Rewatched this movie for the first time in easily 15 years. It's especially cool sense I stayed a week at Carcassone castle, where they filmed the final battle.
Excepting the awful awful hair, it's aged pretty well.
I want to ask my more film savvy colleagues, this movie will occasionally have really weird looking closeups. The rest of the cinematography is fairly standard, but these bizarre, kinda-fish-eye looking closeups pop up again and again.
What are they doing?
Is this the Kevin Costner version with bad British accents galore? I recall one critic saying he sounded like a California surfer dude in this.
Where were you in '77?
Yes.
I always have enjoyed this, despite it running a bit long.
I can't stand that movie. It's just such a bad remake of Robin of Sherwood, it's just painful to watch.
It took me three sittings to get through it, that is how painful it was for me. To put that perspective I got through The Room in one sitting. Maybe people who haven't seen Robin of Sherwood first like it better all I know is that for me it is up there with The Avengers when it comes to Hollywood remakes of tv shows I love causing me pain.
I guess it was better then the Russel Crow movie, but that may be just because I can't remember the Russel Crow movie. The only thing I remember is that the script that became that movie that I read online was far more interesting and did a better job of keeping me awake then that movie. Seriously, I watched it twice and I can not remember a thing about that movie. You want a sleeping pill that you may not wake up from watch that movie.
I haven't seen this, but I saw something similar.
I knew someone was going to bring up Mel Brooks. And that wasn't even Mel's first brush with men in tights. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Things_Were_Rotten
There was another more realistic and gritty Robin Hood movie released the same year as the Costner version, but it bypassed theaters entirely in the U.S. and ended up on tv.
Where were you in '77?
At least the Robin Hood in that version could speak with an English accent. I prefer the classic 1938 version.
Yeah The Adventures of Robin Hood is my fourth favorite film of all time. That is a classic film.
Warbler said:
I prefer the classic 1938 version.
My favorite.
Episode II: Shroud of the Dark Side
“Back when we made Star Wars, we just couldn’t make Palpatine as evil as we intended. Now, thanks to the miracles of technology, it is finally possible. Finally, I’ve created the movies that I originally imagined.” -George Lucas on the 2007 Extra Extra Special HD-DVD Edition
Oh and as a kid who grew up surrounded by tapes of Roy Rogers movies when I found out Trigger was in that movie, that just blew my mind.
DrCrowTStarwars said:
Yeah The Adventures of Robin Hood is my fourth favorite film of all time. That is a classic film.
Which are first three?
真実
Citizen Kane(I know it is a cliche but I love this film.)
The Third Man
Rear Window
Oh and because no one asked for it or cares rounding out my top ten are.
Superman The Movie.
Star Wars(The whole original Trilogy I count as one selection)
Duck Soup
Hot Fuzz
The Lord of the Rings(Again the whole series)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service
What a fascinating discussion about Prince of Thieves!
Even if all the movie had was this soundtrack...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8BubJnLO-g
...it would be enough.
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
I think it's quite astonishing in retrospect how much the look of Prince of Thieves borrows from Roger Christian's Black Angel.
“That Darth Vader, man. Sure does love eating Jedi.”
Ryan McAvoy said:
Even if all the movie had was this soundtrack...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8BubJnLO-g
...it would be enough.
If the '38 film had a soundtrack like this, the world would be complete.
You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)
Wolfgang Corngold's score for The Adventures of Robin Hood is one of the most perfect film scores of all time, it doesn't need to be replaced by anything.
Kevin Costner ain't no Errol Flynn. Will stick with the '38 pic like others here.
Here is what confuses me, Costner was very good at playing likable modern American guys with a hint of a dark edge to them, so why would you cast him as a 12th century British hero?
I don't blame him for the movie, I blame whoever had the dumb idea of offering him the part in the first place.
It's an odd beast. Finally saw this a year or so ago. What exactly they were thinking no one knows.
The period setting is done acceptably, the costumes aren't bad at all, but it's very gloomy and not a pleasant place to be in. Sounds fine for setting up an epic tale of heroic triumphs against villainy...oh wait I'm getting ahead of myself.
This picture drags and drags so badly that it is extremely difficult to maintain interest. And it shouldn't. Costner appears as if he were still drained by Dances With Wolves and provides for a Robin so un-affecting that it becomes near impossible to care for anything. The story takes many weird turns in the middle of cliche after cliche that you just want the darn thing to end. It should have not been this bad. All the necessary materials were there to at least make an interesting picture.
By the time the woefully miscast Christian Slater breaks the period setting fourth wall it's far too late to stop. The only good point is Alan Rickman much like Tim Curry in Disney's Three Musketeers a few years later. But he sticks out like a sore thumb due to some truly strange subplots (with the crone...avoiding spoiler....what was that!?!?!) and the fact that the entire climax hinges on not only wedding Marion but....uhm....did I see what I think I saw?????
Arguably the longest ever buildup for a Connery closeup. I'd rather see Robin & Marion again, and that was a low-ish budget confused muddle. For all the flack the 2010 Scott version took, it was rather enjoyable on the big screen for the mishmash of modern film character psychobabble and classical Hollywood.
The 1938 film is the technical pinnacle of the 30's swashbuckler, one of the greatest bits of escapism ever produced and is untouchable. However, I do feel that it does not cover nearly all of the aspects of the Robin Hood story, ones that were better covered in the classic silent version with Douglas Fairbanks. While they are some of my favorites and absolute masterpieces, I feel that both stars had better adventure vehicles-Fairbanks in Mark of Zorro which is arguably the first superhero film ever made, and Flynn in the stupefyingly awesome Captain Blood.
PoT may have its fans, but I'm not one. I found it extremely frustrating because I spent the entire 2.5 hours trying to like it. And if you're going to do Robin Hood all gloomy, at least have some adventure or escapism or...anything.
VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader
DrCrowTStarwars said:
Wolfgang Corngold's score for The Adventures of Robin Hood is one of the most perfect film scores of all time, it doesn't need to be replaced by anything.
No one said it needed replacing.
I don't own many movie soundtracks. This is one of the few I do own. Even though it has that awful Bryan Adams song on it, the rest makes up for it.
captainsolo said:
It's an odd beast. Finally saw this a year or so ago. What exactly they were thinking no one knows.
The period setting is done acceptably, the costumes aren't bad at all, but it's very gloomy and not a pleasant place to be in. Sounds fine for setting up an epic tale of heroic triumphs against villainy...oh wait I'm getting ahead of myself.
This picture drags and drags so badly that it is extremely difficult to maintain interest. And it shouldn't. Costner appears as if he were still drained by Dances With Wolves and provides for a Robin so un-affecting that it becomes near impossible to care for anything. The story takes many weird turns in the middle of cliche after cliche that you just want the darn thing to end. It should have not been this bad. All the necessary materials were there to at least make an interesting picture.
By the time the woefully miscast Christian Slater breaks the period setting fourth wall it's far too late to stop. The only good point is Alan Rickman much like Tim Curry in Disney's Three Musketeers a few years later. But he sticks out like a sore thumb due to some truly strange subplots (with the crone...avoiding spoiler....what was that!?!?!) and the fact that the entire climax hinges on not only wedding Marion but....uhm....did I see what I think I saw?????
Arguably the longest ever buildup for a Connery closeup. I'd rather see Robin & Marion again, and that was a low-ish budget confused muddle. For all the flack the 2010 Scott version took, it was rather enjoyable on the big screen for the mishmash of modern film character psychobabble and classical Hollywood.
The 1938 film is the technical pinnacle of the 30's swashbuckler, one of the greatest bits of escapism ever produced and is untouchable. However, I do feel that it does not cover nearly all of the aspects of the Robin Hood story, ones that were better covered in the classic silent version with Douglas Fairbanks. While they are some of my favorites and absolute masterpieces, I feel that both stars had better adventure vehicles-Fairbanks in Mark of Zorro which is arguably the first superhero film ever made, and Flynn in the stupefyingly awesome Captain Blood.
PoT may have its fans, but I'm not one. I found it extremely frustrating because I spent the entire 2.5 hours trying to like it. And if you're going to do Robin Hood all gloomy, at least have some adventure or escapism or...anything.
Oddly I think a lot of the weird turns are the stuff it ripped of from Robin of Sherwood like the gloom and the magic. I think the makers were trying to bring that series to Hollywood to get what would be a fresh take for most people but they left out the heart of that series and tried to combine it with typical hollywood blockbuster set pieces and bad casting and so we ended up with something that felt like a painful retread of the ideas of that series instead of the celebration it was supposed to be.
TV's Frink said:
I don't own many movie soundtracks. This is one of the few I do own. Even though it has that awful Bryan Adams song on it, the rest makes up for it.
Bryan gets no respect anymore*.
*Not that he deserves any anymore, of course.
A quiz:
Which of these characters doesn't belong in a movie of the story of Robin Hood?
A. Robin Hood
B. Maid Marian
C. The Sheriff of Nottingham
D. Will Scarlett
E. Little John
F. Friar Tuck
G. Guy of Gisborne
H. Prince John
I. King Richard
J. Azeem(a Moor)
K. None of them, it's made up
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.