Overlooked masterpiece in theaters now

[galtgulch]

My wife and I just watched Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchette with William Hurt and Max von Sydow in a marvelous creative rendition of Robin Hood.

Most reviewers said that the film lacked the essence of the original story and that there were nothing but fight scenes with nothing else to commend it. Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 44. But among those negative reviews was one that suggested in no uncertain terms that Tea Party folks would find much to enjoy and be inspired by and he was right.

Any lover of individual freedom and liberty who opposes tyranny in any form and place will find this film to his or her liking.

My wife whispered to me while we read the opening lines that she liked it already.

I am not surprised that I find no mention of it here on OL hence this post to encourage you to see it while it is still on large screens all over playing to almost empty theaters though.

Well done.

gulch

www.campaignforliberty.com 231,279

[Greybird]

Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland retired their roles, or whatever dramatic and romantic potential they ever had, seventy years ago. It's as simple as that, really, for me.

(Sean Connery was highly admirable in "Robin and Marian" as the twenty-years-older Robin — and who wouldn't be, opposite Audrey Hepburn? — but even that effort paled next to Flynn's.)

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Yes! Go See 'Robin Hood' While You Can

When was the last time a movie left you with a good or satisfied feeling.

> My wife and I just watched Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchette with William Hurt and Max von Sydow in a marvelous creative rendition of Robin Hood. [GG]

It's a wonderful, old-fashioned movie. If you like "Braveheart" or "Rocky" or the television series "The Unit" you will probably enjoy this. It has a good story and plot, excellent acting. It's heroic and ingenious. (Of course if you -only- like snarky movies or art house postmodernist irony, ignore these recommendations. )

> Most reviewers said that the film lacked the essence of the original story

Incredibly stupid criticism: The movie stands on its own and tells its own story. It imagines the years before Robin Hood became an outlaw and has a lot of insights into the conflict and politics of the time. It's not about the Sherwood Forest years, nor is it supposed to be.

> and that there were nothing but fight scenes with nothing else to commend it.

Not a stupid criticism but a false one. There's also a romance, skillfully done. And a lot of political intrigue. This criticism by Ebert and others is exactly the -opposite- of the truth about the movie: It's much more than the typical mindless summer action blockbuster. I'm old enough to remember when Roger Ebert had a heart and courage...and a brain.

> Any lover of individual freedom and liberty who opposes tyranny in any form and place will find this film to his or her liking.

Very true. And that's only one of the many virtues of this movie.

> I encourage you to see it while it is still on large screens all over playing to almost empty theaters though.

It's actually made 92 million dollars in 4 weeks. But that is a long run for most movies these days, so go see it. It is one movie that plays much better on the big screen than on DVD.

Moral: Never, I repeat never, rely on the film critics to have the same taste as you have. Or to show good judgment.

Edited June 7, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

Another value of the movie is its focus on the events surrounding King John, a weak and bumbling king, how he came to power, the turbulence surrounding him, how he tried to impose more government and rob the people, and how he was forced to sign one of history's most important documents: Magna Carta.

As he put people to the sword who wouldn't pay extortionate taxes, you can understand why the liberal film critics don't like him. The execrable A.O. Scott of the N.Y. Times -- a newspaper biased in its political coverage, biased in its economic coverage, and biased in some of its coverage of the arts -- makes this explicit as a reason for one of his snarky, sarcastic putdowns of the film.

,,,,

In fairness, I wouldn't go so far as to call it a 'masterpiece' as GG does. It is simply a very good, very satisfying well done film.

The director is Ridley Scott, who did Gladiator, Blade Runner, Alien, and many other good films.

Edited June 7, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

I forgot to mention that this movie is very much a Ridley Scott movie in the sense that - as in "Blade Runner", as in "Gladiator" - this director has the powerful ability to create a complete world and make you feel like you live in it.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Philip Coates

[BaalChatzaf]

Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland retired their roles, or whatever dramatic and romantic potential they ever had, seventy years ago. It's as simple as that, really, for me.

But Flynn wore green tights and that silly cap with the feather in it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland retired their roles, or whatever dramatic and romantic potential they ever had, seventy years ago. It's as simple as that, really, for me.

The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938, starring Errol Flynn) has some wonderful dialogue. My favorite exchange occurs near the beginning, after Robin crashes a state dinner where Prince John announces that he assuming power.

After Robin Hood charges that the English are “overtaxed, overworked and paid off with a knife, a club or a rope,” an indignant Marian says, “Why, you speak treason!”

“Fluently,” Robin replies.

Now, that is a true libertarian response.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

Yes. Even the line by Robin before his clever one-liner is stated with force and eloquence. As far as dialogue is concerned even more broadly, that sort of wit, verbal aptness or force or cleverness, as well as extended fast-paced back and forth conversation across almost an entire movie seem to have almost vanished from the movies.

I just watched a couple old favorites: "His Girl Friday" with Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell. And before that "The Thin Man" with William Powell and Myrna Loy. Filmmakers expected you to be quick enough to keep up with the banter, the repartee, etc.

Today we have...fart jokes. (This is a gross generalization, of course. I forgot to mention that there is often humor about other bodily functions.)

A lot of the delightful, intelligent Hollywood movies of sixty or seventy years ago were taken from well-written plays. (When I've seen one and can sense the play behind it, I eventually get around to buying the play and reading it.)

Edited June 8, 2010 by Philip Coates

[dan2100]

Another overlooked masterpiece is "Død snø." See the trailer at:

http://www.deadsnow.com/

[Brant Gaede]

Yes. Even the line by Robin before his clever one-liner is stated with force and eloquence. As far as dialogue is concerned even more broadly, that sort of wit, verbal aptness or force or cleverness, as well as extended fast-paced back and forth conversation across almost an entire movie seem to have almost vanished from the movies.

I just watched a couple old favorites: "His Girl Friday" with Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell. And before that "The Thin Man" with William Powell and Myrna Loy. Filmmakers expected you to be quick enough to keep up with the banter, the repartee, etc.

Today we have...fart jokes. (This is a gross generalization, of course. I forgot to mention that there is often humor about other bodily functions.)

A lot of the delightful, intelligent Hollywood movies of sixty or seventy years ago were taken from well-written plays. (When I've seen one and can sense the play behind it, I eventually get around to buying the play and reading it.)

While I agree with a lot of this Phil, there was a lot of cultural coarseness back then. It just wasn't brought forward in it's then form. The good stuff lasted, even if it was in black and white.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Max von Sydow was marvelous in this latest version of Robin Hood. He played old Walter of Loxley, a blind old man who is so pleased to get a surrogate son in Robin Longstride (played by Russel Crowe). My favorite lines:

Walter: I woke up this morning with a glowing tumescence. And I am 83 years old.

Marion his Daughter in Law: Is that what you men like to talk about?

Best lines of the movie.

Cate Blanchet was the best Marion I have seen in all the Robin Hood movies.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Philip Coates]

> While I agree with a lot of this Phil, there was a lot of cultural coarseness back then.

Yes. I don't mind sifting through a lot of coal, Brant, as long as I have hope of some diamonds in there somewhere... I have seen so many old movies...

[Ross Barlow]

I agree that this latest Ridley Scott movie of Robin Hood is very much worth seeing.

.

And I also agree that Errol Flynn’s 1938 role set an impossibly high standard for the character, and it remains my favorite. I really like George’s earlier quote of Marian saying, “Why, you speak treason!” and Robin replying with a huge smile, “Fluently!” Absolutely classic libertarianism. After seeing the new movie in a downtown theater I immediately bought a DVD of the 1938 Flynn flick. I can enjoy many levels of this story and many versions.

.

As for the new Robin Hood film, go see it. It has some fine features, especially the history. The roots of the legends of R.H. are shrouded in mist, but some threads emerge. Barnsdale and other places across the county lines into Yorkshire have some claim as locales of the R.H. legends as well as do Nottinghamshire and Sherwood Forest. This struck me immediately, someone had done some homework. The story of King Richard in France is almost accurate – close enough for cinema work.

.

My sister, an enthusiastic and learned amateur historian who specializes in widespread historical periods’ clothing (military and civilian), raved about the apparel the characters wore, and she was so impressed that she wants to see it again in the theater. This is from someone who is an unbelievably severe critic and rarely goes to a theater in a year’s time.

.

As for story, I’m thinking there must be a sequel(s) and that this is only Chapter One. There is an allusion to the Magna Carta – a number of years before its time – and the potential limitations on the powers of the king therein is discussed as a minor but important plot element that rounds out King John’s depiction. It just cannot end there. The libertarian rhetoric begs for continuation. So, stay tuned.

.

If none of the above convince you to see it, I’ll mention one more reason: Cate Blanchet. Any film with her in it is worth a good look.

.

-Ross Barlow.

[George H. Smith]

I agree that this latest Ridley Scott movie of Robin Hood is very much worth seeing.

.

And I also agree that Errol Flynn’s 1938 role set an impossibly high standard for the character, and it remains my favorite. I really like George’s earlier quote of Marian saying, “Why, you speak treason!” and Robin replying with a huge smile, “Fluently!” Absolutely classic libertarianism. After seeing the new movie in a downtown theater I immediately bought a DVD of the 1938 Flynn flick. I can enjoy many levels of this story and many versions.

.

Ross,

I have a question about the Flynn movie. It's been many years since I've seen it, but I vaguely recall a scene where two guys who torture people are walking downstairs to the dungeon. One says (and this is a very rough paraphrase), "Things are so bad that you can't put out the eyes of a tax resister without getting an arrow in your neck."

I know a line similar to this occurs in some Robin Hood movie, but I haven't been able to track it down. Is it from the Flynn movie? If it is, can you provide the exact quotation?

[Philip Coates]

Sometimes greatness or near-greatness is not appreciated at first glance.

I rushed out and saw "Robin Hood" again for a second time before it disappears from theaters. It was even better at a second look. Amazingly, there are no flaws in this movie and every scene accomplishes something with regard to characterization, theme, plot, background, mood, or politics. That's almost as rare in contemporary Hollywood as diamonds in a pig wallow.

This time I appreciated even more the skill with which Ridley Scott made me see what life was like for the king, for the nobleman, for the peasant, for the warrior. The physical surroundings of a rural estate. And so on.

And most of all, I noticed that the movie was -intended- as an eloquent defense of freedom. It could have been written by an Objectivist or a libertarian.

//Warning: Mini-spoilers or details follow//

The incidents, the language used, the flashback to Robin's half-forgotten father when he was only a child being executed for hiding a 'charter of rights'. The mysterious but eloquent slogan on two sides of the hilt of an old, old sword and buried under a concrete slab.

"Rise and Rise Again.."

"..Till Lambs Become Lions"

Packing a whole lot about rebellion against oppression into two sets of four words. The first about action; the second about attitude.

Plus there are the prefatory remarks about what the times are like, the tyranny (sort of like in Star Wars). The statement about when tyrants are about, good men become outlaws. The eloquent meeting between the king and the barons and others at Barnsdale. "So every man should have a castle?" "No, a man's home should be his castle." What happens to Robin.

It's also true to history that Magna Carta was signed and then the kings tried to take it all back and that it took a long time before it "stuck".

As much as this movie is about the origins of Robin Hood, it is just as much about Magna Carta -- and more specifically the first tortuous steps in the medieval western world toward written law, a written charter of rights as opposed to arbitrary, divine right of kings.

It's clearer, much clearer as I recall than, say, "Braveheart" on that score.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Philip Coates

[BaalChatzaf]

I enjoyed this Robin Hood as much as I enjoyed Gladiator, another Ridley Scott action flick. It had action, war, death, dismemberment, revenge and a good kinetic plot. I love movies about war and revenge. The scenes involving the long bow were marvelous. My favorite was seeing Godfrey get a yard long shaft through his neck. That was so choice. Pluck Yew, said Robin Longstride as he let the shaft fly.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Ross Barlow]

Ross,

I have a question about the Flynn movie. It's been many years since I've seen it, but I vaguely recall a scene where two guys who torture people are walking downstairs to the dungeon. One says (and this is a very rough paraphrase), "Things are so bad that you can't put out the eyes of a tax resister without getting an arrow in your neck."

I know a line similar to this occurs in some Robin Hood movie, but I haven't been able to track it down. Is it from the Flynn movie? If it is, can you provide the exact quotation?

.

George,

.

The quote you mention is in the 1938 Flynn “The Adventures of Robin Hood.” It is said to the villain Sir Guy of Gisbourne (Basil Rathbone) by one of his knight/henchmen as they are walking down a stairway in the castle:

.

“Our men can’t lay a hot iron in the eyes of a tax dodger without getting an […] arrow in the throat. It’s an outrage!”

.

That’s what the subtitles say (without my ellipses), yet subtitles are often inaccurate. It almost sounds as if another word is sounded before “arrow” and the article sounds like an “a” rather than an “an.” It might be “a black arrow,” rather than just “an arrow,” because black arrows are implied later in the movie as ones shot to definitely kill the bad guys. Sorry, it’s not clear.

.

-Ross Barlow.

[George H. Smith]

Ross,

I have a question about the Flynn movie. It's been many years since I've seen it, but I vaguely recall a scene where two guys who torture people are walking downstairs to the dungeon. One says (and this is a very rough paraphrase), "Things are so bad that you can't put out the eyes of a tax resister without getting an arrow in your neck."

I know a line similar to this occurs in some Robin Hood movie, but I haven't been able to track it down. Is it from the Flynn movie? If it is, can you provide the exact quotation?

.

George,

.

The quote you mention is in the 1938 Flynn “The Adventures of Robin Hood.” It is said to the villain Sir Guy of Gisbourne (Basil Rathbone) by one of his knight/henchmen as they are walking down a stairway in the castle:

.

“Our men can’t lay a hot iron in the eyes of a tax dodger without getting an […] arrow in the throat. It’s an outrage!”

.

That’s what the subtitles say (without my ellipses), yet subtitles are often inaccurate. It almost sounds as if another word is sounded before “arrow” and the article sounds like an “a” rather than an “an.” It might be “a black arrow,” rather than just “an arrow,” because black arrows are implied later in the movie as ones shot to definitely kill the bad guys. Sorry, it’s not clear.

.

-Ross Barlow.

Thanks very much. What a great line that is! I had completely forgotten about the "It's an outrage!" part.

It's funny how my memory after all these years retained the essentials of the quotation but changed the words. The original is much better.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I just returned from seeing the new Robin Hood movie. I must say that I was disappointed with it on a number of levels. Perhaps my expectations were too high. I didn't dislike the movie, but I wouldn't rank it in the same category as movies like Braveheart and Gladiator.

I have a question for anyone familiar with naval history (or who is more handy with Google than I am).

In the final battle scene, the French are shown, many mounted on horses, coming off landing barges with fronts that drop down. I groaned when I watched this scene, thinking that nothing like that existed c. 1200, during the reign of King John I. My friend Colley, a former navy guy, had the same reaction, and we joked about Ridley Scott having used transport barges left over from WWII films, except with oars.

I know zip about naval history, so when I got home I did a little research and found this passage from the New World Encyclopedia:

"During John's reign, major improvements were made in ship design, including the addition of sails and removable forecastles. He also created the first big transport ships, called buisses. John is sometimes credited with the founding of the modern Royal Navy."

The transport barges in the movie may have been based on these buisses, but a Google search of the word didn't yield any useful hits, nor is it in any dictionary that I consulted.

Can anyone tell me anything about these buisses? Specifically, were they anything like the transport vessels portrayed in the film?

Ghs