Title · no scrobbles indexed yet

Robin Hood

The first scrobble for this title is still propagating, but a community review is already indexed below.

Reviews

Longform community posts about this title

Film Review: Robin Hood (Douglas Fairbanks in Robin Hood, 1922)@drax1159d

(source: tmdb.org)

Hollywood films a century ago lacked sound, colour and many things we now take for granted, but they were still grand. Some of that grandness can be still seen even today, especially in films that used to be silent era’s equivalent of superhero films. One of such examples can be given by Robin Hood, 1922 historical epic directed by Allan Dwan and produced by Douglas Fairbanks, officially titled Douglas Fairbanks in Robin Hood.

Fairbanks, who was one of the greatest Hollywood stars at the time, plays the titular character, famous hero of the legends of medieval England. In the beginning of the film his character is known as Earl of Huntingdon, and is one of England’s elite knights King Richard the Lionheart (played by Wallace Beery) has called to accompany him in Crusade. Before departure he stages jousting tournament in which Huntingdon defeats evil Sir Guy of Gisbourne (played by Paul Dickey) and wins the heart of beautiful Lady Marian Fitzwalter (played by Enid Bennett). Richard and his army depart, but this is seen as an opportunity for King’s ambitious brother Prince John (played by Sam De Grasse) to take power and start reign of terror. Marian sends message to Huntingdon to inform him about situation, so he decides to abandon Richard’s army and return home to help. Despite being wounded and briefly detained as deserter, Huntingdon manages to get home, albeit apparently too late to rescue Marian who died escaping Prince John. Unaware that Marian actually feigned her death, he swears revenge and begins to gather all those displeased with Prince John in Sherwood Forest. They know him as “Robin Hood” and swear that they will oppose tyranny until Richard returns and restore proper rule over England.

Robin Hood was the first Hollywood film to have gala premiere at famous Grauman’s Egyptian Theatre in Los Angeles and, as such, looks quite worthy of the occasion. It was the most expensive Hollywood production by that time and this shows particularly in the way Dwan managed to meticulously reconstruct Nottingham castle and the medieval town. The castle is particularly impressive, being built by huge sets designed by architect Lloyd Wright, son of Frank Llyod Wright. Those sets are almost as impressive or even more impressive as Babylon in Griffith’s Intolerance, and the effect on audience is made even greater by animated introductory sequence that superimposes contemporary ruins with grand structures of medieval past. Apart from huge sets, Dwan and Fairbanks also spent their budget on costumes, props and thousands of extras. Even audience today, accustomed to Hollywood magic, can easily imagine how attractive and fantastic those images looked to the audience in early 1920s.

However, all those visual attractions actually serve relatively simple, not particularly original but effective story. Although the first half, which shows preparations for Crusade and court intrigues might look slow, pace becomes very quick when Huntingdon becomes Robin Hood. Although such transformation might look a little bit too abrupt, it is good way for Fairbanks to show what he was best at – physical action. Despite being in 40ies, he displays great acrobatic ability and some breathtaking stunts, especially during finale when he storms a castle by himself. Fairbanks was never among the best actors, but he is surrounded by group of very talented colleagues that would repeat their roles – Wallace Beery would play King Richard in 1923 sequel Richard the Lion-Hearted while Alan Hale would play Friar Tuck in 1938 film The Adventures of Robin Hood. Action scenes are accompanied with elements of mild humour and very little melodrama that was characteristic of silent Hollywood. Production was not only expensive but very long, but patience paid off for Fairbanks. Robin Hood became the biggest Hollywood hit of the year and not only allowed Fairbanks to remain big star, but also paved the way for swashbuckling epics to come.

RATING: 7/10 (++)

Blog in Croatian https://draxblog.com Blog in English https://draxreview.wordpress.com/ Leofinance blog https://leofinance.io/@drax.leo Cent profile https://beta.cent.co/@drax Minds profile https://www.minds.com/drax_rp_nc Uptrennd profile https://www.uptrennd.com/user/MTYzNA

Unstoppable Domains: https://unstoppabledomains.com/?ref=3fc23fc42c1b417 Hiveonboard: https://hiveonboard.com?ref=drax Bitcoin Lightning HIVE donations: https://v4v.app/v1/lnurlp/qrcode/drax Rising Star game: https://www.risingstargame.com?referrer=drax 1Inch: https://1inch.exchange/#/r/0x83823d8CCB74F828148258BB4457642124b1328e

BTC donations: 1EWxiMiP6iiG9rger3NuUSd6HByaxQWafG ETH donations: 0xB305F144323b99e6f8b1d66f5D7DE78B498C32A7

Permalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post

Comments

No comments yet — be the first.

2 more reviews

›Robin Hood (2018) - Movie Review@coldsteem2769d

The latest incarnation of Robin Hood is an anachronistic, muddled mess. The film wastes the talents of a cast that I generally like. The story wants to be a political statement, but it doesn't know what it is trying to say. And it says it with a ham-fist at times. It felt like propaganda, which makes it a bit of a paradox. The re-imagining of the Robin Hood saga redefines every element of the story, a fact viewers are warned of by the narrator at the outset of this cinematic rubbish. The Robin Hood story has always been a bit of a political statement, but it has its roots in an era that doesn't have great parallels to the modern era, even though those have been redrawn over the years with other modern adaptations. This one may be the worst in terms of making this more about political statements and modern culture than about a common hero and his merry band of thieves.

Robin of Loxley (Taron Egerton) is not your average Lord of the Manor. His hilltop perch above Nottingham must be prime real estate, even in the late fourteenth century...or alternate universe...or wherever it is alleged to have existed. He is young, brash and quickly falls in love with a young commoner, Marian (Eve Hewson). The Sheriff of Nottingham (Ben Mendelsohn) is a fascist ruler who is in cahoots with the Church to fund the Crusades. But there is also a darker secret to this funding. In the entire free world, Nottingham has become the principal funder of the Crusades, leading to dictatorial power seized by the Sheriff. The Sheriff is appointed by the church, no less. How this exists within the Realm of a Monarchy and with the consent of the local Dukes and Lords is never fully vetted. But suffice it to say that the Sheriff, in this story, has dictatorial control and the rest of England does not exist as an entity of any account.

The Sheriff uses his unbridled power to draft Robin of Loxley to fight in the Crusades. While Robin is off fighting Moors in a fabricated Crusade, the Sheriff is seizing his property (which appears to be looted but not sold or repurposed) to fund the crusade. Robin is a fierce fighter, but meets his match in a Moor archer whose Arabic name translates as "John" (Jamie Foxx). A twist of fate lead the two to become partners. Robin increases his archery skills under John's tutelage. He soon begins stealing from the coffers of the Sheriff's war chest, quickly rising as a local hero. He is reunited with Marian, who has a new love interest, but may just win her back as he stands against the Sheriff and the Church.

Ben Chandler does not understand subtlety in his debut screenplay. He and David James Kelly deliver a screenplay that doesn't understand finesse. Aside from creating textbook anachronisms (this film could serve as a "what not to do" for film students and story-tellers), the personal views of the writers come through with a nasty vehemence. It would make no sense to incorporate the Crusades into this story, unless you understand that these writers do not like Christianity. It may extend to religion in general, but they seem to take a gentler tone towards Islam. Their anti-Christianity is most apparent in a line delivered by the Cardinal (F. Murray Abraham) when he declares (abridged) that fear is the best way to control people...why do you think the church created the concept of hell? The story fails to add any depth to the original story, instead, it manages to make the story more shallow. They opt for visual appeal over substance and pontificating at the expense of the viewer. I was utterly bored and a bit disgusted by the propagandist elements of the story.

On the topic of propaganda, we have quite a bit of cud to chew on. First is the choice to use the Moors as the Crusade depicted in this story. While the timing doesn't match, it was done intentionally. They never intended for this story to make sense. It is merely a vehicle to appear relevant. The Moorish battles attempt to be a statement on the Iraq (and probably Afghanistan) wars. Muslims are the bad guys, and Christians treat them brutally, decapitating prisoners out of sheer hatred. Robin is reduced to the role of George Soros in this film. He is the wealthy Lord who empowers the commoner to revolt. I say Soros, because the people don't merely revolt. They are transformed into an antifa mob, attacking the Sheriff's own military (which I believe the King of England himself must envy) with Molotov cocktails and face-masks. The "class warfare" element is so threadbare, we literally get the dialogue "redistribution of wealth" delivered in case you are so utterly clueless that you can't comprehend the statements being made. It is too bad that political relevance trumped storytelling here. Robin Hood of the past managed both. The writing here was sophomoric at best. It is obvious this is Chandler's debut film. I think producers will take a more reflective look at his work next time.

I did like the cast. It is a shame all of this talent was wasted. I am not a big fan of Jamie Foxx, but he was solid in this role. Taron Egerton's stock is rising in my opinion. I liked him in The Kingsmen and figure we will continue to see him in popular films. He has a strong presence on film. Eve Hewson is starting to rise as well. She has had smaller roles in recent films like Papillon. She was strong in this role, although I was not completely sold on the role itself. I am a huge fan of Abraham, who was a cornerstone of the Homeland series and is likely the most accomplished of this cast. I can't help but view this cast as wasted talent.

Robin Hood is a weak story with a one hour, 56 minute run time. It received a PG-13 rating for violence, but is probably find for older children and above. But I would not recommend this film to anyone. It is bad. The story is so confused and muddled that political statements are often made completely out-of-context and without any further vetting. The editing was as bad as the story itself, adding to the sense of chaos that this film presents. It is sloppy, silly and ill-conceived. The anachronistic elements could have worked with a bit more intellect. Rather than feeling like an alternate history, it comes across as an attempt at a steampunk retelling of the Robin Hood story with a very shallow storyline that attempts to do too much and manages to accomplish nothing. 4/10.

Permalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post
›Robin Hood (2010) - Movie Review@coldsteem2820d

I have never been a big fan of the whole "wealth redistribution" thing. But then again, the legend of Robin Hood surfaced in a very different time. Because of the "steal from the rich to give to the poor" aspect of Robin Hood, I have tended (fairly or unfairly) to label the character with the traits of a liberal. Having seen many versions of the tale, I did not intend to watch the 2010 version. A 2018 version will soon hit theaters, so I thought it was time to revisit this one. The tale examines Robin Hood from a fresh, more historical perspective, causing me to examine my perspective and consider that Robin just might have been a conservative. (insert smile here).

References to the fabled archer date back to the early fifteenth century and place him squarely in the thirteenth century. Robin Hood examines the familiar story within the socio-political context of that era, taking liberties to tie the character to major events of that time. The story picks up the story of Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) as one of Richard "the Lionheart's" archers at the end of the Crusades.

As King Richard plunders his way back to London we are treated to excellent siege tactics and thirteenth century battle strategies. Brute force and archery augment mounted swordsmen in battle. During the final siege on the push to England, Richard is killed in battle. Robin and his companions realize they will not be paid and wish to expedite their journey back to England. They hastily depart the battle. The journey back to England places the band of soldiers in the path of fate. Following their fortunes forward, Robin poses as a Knight, the son of Sir Walter Loxley (Max von Sydow).

As fate would have it, Loxley knows the details of a past that Robin has forgotten. Loxley asks Robin to stay on as the "man of the house" out of fear that his lands will be seized from his daughter-in-law, Marion (Cate Blanchett) in the event of his death. In return, Robin learns about his own past. Robin has strong ties to the Magna Carta and uses that foundation to unite the Barons of Northern England in a fight to save the country from invading French. But a tenuous agreement with Prince John is poorly executed as the jealous King reneges on his promise and creates the legend by declaring Robin an outlaw...forever to be known as Robin the Hood.

Along the way, Robin meets the familiar characters like the Friar known as Tuck (Mark Addy), William Marshal (William Hurt), the Sheriff of Nottingham (Matthew Macfayden), Little John (Kevin Durand) and Will Scarlet (Scott Grimes). The approach to the introductions was better than many of the past takes on Robin Hood, creating more distance between the characters. Although the other characters were not all closely examined, it appeared that they were more believable and developed with more balance. I enjoyed the grittier, sluttier, rambunctious characters from the pen of Brian Helgeland.

Helgeland presents a rich story, a prequel of sorts, steeped in the politics of the thirteenth century. The rich feel of the film felt more like and epic historical drama than the type of film that Disney would make into a cartoon. Combined with Ridley Soctt's amazing battle sequences, the film creates visual appeal that brings the era to life. The characters were developed better and were more interesting than previous installments of this story, but still left room for improvement. We couldn't fully appreciate all of the major characters. Then again, the film was 140 minutes...it would have been difficult to fit much more in. The plot was fresh and exceptional, not to mention credible. The story line was worth the money spent on this film.

I enjoyed Crowe teaming up again with Ridley Scott (Gladiator). I like Crowe as an actor and find him to bring credibility to his characters. I also liked von Sydow as the Loxley. Although I like Cate Blanchett, I wasn't really digging her as Marion. Her performance was okay, but the role (which was excellent) seemed out-of-place on her. Marion is a gritty likable Lady who is not afraid to take up arms. Blanchett seemed a bit soft to me, making the part a little hard to believe. Oscar Isaac was enjoyably detestable as Prince John, bring the right amount of venom to his role. The rest of the cast members were window dressing on the story and did not take away from the story. None of the supporting cast stood out to me other than von Sydow who was exceptional.

Robin Hood managed to eke out a PG-13 rating. I wish they had settled for an R rating. It seemed like Scott was holding back at times to get a rating that would include a wider audience. In spite of the rating, the battle scenes captured the excitement and visual fervor without a gore factor that would elicit the stronger rating. Sensual scenes were omitted or cut short. I wanted to see some of the emotional aspects developed further. As it stands, the rating stems from a scene with Prince John in bed naked and standing up in the presence of his mother unclothed (managed without nudity). The only other factor in the rating was the violence which included some great action, intensity and enough gore that it could have slipped into an R rating anyway (based on ratings I have seen in other battle-filled films). This film should be fine for most audiences, but it is definitely NOT your Disney brand Robin Hood.

The most refreshing thing about Robin Hood was the fact that Robin was a champion of the weak without the whole "Prince of Thieves" angle. He wasn't stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. It was more of a period piece set in thirteenth century England examining the politics and social situation of that time. Robin Hood was given attributes not normally examined in film but certainly found in some of the ancient tales of the famous archer. I enjoyed the change of pace and felt it was delivered with the visual polish that made it worth seeing. 8/10.

Trailer and images subject to copyright.

Permalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post