criterionforum.org

So now that we have the first official still, I guess the thread can begin. Russell Crowe as the titular character is an interesting choice, as it moves away from the more conventionally handsome men that have played the role. It will be interesting to see what, if any, new spin on the character Scott has in store.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Russell Crowe as the titular character is an interesting choice, as it moves away from the more conventionally handsome men that have played the role.

If he gets any fatter he could land the Friar Tuck role.

True, but Crowe is far too fucking annoying to play the jolly bouncing Tuck. I just saw him in a trailer for State of Play, and the more pudgypockfrogfaced the guy gets the harder he is to look at... especially with all that self-adoration oozing quietly from his every pore.

Those who have even a passing affection for the RHood tale, but haven't seen the silent version w Fairbanks, should see it posthaste for two reasons: 1) it's a charming blast of a film (gorgeously lensed by the great Arthur Edeson, who in addition to a slew of early sound classics lensed the magnificent Fairbanks Thief Of Bagdhad which-- I may be alone around here in this-- I think is better than the uneven though very delightful POwell/et al version), and 2) the lovely condition of the film. I don't know if the Image edition of the film is take from the same source, but Fairbanks held onto beautiful pristine negs of his better films and sent them to archives for immediate refrigeration- this is why the Zorro films, The Black Pirate (from original, preserved 2-strip technicolor negs!!), Thief of Bag. (orig neg), and Robin Hood (orig neg) look so spectacular.

HerrSchreck wrote:True, but Crowe is far too fucking annoying to play the jolly bouncing Tuck. I just saw him in a trailer for State of Play, and the more pudgypockfrogfaced the guy gets the harder he is to look at... especially with all that self-adoration oozing quietly from his every pore.

At his best, he is a bloody good actor. I'm hoping State of Play is a return to form after slumming it for a few years. Personally, I rate the Original series up there with Edge of Darkness, and the brilliant Australian mini-series, Blue Murder as the best television drama I've seen.

As for Robin Hood, the first image gives me hope the film will be a return to form for Ridley Scott. Hopefully, no men in tights.

Russell Crowe can be annoying at times, but geez, when he's on song, the man can tear up the screen.

ryan11 wrote:At his best, he is a bloody good actor..

..who can't even affect a standard American accent. His "Regular American Guy" is as spot-on as Johnny Depp's "English Accent".

ryan11 wrote:Russell Crowe .. when he's on song,

Good god, man-- did you have to bring this up?

HerrSchreck wrote:

ryan11 wrote:At his best, he is a bloody good actor..

..who can't even affect a standard American accent.

Re Crowe and accents...Much knuckle biting in the crew during the first couple of weeks on Gladiator as Scott struggled to dissuade Crowe from affecting a full on fat tongue lisping Spanish accent.

I think we should all agree that whatever his limitations Russell Crowe is a shoe-in to play Gordon Brown in a film of his life, combining the paranoia and obsessive interest in figures (while not really understanding their implications) of A Beautiful Mind with the ever present threat of an explosive violent temper allied to a wrong headed and rather strict moral code of the characters in Romper Stomper and Gladiator. I'm sure the Scots wouldn't mind another Australian trying to do their accent following the success of Braveheart!

colinr0380 wrote: I'm sure the Scots wouldn't mind another Australian trying to do their accent following the success of Braveheart!

Only if Gordon thrusts a clenched fist into the air and declaims..."Prudence!!" as his entrails are hooked out of his body.

HerrSchreck wrote:

ryan11 wrote:Russell Crowe .. when he's on song,

Good god, man-- did you have to bring this up?

Could be worse:

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TimYPaXH__w" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Russell on the role.

International trailer

flyonthewall2983 wrote:International trailer

I like how after a flurry of shots with fog and blue lights, the title card says "From Ridley Scott." It's like, yeah, no shit.

Speaking of people not missing any meals...Mr. Scott has seen svelter times, as well.




What's up with Russell's hair? Did they start to make Henry V and then decide to throw in the towel? I know there isn't any real template for Robin's look (and I don't wish for a return to the madly jolly style of Flynn's take, which was always far too forced and fey for me), but that 'do seems a bad fit, since it's now largely identified with Prince Hal.

All this is trumped by the sheer joy I will get from seeing Cate playing Marian.

First reviews in, courtesy of Glenn Kenny

http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some ... -hood.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and Ed Gonzalez at Slant:

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/revie ... -hood/4816" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'll be seeing this tomorrow morning but I never bought into Crowe's recent statement that the older films were unrealistic, the implication being that the grittiness makes this one more worthwhile. No way is this going to be the equal of the Errol Flynn film.

Ridley Scott-Tim Burton trade

The trailer looks waaaay too much like "Kingdom of Heaven" for comfort. :-k

My expectations were low to begin with but dear God this turned out to be a colossal bore. Although the story unfolds in different directions to the Curtiz and Costner films, it still felt predictable: from Scott's workman-like direction to the performances and the musical cues everything happens exactly how a seasoned viewer would expect it to. Considering his output of the last five to ten years, Scott's transformation into the British Wolfgang Petersen seems now complete.

^^^ You should find this more amusing than the flick then. TheWrap.com got a hold of the budget: http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/revea ... lion-17202



Tax breaks brought the cost down around $200 million, but still... WOW! And of the $36+ million for talent $20 million went to Crowe's bank account (vs. 20% of the gross). Good luck this weekend fellas!

Now if the film began with a Tout va Bien-style cheque signing sequence before Robin barges in and steals them all, that would be a radical deconstructive move!

This cost over $200m to make? That cost breakdown makes for an interesting read (the cast salaries being higher than the set construction as the second highest individual expense etc). And $7m for Brian Helgeland? The man's been coasting on his L.A. Confidential plaudits ever since - honestly, has he written as good a script as this after 1997?

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.

dad1153 wrote:$20 million went to Crowe's bank account (vs. 40% of the gross).

This amazes me. I can't believe anyone would pay that kind of money to a guy who hasn't had a bona fide hit in ten years. If Crowe can command that kind of money, I can't even imagine what Will Smith makes.

Mr Finch wrote:And $7m for Brian Helgeland?

Actually notice that the title of the budget breakdown is "Nottingham," the name of the 'hot' screenplay that got the ball rolling a few years ago (google it). Since then the script has gone through numerous revisions and changes, mostly at the behest of Crowe & Scott not wanting the movie to revolve around the Sheriff of Nottingham...

“When I read that particular script, and no disrespect to the guys who wrote it, but it kind of read like CSI: Sherwood Forest to me,” explains Crowe. “And I just wasn’t into doing that. For a start, if you’re a public servant and the public, through taxes, is paying you to do a job, you’d better be well meaning. So it wasn’t interesting to me in that incarnation.” His director is even more vociferous. “It was f***ing ridiculous,” laughs Scott. “It was terrible, a page-one rewrite. If you’re going to invest in a Robin Hood story, why call it Nottingham? You’d end up spending 80% of the publicity budget explaining why it’s Nottingham and not just Robin Hood. It doesn’t make any sense.” (source: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 082802.ece).

...with each draft of the script netting that version's writer(s) handsome paycheck(s). Helgeland is only the last guy that got passed the screenplay draft (and the writer's credit); he didn't get $7 million but a bunch of writers over the years ended up with a slice of that (rewrite) pie.

And I stand corrected: Crowe's salary is $20 million vs. 20% (not 40) of the movie's gross, whichever's largest.

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."

Mr Finch wrote:Considering his output of the last five to ten years, Scott's transformation into the British Wolfgang Petersen seems now complete.

I think you are being generous there, I'd say that he's been that way for more like 28 years. There is nothing on his CV in those years that gives an indication that this guy was ever capable of something like Alien or Blade Runner.