Ridley Scott doing Robin Hood should've been legendary, but it was somehow disappointing. Kevin Costner's Prince of Thieves left a much lasting impression on me. Anyone else prefers it over this?
shareI like the Costner movie, but it's weird to compare them because they're two very different films.
http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/
Prince of Thieves is not a good film on many levels.
This film was better, but it was not great either.
Prince of Thieves is not a good film on many levels.
This film was better, but it was not great either.
I agree completely.
Wait we're talking about what a *beep* unintelligent person you are, right?
Prince of Thieves was an epic movie, at least for its time. And it *beep* on Robin Hood 2010 in every way from every angle.
Dumbass. Pretentious irrelevant twat.
Totally agree.
Prince of Thieves is infinitely more entertainig and better.
So much for Crowe criticizing it before his version came out and left no impression.
Just another proof that, just as being a great and sensitive artist doesn't guarantee that a person is good, being a fine actor (and Crowe is a very good actor when decently directed) is no guarantee of not being an idiot.
shareNever felt the urge to compare these two instead of any other two Robin Hood movies. Just apples and oranges, very little in common. Prince of Thieves was just fun; Ridley Scott's movie is not fun at all (or only unintentionnally if you expect too much from it), but it has its good dramatic moments.
"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."
Prince of Thieves at least had Alan Rickman's performance of Sheriff of Nottingham.
share[deleted]
they tried to do a documentary instead of a movie
"The Plantagenet Era" otherwise known as when the French conquered England.
shareLook, you've already stated that 'Nobody has any interest in the medieval history of England', by which you actually mean that you don't have any. So why you go to the trouble of showing yourself up by demonstrating that you don't know the Plantagenet from the Norman dynasty, and are under the illusion that 'the Normans' and 'the French' were the same people, would be a mystery if it were only interesting enough.
shareI like them both, but I think that Ridley Scott's version felt a lot like Gladiator.
sharePrince of Thieves was way better. It was a fun, swashbuckling adventure story with it's tongue firmly in it's cheek.
Mainly thanks to Alan Rickman who was amazing in it.
Kevin Costner was much more likeable in the role of Robin Hood, and his American accent was better than Russell Crowes strange wandering accent that moved around from yorkshire to ireland to somerset and many places in between. Same with his merry men. It wasn't set in Middle-Earth FFS.
The Geography of Prince of Thieves may have been...interesting...but on the plus side it didn't have WW2 D-Day landing craft.
Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio was a much better Maid Marian; sexy and sassy, but also, and much more believably for a noble woman of the time: a great Damsel-in-Distress. She'll fight for her life (and virtue), but unlikely to put on chainmail and sneak off to war. She wasn't an Eowyn wannabe like Cate Blanchett's version.
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves was a rather silly movie - but in a funny and entertaining sort of way. This film took itself way too seriously but was hampered by stupid plot and characters and at times became unintentionally hilarious. Robin Hood was a legend anyway, but at least the characters should have acted and behaved like people did in those times. I do not mind a bit of revisionism and the introduction of modern day sensibilities. It is good that Crusaders or cowboys were not depicted as all good while Muslims or Indians were bad. But at least there should not be too much anachronism in the behaviors and thoughts of the characters. Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven and also Robin Hood had exactly this problem. Did typical Crusaders and Muslims preach religious tolerance towards each other like liberal arts majors? This film in addition talked about some commoner forcing on an absolute monarch a promise of some "charter of liberty" and "right of all men by law", which was almost like a whole millennium ahead of its time, and would remain unthinkable even in many countries today.
Costner's movie also had a Moor accompanying Robin (not to mention the Muslim girl in one of the TV series), but at least got the other essentials basically right. There were at least a Sheriff of Nottingham (almost unnoticed in the new film) and a Guy of Guisborne, Will Scarlet and John Little were developed characters (barely recognizable in this firm), and Marian did not go to battle wearing chainmail.
The most objectionable part, however, was that Scott destroyed the legend completely. In the legend, Robin and the other outlaws hated Normans but recognized Richard as a good king, and that was what made the dynamics between them interesting. Here he led the "people" and helped King John repel French invaders and was outlawed by John after that. Give me a break. What next, Robin making John sign the Magna Carta in a sequel? I find it a little more amusing to watch Keira Knightley as Robin's daughter in Princess of Thieves, since at least I know it was not meant to be serious.
Not only does Prince of Thieves kick this movies ass, but it's foot lands squarely in the crack causing this movie to fall to it's knees and wither in pain with tears in it's eyes.
Not that Prince of Thieves doesn't have its problems it does. Some question if Costner was a good choice, I actually don't mind him. The movie has some tongue and cheek comedy when maybe it should be serious. At times the Bull character is a complete idiot but that "to the trees!" line is on par with Admiral Akbar's "It's a trap!" Not to Mention Will Scarlet Saying "F me they cleared it" when launching Robin of Locksley and Azeem over a castle wall with a catapult. Alan Rickman is such a classic actor "Locksley I'm gonna cut your heart out with a spoon!" Nailed it. Only to be fallowed up by that awkward conversation with his cousin. Why a spoon, cousin? why not an Axe? HA HA what was that a homage to a Chunky commercial? The Witch was hokey but at the same time I loved that they had a character like her. It showed that the Sheriff was indeed into the black magic and evil. "The Painted man haunts my dreams. Kill him, kill them both."
But that camera on the arrow scene was heavily ground breaking and daring. There is many beautifully shoot scenes in Prince of Thieves. The sound track was epic and I still hear it being used all the time. The storyline is strong and flows well. Albeit far from perfect, Prince of Thieves had some balls, and was entertaining because of it.
I watched the new one in more recently in theatres when it came out and it felt so lifeless and empty. Both in story and entertainment value. Today I remember almost nothing about it. Seriously that is all that can be said about it. While Prince of Thieves was breaking ground with its visuals and sound track. I feel this movie just plays it safe and boring. Nothing to see here, move along.
Ridley Scott is an artist for sure, but not every piece of work da Vinci did was on par with the Mona Lisa. This will be part of Scott's forgotten collection
But that camera on the arrow scene was heavily ground breaking and daring.
(...)
While Prince of Thieves was breaking ground with its visuals and sound track.
Your right the word "heavily" should be dropped from that first sentence. I'm clearly trying to over sell that point. It was groundbreaking, plain and simple. Serious.
"I agree, that it was a well-used effect and kind of new then" Yes it was new back then and many a TV movie reviewer buzzed about it when Robin Hood Prince of Thieves came out. I never said it was difficult to do, I said groundbreaking. Putting a camera at a different angle is stupid easy to do. But if no one has ever captured anything like it while doing it and its an amazing piece of art all the same, then it's groundbreaking. To my knowledge Pulp Fiction is the first big mainstream movie to play out of chronological order. Easy as it gets, but it had an impact that has helped make it a huge cult hit to this day. It was groundbreaking. You don't even have to be the first to try something, but if you have clearly done it the best up to that point in history your breaking some ground. The arrow scene broke some "serious" ground.
Second point. Yeah that's my bad. I said sound track, I should have focused more on the Theme song. I still hear that song played at times in the beginning of movies or trailers. It's still used because it's epic. Is it groundbreaking? That is a question for someone more versed in the arts of music. Yes the one song by Bryan Adams is a ball of cheesy and got painful real quick. But the overall this has a way better sound track, cinematography, villain and overall entertainment value.
Prince of Thieves is a better movie.
The thing is. The new Robin Hood movie is purposely not groundbreaking. Enter dumb smiley face here to try and attain come kind of childish attempt make another person look dumb while somehow maintaining the illusion that I'm somehow superior.
I gave them both the same grade: 3/10.
share