torn. On one hand I do like when I am seeing something very close to reality, but on the other hand I go to the movies to escape from reality and to be entertained. If producer's sometimes need to gloss over certain details in order to make their characters more interesting and more endeared by the audience, I suppose that I don't really mind. That said, everyone would do well to go and find out the real story afterward ."

When they gloss about the clothing, scenario, health, beauty, and education of the people, then I think (and not sure) it´s understandable... I don´t know if I wanted every historical movie about the midle ages and others similar periods focusing on the dirty aspects of the time, but...

When they gloss about historical personalities, making them better, nicer, benevolent, more educated and inteligent, etc., then this is no gloss, this is lie and manipulation of the history... It´s much worst then misplace a sword by some centurys...

There´s a reason to call a movie historic, that is, that in at least the main facts of history it cannot lie...

To make a Henry VIII look a better person, with morality issues in his conscience, that´s a tuff call... Let´s face it, the guy beheaded a lot of women... He was not nice...

If they want to make a movie about the chosen people´s country and their benevolent and heroic king, so they should make fiction, for this country never existed...

[Eric Allen]

[Gabriel Lebec]

[Simon E.]

[Julian Arellano]

thanks Simon ...

[Tom King]

I knew the accuracy was crap from the trailer. That whole D-Day looking aquatic landing o.O and Maid Marian's (besides being a woman in battle) ever present 16th century sallet helm!

[Jean Thibodeau]

If it's a good story I'll enjoy it and just not let the 15 th century armour mixed in with 12 th century armour bother me.

Would I like more historically accurate gear: Sure I would and we can certainly have fun comparing notes about the inaccuracies without spoiling our fun if fun is to be had.

As to the story, if I want the classic one I will just watch the old Errol Flynn version or the 1950's Disney version or the 1950's T.V. Richard Green version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errol_Flynn

At least with a reinvented story I can be surprised. In any case the " official " traditional story is more fiction and tall tale than accurate history.

I tend to just give up on historical accuracy as far as Hollywood is concerned and if the story is good I just mentally file it as alternate history and don't even try to fit it in any real context: Well that's just my way of not ruin it for me.

[Jean-Carle Hudon]

Hello Glennan,
I took a good look at the pics posted by Julian Arellano, with close up function to check out the bow, and as the darker tones of the wood are irregular in width and distribution, I don't think we are seeing a hickory backed bow in those pics. Any other bowyers wish to comment? The modern bows I have used have a more machined ,symmetrical appearance, because of the necessity of gluing the different components together, a difficulty you referred to in your comment.
Also, maybe you are referring to another bow used in the movie ?

[Keith Staton]

Im just back from the movie and I LOVED it. I didnt see anything wrong with the longbows and I think it should be left to some bow experts to comment one way or the other. I did expect to see archers pulling back to their ears instead of aiming with the string in front of the eye but supposedly that requires years of training to accomplish so maybe they felt it was more realistic.

The french fleet that supposedly rows to England and lands in a tight formation on that beach --? I aint so sure about that. I dont see the smaller open boats with 6-10 oars keeping up with the larger vessels and Ive never heard or a barge with a forward facing ramp documented anywhere before the Higgins boat in WWII, so i'd LOVE to hear from someone who has.

As far as weapons and outfits go, Im sure u guys will have varying opinions, but I thought Marian was hot in the chain mail. Cmon, its a good story and I hope they make more sequels than Star Wars.

[Adam D. Kent-Isaac]

I thought the film was absolute trash - honestly, one of the worst films I've ever seen. Ponderous, cliched and totally one-dimensional. The costumes were absurdly unrealistic - in addition to a mix of 15th-century visored sallets with Norman-era nasal helms and the odd great helm, there was also atrocious looking mail, bizarre made-up brigandines and jacks, and of course Robin's weird lamellar cuirass with what looked like scale spaulders. That didn't bother me nearly as much as the one-dimensional characters, incredibly cheesy battle scenes complete with slow-mo and "NOOOOOOOOOO" screams, unnecessary title cards and CONSTANT background music. The latter really bothers me - a good filmmaker understands the value of silence in the movie, and doesn't use non-stop orchestral swells and cheezy choral music in every second of the film. Barry Lyndon, Cromwell - those films made good use of incidental music without it dominating the movie. The blatant, shameless set-up to a sequel at the end also annoyed me. Actually, everything about the movie annoyed me. I never - EVER - thought I would find myself saying this, but Kevin Costner's version was superior.

[Quinn W.]

I understand that they have a certain vision in their heads when they design the movie, but when I'm wandering around in public in my kit for any legitimate reason (or any excuse I can come up with, for that matter) I always get more "That's so cool"'s or "Awesome!"s than I can count. Point being, the modern, non-historical viewer finds accurate historical armor almost as attractive as we enthusiasts do, on a purely visual level. So with limited exceptions (helms and shields blocking the protagonist's face) I see no reason to stray from true history for cinematic reasons.
Likewise, I understand that a director might take certain liberties to make a true story flow in a more typical cinematic pattern, but if they do take liberties, they can at least do their best to make sure said modifications are indeed out of necessity to the plot and not out of ignorance, or else it wouldn't be too hard to make a movie about Abraham Lincoln storming Iraq and engaging in hand-to-hand struggle to the death with Saddam Hussein, and calling that "based on a true story." Not that you couldn't make a movie about that, but it would probably be put under the genre of comedy, or at best, action. But if it's not historical, don't try to pretend it is by tossing around terms like "Historically accurate" in the making-of documentaries and director's commentary. Heck, even Monty Python and the Holy Grail had a historical consultant named in the credits. Is it really that hard?
I expect I will enjoy this movie very much, as I did Gladiator, but I also expect I will have to resist the urge to make corrections in the theater. Perhaps some of our members should start volunteering! I'm not the most qualified person in the world, but I would give historical advice gratis if I knew it would lead to a more accurate film.

Credits:
Robin Hood - Russell Crowe
Director - Ridley Scott
Camerawork - Joe Smith
Historical Consultation - Members of myArmoury

Am I onto something here or what?

[Michael B.]

In my mind, only one Robin Hood movie is worth watching so far...



The Legend had it coming...

[Glennan Carnie]

[Sander Marechal]

[Walter S]

[Zac Evans]

I enjoyed this film. I thought it was good fun, and enjoyed the way the battle sequences weren't just "line up and charge" which is so often the case in films. Admittedly there are many historical issues with the costumes and props, but except for marions riding dress and Marshalls horrible costumes I was able to ignore them for the most part.

I was pleased to see William Marshall appearing. I really hope someone makes a movie about him one day.

[Walter S]

I just finished watching the movie...
I liked the armor of Godfrey, it seemed quite authentic as far as I could tell. The movie seemed to drag on a bit - I like long movies, but this one felt kinda devoid of interesting events. Then came the beach landing, which really made my eyes spin and question soundness of Mr. Scott's mind. The French had WW2-style landing crafts (Higgins boat) and many of the shots were direct parallels of shots from Saving Private Ryan. I really wonder what was that supposed to mean.

[Mark Shier]

The props department bought a number of pretty accurate buckles and brooches from me, but I don't know if they show up on screen.
They also bought quite a few bowls from Robin Wood http://www.robin-wood.co.uk/ that are very accurate, but who knows if they are on screen or on the cutting room floor.
mark

[Joshua R]

[Adam D. Kent-Isaac]

This film used every trite movie cliche in the book. I simply cannot derive any entertainment from a movie like that. The ham-fisted political message (now Robin Hood is responsible for the frickin' Magna Carta?), the ridiculous D-Day landing scene, the stupid title cards (oh - I didn't realize they were in Nottingham! Thanks for telling me, Ridley Scott!), and the overuse of unbelievably cheesy scenes with all the subtlety of a mule kick to the face. (The French flag sinking to the bottom of the water, like, you know, to symbolize the fact that the French were beaten!) No character development or depth whatsoever. And, like I said before, I cannot stand when a movie has background music non-stop, filling every second of film.

It was NOT the historical inaccuracy of the film that bothered me. It was everything else about it.