← Back to Reviews
in
Holy sh*t was there some pillaging going on in "Robin Hood". I estimate that 42,000 people were killed on screen. Ideally, this translates to zero people dead in real life, but you figure there's a 1% margin of error, so about 420 people died during the filming of this movie. That is an acceptable number of deaths in my book. No animals were harmed though. I read it in the credits. Needless to say, I completely underestimated this movie. "Robin Hood" was extremely well done. I wasn't blown away by anything in particular, but it was much better than I expected.
This is just another case of my dumb ass not doing my homework. Ridley Scott knows what he's doing, people. In my PRE-VIEW, I acknowledge that he directed this and list a bunch of great movies he's done. But since there was a single movie he did that sucked, I figured this would be dogsh*t? This reminds me of the time I bet against the Harlem Globetrotters in a parlay with the Kansas City Royals to win the World Series. What the hell was I thinking!!!???
Ridley Scott has definitely mastered putting together a battle scene where people fight with no modern technology. I can't believe the damage that can be done with a bow and arrow, a sword, an axe, some boiling tar and terrible B.O. I also can't remember the last time I left a theater thinking "Wow, the sound in this picture was top notch!" Every arrow felt like it was whizzing behind you as if it were a Clubber Lang right hook missing Rocky entirely.
Another mistake I made was not really having any idea what this was truly about. I assumed it was just another rehash of the same old Robin Hood story. Although I'm not going to be that hard on myself here. It was f***ing called "Robin Hood" for god's sake. However, this did not tell the usual story we have heard before. It's basically a prequel. Sort of like "Robin Hood Begins". I can't wait to see Robin Hood tangle with the Joker in the next movie. It was only when the movie was over that I realized this was the story of how Robin Hood becomes an outlaw. I kept thinking, "Why isn't anyone robbing the rich pricks?"
If there was a downfall to this movie, it was that there really aren't any likable characters. Russell Crowe was as boring as sitting through traffic school taught in a foreign language. Just about every other character was an a**hole. The primary villain was Mark Strong who was also the main villain in "Kick-Ass". He must be an a**hole in real life too since he keeps getting asked to be an a**hole. The king was a huge a**hole, but at least he showed some passion and anger. The Sheriff of Nottingham...a**hole. Even Friar Tuck was a little bit of an a**hole.
Cate Blanchett was not an a**hole. I'll give her credit, she did a good job since she was one of the few characters to show real emotion and acting skills. There are surprisingly just about no still shots of her from "Robin Hood" online, but after an exhausting search, I finally found one. Although it may be a photo of Bob Seger as well. I'm not really sure. As in most of her movies, they couldn't have made her look more plain. Apparently they didn't have tight jeans or push-up bras 800 years ago.
In summary, I swung and missed again. I thought "Robin Hood" would be a complete bore, but it definitely wasn't. I don't necessarily have to see this again, however it was a solid movie.
My conclusion: 4 stars (out of 5)
Robin Hood does not get laid. A terrible shame.
You know what I haven't done in a while? Pillage. Forget this gathering all my friends together at a bar for some drinks on the weekend. I'm sending out an E-vite tomorrow to about 100 people to pillage a wimpy suburb. It's so easy, and well, it just looks like jolly good fun! All we have to do is ride our horses into town and kill every human we see. Then we get to take their wallets and set fire to all inanimate objects!
Holy sh*t was there some pillaging going on in "Robin Hood". I estimate that 42,000 people were killed on screen. Ideally, this translates to zero people dead in real life, but you figure there's a 1% margin of error, so about 420 people died during the filming of this movie. That is an acceptable number of deaths in my book. No animals were harmed though. I read it in the credits. Needless to say, I completely underestimated this movie. "Robin Hood" was extremely well done. I wasn't blown away by anything in particular, but it was much better than I expected.
This is just another case of my dumb ass not doing my homework. Ridley Scott knows what he's doing, people. In my PRE-VIEW, I acknowledge that he directed this and list a bunch of great movies he's done. But since there was a single movie he did that sucked, I figured this would be dogsh*t? This reminds me of the time I bet against the Harlem Globetrotters in a parlay with the Kansas City Royals to win the World Series. What the hell was I thinking!!!???
Ridley Scott has definitely mastered putting together a battle scene where people fight with no modern technology. I can't believe the damage that can be done with a bow and arrow, a sword, an axe, some boiling tar and terrible B.O. I also can't remember the last time I left a theater thinking "Wow, the sound in this picture was top notch!" Every arrow felt like it was whizzing behind you as if it were a Clubber Lang right hook missing Rocky entirely.
Another mistake I made was not really having any idea what this was truly about. I assumed it was just another rehash of the same old Robin Hood story. Although I'm not going to be that hard on myself here. It was f***ing called "Robin Hood" for god's sake. However, this did not tell the usual story we have heard before. It's basically a prequel. Sort of like "Robin Hood Begins". I can't wait to see Robin Hood tangle with the Joker in the next movie. It was only when the movie was over that I realized this was the story of how Robin Hood becomes an outlaw. I kept thinking, "Why isn't anyone robbing the rich pricks?"
If there was a downfall to this movie, it was that there really aren't any likable characters. Russell Crowe was as boring as sitting through traffic school taught in a foreign language. Just about every other character was an a**hole. The primary villain was Mark Strong who was also the main villain in "Kick-Ass". He must be an a**hole in real life too since he keeps getting asked to be an a**hole. The king was a huge a**hole, but at least he showed some passion and anger. The Sheriff of Nottingham...a**hole. Even Friar Tuck was a little bit of an a**hole.
Cate Blanchett was not an a**hole. I'll give her credit, she did a good job since she was one of the few characters to show real emotion and acting skills. There are surprisingly just about no still shots of her from "Robin Hood" online, but after an exhausting search, I finally found one. Although it may be a photo of Bob Seger as well. I'm not really sure. As in most of her movies, they couldn't have made her look more plain. Apparently they didn't have tight jeans or push-up bras 800 years ago.
In summary, I swung and missed again. I thought "Robin Hood" would be a complete bore, but it definitely wasn't. I don't necessarily have to see this again, however it was a solid movie.
My conclusion: 4 stars (out of 5)
Robin Hood does not get laid. A terrible shame.