turbo
Gold Member
- 3,181
- 57
Well, at least the Swamp Loggers episode following was believable.
mheslep said:I believe Sci Fi author Phillip Dick gets the credit for that story line.
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.
The best Robin hood movie is the one with Sean Connery, Crowe is younger than that AND can do an english accent.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
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.. . . this take on the tale misses the joy of the earlier films staring Errol Flynn and Douglas Fairbanks that captivated previous generations.
The reviews aren't very good.ViewsofMars said:I heard from a friend yesterday that the movie got poor reviews.
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.
That's in case it's successful, you have a franchise.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!![]()