[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Dan Howard]

[Ken Speed]

Jean Henri Chandler commented In reference to the spaghetti western observation,"Again, that is an example of a trivial detail that I couldn't care less about; ..." I guess its the dentists see teeth thing, you know? You notice what is important to you or what you know about. For me, seeing smoke come out of the barrel before the hammer fell was like seeing someone get into a car and drive it away without starting it, it just felt WRONG.

Wow, you saw Clash of the Titans? That promo with the line "Release the kraken." was more than enough to keep me away!

We aren't really disagreeing, we just see different things, that's all. I agree that it would be nice once in a while to see a Hollywood movie that paid some attention to period authenticity. I regret to say that I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime.

Yes, that version of Beowulf seemed pretty good. I was bothered that they set it in Iceland but it seemed to work artistically. I have to admit seeing men practically dragging their feet on the ground while riding those little Icelandic horses looked pretty amusing to me.

[Eric Allen]

WARNING: SPOILERS BELOW

Just got back from seeing "Robin Hood", and I'm of mixed feelings about it.

We could debate the "historical accuracy" and the costuming until the cows come home. Some of the kit was good, other bits, not so much.

I enjoyed, even thoroughly, the first 1/2 to 2/3 of the film. Having Robin not be "of Loxley", but just a yeoman who through various circumstances ends up sort of taking the real Loxley's place was a unique twist, I thought. I was expecting them to continue with that plot hook.
But then we got to the sacking of Nottingham, and the film just sort of... falls apart.

And I think that's where it will falter among moviegoers and critics, because ultimately despite the title, the movie is not Robin Hood. Oh, sure, the main character is Robin and the love interest is named Marian and the other characters are mostly there, but the story is not what most people think of when they think "Robin Hood". Up until the sacking of Nottingham, they [i[could[/i] have made a recognizable Robin Hood story. Instead, Scott and crew decided to veer off on an entirely different tack. Toss in some stupid medieval Higgins boats and that last act of the film totally alienates the audience from what they expect and want to see. That last act is, in my opinion, what drags down the movie.

It could have been spectacular.

[Gabriele C.]

In the Trailer i think i saw a couple of XV century sallets...bah...

[Adam D. Kent-Isaac]

The movie was filled with sallets. Some of them looked extremely cool; some, like the one Cate Blanchett wears, looked weird and ahistorical. There are also odd leather hats, which I am not sure ever existed. They look kind of like open faced visorless bascinets, stitched together out of multiple pieces of leather. Quite odd.

I'm not opposed to the idea of setting up a certain "look" that is different from the time period of the actual Robin Hood legend. As others have said, this is nothing new. We all know about the Medieval manuscripts showing Moses and King David wearing great helms and chain mail; during the Renaissance, the Roman soldiers executing Jesus are wearing Gothic plate armour, etc. There's nothing wrong with deliberately making something anachronistic - BUT I strongly believe that if they are going to do this, then they need to be consistent! And not mix up gear from different time periods - as well as made-up stuff that never existed at all!

In other words, it galls me to see a mixture of 15th century sallets with Norman conical helms, great helms, and weird leather helmets, and lamellar cuirasses with fake Roman-style scales on the sides. It would have been great if they had kept the fictionalized aesthetic that they created for Robin Hood stylistically consistent.

[JE Sarge]

We went to the midnight showing on Friday evening. We enjoyed the film overall.

Yes, there were anchronisms and fantasy elements a plenty, but there were also some things done correctly. I saw tea cosy, cocked hat, and hazelnut pommels, hauberks with mittens, some nice looking Type XIIs, padded gambesons under maille, aventails (though they never have them laced up properly), and a few other odds and ends that it appears the production staff at least tried to replicate properly. Though imperfect in many, many ways, the film is a move toward historical fiction which is beginning to put more and more elements of realism in, albiet the wrong elements at the wrong time in most cases. Perhaps some day, there will be more knowledgable production advisors with such historical period films.

Ironically, the most-annoying thing for me was "Rise and Rise Again, Until Lambs Become Lions" written in perfect modern English on the sword grip when it should have been Middle English....

It's still not as bad as the Tudors, where a Henry VIII that is supposed to be obese in his 50s is portrayed as a physically-fit sex-symbol in his late 20s.

[Adam D. Kent-Isaac]

The Tudors drives me ABSOLUTELY INSANE. (I know, I know - this is about Robin Hood, but since you brought it up...) Everything about that show is absurd. It could have been great, though. They should have gotten a good, burly, charismatic guy to play Henry. They seem to not realize that someone can be built like a bear, and still have mojo! He didn't need to look like a pretty-boy Olympic swimmer. The real Henry was BIG, tall, strong, AND athletic. Yes, it's possible! He also wore a codpiece, something that the show paradoxically omits. He wouldn't have been caught dead without it.

I've heard the argument, "they need eye candy for the female viewers, etc etc." But - this argument is blown out of the water when you realize that, nowadays, "pretty" isn't even in anymore, for men. That look is SO 1990s! Women right now are crazy for the rugged type - Clive Owen, Jason Statham, Viggo Mortensen, Russell Crowe, Daniel Craig. Get a good actor with a rugged face and a strong build - a little extra weight, fine, but distributed over a TALL, powerful frame - like the real Henry - and believe me, the female fans of the show would still find him attractive.

So I do not buy that they NEEDED to cast Rhys-Meyers for "eye candy." As recent stars have shown, "eye candy" need not always come in the conventional form, and female viewers would be just as enthusiastic about a Henry VIII that looked a little more like the real man he was.

A joust between Henry and Charles Brandon wearing Maximilian or Greenwich harnesses, made under supervision of real armourers (like a few people here I could mention) would have been fantastic to watch. But instead we get this:



Add the ridiculously cheesy subplots and the egregious conflation of Mary and Margaret Tudor into ONE character, one of the stupidest things about the show...and the absurd Francis Bryan with the eyepatch in Season 3...and a lot of other boneheaded stuff...ugh. SO much potential, wasted.

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Jonathan Blair]

As for me and my house, we will go see Iron Man 2. Hey, it's got armor and no historical accuracy issues.

[Joel S Norman]

If people want to discuss historical accuracy issues, I have a different take. I have not yet seen the movie (and who knows, maybe it will be entertaining. I expect something along the lines of Kingdom of Heaven, with all the good, bad, and the ugly. I usually wait until DVD releases, though).
I have seen interviews with Russell Crowe where he talks about getting to the "core" of the story, the source of the legends.
Here's the thing: he then says the core of the story is redistribution of wealth. Sorry, Russell, but that's also a modern addition. Every generation has reinvented Robin Hood, and the robbing the rich to give to the poor was something added on by early 20th century progressive political thinkers. Robin Hood is and always was a medieval action hero, but there is nothing in the old stories about robbing from the evil "rich" and giving to the deserving "poor." He was a hero who stood up to corrupt leaders, but always embodied the values that the leaders were supposed to have upheld. The old stories were not "Down with Nobility!" They were stories about a man who sets things to rights (King Richard isn't mad at Robin when he returns, and doesn't think Robin was engaging in class warfare). The only story of Robin robbing the rich and giving to the poor in the old stories was one where Robin stole from a corrupt clergymen, but only because the clergymen had practically stolen the money from a then-impoverished knight. Robin gives the money to the knight to make good on his debts. That's all there is in that theme.
Originally, Robin Hood was a violent vigilante who stood up to corruption, not to tear down the system or redistribute wealth. He was more like a comic book superhero than anything else. It's fine (and not surprising) if Crowe and Scott want to use modern ideas and takes on Robin, but they shouldn't claim that they are throwing out the modern stuff if they chose to do so. It's just a movie, and most people don't expect 100% accuracy anyway. (This is largely my problem with a lot of Ridley Scott's movies, even though I usually still find them entertaining.)

[Joshua R]

[Adam D. Kent-Isaac]

[Dan Sellars]

I've seen the movie and I really enjoyed it, apart from a few things that have already been mentioned. The WW2 landing craft, main characters costume, later helmets and the "Joan of Arc" bit for Marion. Oh and I cringed when he used he sword to pry up a stone.

Other bits were great though, Robin wearing a messer/seax style knife. The Ships with the horses on deck as they were crossing the channel helped conjure up what it must have been like. The general scenes with ships arriving up the Thames, Tower of London castle backgrounds and all of that. There did seem to be a lot of nice little details that got lost in the whole this is wrong that is wrong thing. It's a shame cos I don't think it would have cost more to make it look more right.

wrt to the costumes I didn't so much min most of the fantasy armour although I did wonder why it was worn all the time by some characters. It was just to two main leads (Robin very modern, Marion very 'Elizabeth'), as some of the extras and lower cast members seems pretty ok. I assume that it is to make the main characters more accessible to the modern audience. I think that the reasoning is silly but when it comes down to it, it is a fun adventure story. I guess that seeigng as it was the main characters that were mainly at fault it also makes then stand out and look distinctive. The 'ring mail' that William Marshal is wearing for instance gives him a distinct look.

[Joshua R]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

I hated the hurt locker too... but then I was in the military.

J

[Walter S]

[Michael Curl]

Haven't seen it yet but just want to say that all accuracy aside, I really enjoyed Braveheart, Kevin Costners Robin Hood, and even Sean Conneries Robin and Marian, they weren't accurate but they were enjoyable enough. I mean at the end of the day I can't fault someone for not thinking of the stuff I professionally study for a living (or rather will soon).

[Karl Knisley]

Hello
You guys do realize that "Robin Hood " is a fictional character, dont you?:-) Fiction, doen`t have to be acurate.That`s what makes it fun:-)

[Richard Martell]