The Summer Blockbuster Season has Begun
May. 14th, 2010 07:57 amI wasn't planning to go see Robin Hood anyway, and this just sort of confirms it:
"As it crashes and bellows toward its sanguinary end, “Robin Hood” makes a hash of the historical record, and also of its own hero’s biography, the truth of which is revealed through a series of preposterous and unsatisfying flashbacks."
http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/movies/14robin.html
"I'm not exactly sure on what grounds I plan to stand up for Ridley Scott's Robin Hood (Universal Pictures). Nowhere near as terrible as it could have been? Reasonably successful given the grievous miscasting at its core?" http://www.slate.com/id/2253824/
From the same review: "The movie eschews every value we've come to think of as quintessentially Robin Hood-ish: derring-do, mischief, laughter, joy."
And, from the redoubtable Roger Ebert,
"Little by little, title by title, innocence and joy is being drained out of the movies. . . . 'Robin Hood' is a high-tech and well made violent action picture using the name of Robin Hood for no better reason than that it’s an established brand not protected by copyright. I cannot discover any sincere interest on the part of Scott, Crowe or the writer Brian Helgeland in any previous version of Robin Hood. Their Robin is another weary retread of the muscular macho slaughterers who with interchangeable names stand at the center of one overwrought bloodbath after another. Have we grown weary of the delightful aspects of the Robin Hood legend? Is witty dialogue no longer permitted? Are Robin and Marion no longer allowed to engage in a spirited flirtation? Must their relationship seem like high-level sexual negotiations? How many people need to be covered in boiling oil for Robin Hood’s story to be told these days?"
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100512/REVIEWS/100519992
"As it crashes and bellows toward its sanguinary end, “Robin Hood” makes a hash of the historical record, and also of its own hero’s biography, the truth of which is revealed through a series of preposterous and unsatisfying flashbacks."
http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/movies/14robin.html
"I'm not exactly sure on what grounds I plan to stand up for Ridley Scott's Robin Hood (Universal Pictures). Nowhere near as terrible as it could have been? Reasonably successful given the grievous miscasting at its core?" http://www.slate.com/id/2253824/
From the same review: "The movie eschews every value we've come to think of as quintessentially Robin Hood-ish: derring-do, mischief, laughter, joy."
And, from the redoubtable Roger Ebert,
"Little by little, title by title, innocence and joy is being drained out of the movies. . . . 'Robin Hood' is a high-tech and well made violent action picture using the name of Robin Hood for no better reason than that it’s an established brand not protected by copyright. I cannot discover any sincere interest on the part of Scott, Crowe or the writer Brian Helgeland in any previous version of Robin Hood. Their Robin is another weary retread of the muscular macho slaughterers who with interchangeable names stand at the center of one overwrought bloodbath after another. Have we grown weary of the delightful aspects of the Robin Hood legend? Is witty dialogue no longer permitted? Are Robin and Marion no longer allowed to engage in a spirited flirtation? Must their relationship seem like high-level sexual negotiations? How many people need to be covered in boiling oil for Robin Hood’s story to be told these days?"
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100512/REVIEWS/100519992
no subject
Date: 2010-05-14 01:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-14 01:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-14 10:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 02:32 am (UTC)At least "Men in Tights" had a kick line.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 03:17 pm (UTC)I think I just realized what it means to "chortle"!
no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 12:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 02:41 am (UTC)Zsu ,
the hair and costume geek.