criterionforum.org

domino harvey wrote:That's an illuminating article, to be sure

"Audiences," laughs Scott, "Are just straight-up retarded, dudes, and can't handle anything other than what they already know. The original writer was like, 'Hey, here's a new slant,' and I just about pissed all over his face from laughing. I threw that script at some guy wearing a baseball cap and made him pencil in more scenes with arrows, so it's definitely come a long way."

lol. best post in a while.

domino harvey wrote:That's an illuminating article, to be sure

"Audiences," laughs Scott, "Are just straight-up retarded, dudes, and can't handle anything other than what they already know. The original writer was like, 'Hey, here's a new slant,' and I just about pissed all over his face from laughing. I threw that script at some guy wearing a baseball cap and made him pencil in more scenes with arrows, so it's definitely come a long way."

Hmmm....
Way back when he was producing those Bela Lugosi titles for Monogram, Sam Katzman said something along the lines that he made movies for idiots & only idiots would want to go see them.
So Ridley Scott is the new Sam Katzman?
(Without the fiscal responsibility of course... I don't think every film Katzman made put together added up to the budgert for this thing.)

A.O. Scott's review provoked a few chuckles from this corner of the internet.

I last saw it in high school (16 years ago), and I'm reluctant to revisit it for fear of the near-certainty that it's aged poorly, but count the Costner version among my all-time guilty pleasures. And I was kinda hoping that if I turned my brain off, I could stomach the Scott/Crowe version, but this looks pretty bad...

In re the "gritty" thing, is anyone else a fan of the mid '80's series Robin of Sherwood with Michael Praed (who I thought could be a major star) and, among others, the young Ray Winstone?

I knew I didn't want to see this as soon as I heard "I declare him to be an OUTLAAAAAAAAAAAW" in the first commercial I saw for it.

Polybius wrote:In re the "gritty" thing, is anyone else a fan of the mid '80's series Robin of Sherwood with Michael Praed (who I thought could be a major star) and, among others, the young Ray Winstone?

Yep. It suffers from being underpopulated, like many a British TV production, but other than that exceeds far beyond what it's budget should allow. Winstone is Winstoneing it up, Nickolas Grace is good value as the Sheriff, and the girl who did Marian actually worked, which I find rather a sore spot more often than not in Hood retellings. Using supernatural stuff as the backbone worked too, I thought. Didn't John Rhys-Davies wander through as Richard the Lionheart once or twice?

My favorite bit was the transition

Spoiler

between the two Robins - killing off Praed in grand fashion, and installing Connery as his successor.

Even though Jason Connery was one wet actor back then (has he improved?).

Radio 4's Mark Lawson got himself into trouble while interviewing Crowe by saying he thought Crowe's accent had "a hint of Irish".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgr ... t-acrimony" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, pic has one of the lowest approval ratings in Scott's oeuvre at 47%. Universal must be hoping that the film makes at least some profit before word of mouth puts a dent into the film's takings next weekend.

http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/robin_hood_2010/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

starmanof51 wrote:Didn't John Rhys-Davies wander through as Richard the Lionheart once or twice?

Yes, once.

I had actually forgotten that.

Yet another pan, this time courtesy of Matt Zoller Seitz:

http://www.ifc.com/news/2010/05/robin-h ... ric-an.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Robin Hood" is the #1 new movie... $36 million weekend... behind "Iron Man 2's" $49 million wkd: http://www.deadline.com/2010/05/robin-h ... countries/.

I just read this thread and am going foetal with La regle de jeu.

Mr Finch wrote:Radio 4's Mark Lawson got himself into trouble while interviewing Crowe by saying he thought Crowe's accent had "a hint of Irish".

I was wondering that too in the brief clip I saw that seemed to segue from Irish to Northern. That accent interview only cements the feeling that Sean Bean should have gotten the role instead!

Am I the only person on Earth who doesn't swoon over Flynn and all of that ludicrously forced Technicolor bonhomme?

I'm not defending Scott's film (which I haven't seen) but this particular gripe about it really leaves me cold and puzzled. Maybe Baz Luhrmann should take a crack at the story if that's what people want.

A fun comic (the yellow subtitles are a great touch!) but didn't we already have the emo-Robin Hood, or at least the smug iPod generation one, with that terrible recent BBC series?

Personally, I prefer the Richard Lester, Douglas Fairbanks and even the (anthropomorphic, animated) Disney takes on Robin Hood to the Flynn.

But I consider a sequel to Adventures of Robin Hood, disillusioned along the lines of Robin and Marian but directed by Raoul Walsh, to be one of the greatest things that will never be.

What A Disgrace wrote:Personally, I prefer the Richard Lester, Douglas Fairbanks and even the (anthropomorphic, animated) Disney takes on Robin Hood to the Flynn.

The Disney version was a huge favorite of my pre-adolescence. King John with the ill-fitting robe and crown and Sir Hiss are both images and sounds that can still make me laugh.

Prince John from the Disney movie is one of my all-time favourite animated characters and it's all because of Ustinov.

My gold standard is the old British series starring Richard Greene (and company).

cdnchris wrote:Prince John from the Disney movie is one of my all-time favourite animated characters and it's all because of Ustinov.

"Then you sent him off on that craaaaaazy crusade! AH-HA! AHHH-HAAA!!"

Supposedly this film cost $225 million to make. It opened with a $36 million take, but now in its 2nd week its dropped to third place at the box office. Do you think it will recoup its original investment?

Overseas business is a-ok

And movies now make about half or more of their take on DVD/Blu-ray.

Peacock wrote:Could someone with better know how explain why Video Tape cost them $ 261, 431? I mean I cannot even comprehend this?

It's amazing seeing these budgets, and thinking 'Wow there are directors such as Lav Diaz, who could make a feature for a few thousand'.

No wonder art is never found in commercial cinema nowadays, when you have those costs.

my first guess would be they watched dailies on SR tape, but that should probably be rolled into film/lab costs. it could also be for video costs for the unit making special features for the DVD/bluray. Tape can roll in a lot of different ways on set, that's a reasonable amount in the scale of everything else.

Polybius wrote:Am I the only person on Earth who doesn't swoon over Flynn and all of that ludicrously forced Technicolor bonhomme?

I'm not defending Scott's film (which I haven't seen) but this particular gripe about it really leaves me cold and puzzled. Maybe Baz Luhrmann should take a crack at the story if that's what people want.

No, I don't swoon over Flynn either.