Is Russell Crowe Too Old to Play Young Robin Hood?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Evo
  • Start date Start date

Russell Crowe is

  • Too old

    Votes: 6 21.4%
  • Too ugly

    Votes: 3 10.7%
  • Too old and ugly

    Votes: 7 25.0%
  • At least he's not Kevin Costner

    Votes: 20 71.4%

  • Total voters
    28
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
107 replies · 15K views
Well, at least the Swamp Loggers episode following was believable.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mheslep said:
I believe Sci Fi author Phillip Dick gets the credit for that story line.

That particular plot point was not in the book. If you have not read it the book is actually quite different from the movie.
 
Evo said:
This thread is about Crowe being too old and too ugly to play Robin Hood. The earliest written reference said Robin Hood was 20 and two years.

they aged quickly back in those days---40 was the old 22 back then---and no one was attractive back in those days----he's perfect for the role
 
rewebster said:
they aged quickly back in those days---40 was the old 22 back then---and no one was attractive back in those days----he's perfect for the role
The best Robin hood movie is the one with Sean Connery, Crowe is younger than that AND can do an english accent.
 
I watched Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves several times simply to watch Alan Rickman. His performance redeemed the whole entire movie. Whole. Entire.

The movie posters and trailers with Russell Crowe certainly suggest a war movie, as Zooby pointed out. I'm not a fan of gore and violence.
 
'Robin Hood' Revisited: Not Entirely On Target
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126761271
by Kenneth Turan
. . . this take on the tale misses the joy of the earlier films staring Errol Flynn and Douglas Fairbanks that captivated previous generations.
I think Errol and Douglas set the standard for dashing and debonaire, which unfortunately Crowe isn't - necessarily. Maybe he will surprise. But then again, debonaire is in the eye of the beholder.
 
Adrian Paul (The Highlander) should have been cast as Robin Hood. He's 50 but he looks a lot younger and fitter than Crowe. The pic is from a movie last year. And he's British.

[PLAIN]http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/8042/adrianpaulrecent.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How Robin Hoods men really treated the poor



A little comedic relief

Monty Python - Dennis Moore
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Robin Hood robbed from everybody and kept everything.

He had a good press agent.

Mel Brooks, the 2000 year old man
 
I hadn't seen anything much about the new movie, and guess my view is swayed by an amalgamation of Scott’s Locksley and Ivanhoe, as their stories have mingled a bit over time and Ivanhoe is often described as the ‘young knight’. This also places the setting earlier than the movie.
 
The actual character lived in the first century AD and killed everyone who ventured near his territory.

Richard the Lion Hearted also never spoke a word of English (Richard, Coeur de Lion) as he was a Norman king.
 
I heard from a friend yesterday that the movie got poor reviews.

Adrian Paul is a hottie and so is Sir Sean Connery! :smile: Paul Smailes is one of the most interesting men.

Ah well, I've contributed more than this post to the topic. Nuff said, except I'd like to see Robin Hood played on stage with all the actors wearing masks. Of course, I'd design them! LOL!
 
ViewsofMars said:
I heard from a friend yesterday that the movie got poor reviews.
The reviews aren't very good.

Russell Crowe's 'Robin Hood' robs from the filmgoers

The latest Robin Hood might as well be called John Doe in Chain Mail for all the resemblance it bears to the legendary character.

That might not be so bad if the alternative portrait was intriguing. But Robin Hood, as envisioned by Ridley Scott and scripted by Brian Helgeland, is an unnecessary and wrong-headed reboot.

Robin of the 'Hood spends a lot of time somberly shooting arrows, a modicum of time proving his heroic decency, especially around royals, and a little time in the company of Lady Marion (no blushing maiden here). But what's missing is a sense of fun.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2010-05-13-robinhood13_ST_N.htm
 
Evo said:
The reviews aren't very good.
...

Whew! the reviews are terrible. I had great hopes for the film. Doesn't sound like any of my expectations panned out. :redface:
 
I hadn't realized the name of the director of the new film is "Scott", too. Just to be clear, I was talking of Sir Walter's description, not Ridley's.
 
What's even more ridiculous is that the movie is supposed to be about the *YOUNG* Robin Hood, before he became the well known bandit in Sherwood Forest! :smile:
 
Evo said:
What's even more ridiculous is that the movie is supposed to be about the *YOUNG* Robin Hood, before he became the well known bandit in Sherwood Forest! :smile:
That's in case it's successful, you have a franchise.
Start with Young Robin Hood, then Robin Hood the high school movie, then Robin Hood goes to college ...

This way you don't have to do prequels.