Search
Search results
David McK (3219 KP) rated Outlaw (The Outlaw Chronicles, #1) in Books
Jan 30, 2019
"Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Riding throught the Glenn
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, and his bunch of blood-thirsty murderous outlaws ..."
Doesn't have quite the same ring, does it?
"Outlaw" is the story of Robin Hood, told from the perspective of Alan Dale. Like Bernard Cornwell's series of books about King Arthur (indeed, my copy of the book even had a "As good as Bernard Cornwell or your money back" sticker on it), Outlaw is a more earthy, more 'real', telling of the famous tale. All the famous characters are here: Robin Hood, Maid Marie-Anne (Marion), Little John, Friar Tuck, Guy of Gisbourne, and (obviously) Alan Dale himself.
Forget the recent BBC adaptation, or even the '91 film starring a not-very-English Kevin Costner; this is more what Robin Hood would have been like (if he ever existed) than the over-romanticised legendary figure.
Worth a read? If you like Cornwell (or Simon Scarrow's) style of historical fiction, then my answer is a definite yes.
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, and his bunch of blood-thirsty murderous outlaws ..."
Doesn't have quite the same ring, does it?
"Outlaw" is the story of Robin Hood, told from the perspective of Alan Dale. Like Bernard Cornwell's series of books about King Arthur (indeed, my copy of the book even had a "As good as Bernard Cornwell or your money back" sticker on it), Outlaw is a more earthy, more 'real', telling of the famous tale. All the famous characters are here: Robin Hood, Maid Marie-Anne (Marion), Little John, Friar Tuck, Guy of Gisbourne, and (obviously) Alan Dale himself.
Forget the recent BBC adaptation, or even the '91 film starring a not-very-English Kevin Costner; this is more what Robin Hood would have been like (if he ever existed) than the over-romanticised legendary figure.
Worth a read? If you like Cornwell (or Simon Scarrow's) style of historical fiction, then my answer is a definite yes.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Robin Hood (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
If you think you know the tale of Robin Hood in its entirety, think again. A prequel to the traditional story, “Robin Hood” provides the long awaited history of the most classic of well-intentioned thieves and his band of men…who are merry.
Starring Russell Crowe as the lead of Robin Longstride, we see a character that is slightly different than Crowe’s most historic role (in “Gladiator”). But stealing the show is Cate Blanchett as the powerful and strong, yet subtle, Maid Marion Loxley. Other sure-to-be favorites include the beekeeping Friar Tuck played by “The Full Monty’s” Mark Addy and Kevin Durand as the hammer wielding (not so) Little John.
I have to admit, I was reluctant to see this film. Did I really want to watch Russell Crowe lead a small group against wildly impossible odds, again? After having seen “Robin Hood”, the answer is “Yes!” Sure, there is another team of rag-tag characters to battle on behalf of good, but this time they are likeable takes on the merry men of my childhood, with a more historic and adult perspective. The result is simply amusing.
And “Robin Hood” exceeds expectations in the simple details with accurate costumes, well-understood historic locations, and a number of short but sweet fight sequences. The film was so detailed I already plan to be Internet searching away through my next viewing to see how the historic places exposed throughout the film look today. Film students will surely rejoice.
Had I not known the original story to the finest detail, “Robin Hood” might have been a believable tale. The film’s major conflicts all stem from realistic challenges such as food shortages and burdensome taxation. Is it possible that “Robin Hood” will strike a chord of relevance to current economic concerns? Maybe not, but it will be a fun time at the movies.
Starring Russell Crowe as the lead of Robin Longstride, we see a character that is slightly different than Crowe’s most historic role (in “Gladiator”). But stealing the show is Cate Blanchett as the powerful and strong, yet subtle, Maid Marion Loxley. Other sure-to-be favorites include the beekeeping Friar Tuck played by “The Full Monty’s” Mark Addy and Kevin Durand as the hammer wielding (not so) Little John.
I have to admit, I was reluctant to see this film. Did I really want to watch Russell Crowe lead a small group against wildly impossible odds, again? After having seen “Robin Hood”, the answer is “Yes!” Sure, there is another team of rag-tag characters to battle on behalf of good, but this time they are likeable takes on the merry men of my childhood, with a more historic and adult perspective. The result is simply amusing.
And “Robin Hood” exceeds expectations in the simple details with accurate costumes, well-understood historic locations, and a number of short but sweet fight sequences. The film was so detailed I already plan to be Internet searching away through my next viewing to see how the historic places exposed throughout the film look today. Film students will surely rejoice.
Had I not known the original story to the finest detail, “Robin Hood” might have been a believable tale. The film’s major conflicts all stem from realistic challenges such as food shortages and burdensome taxation. Is it possible that “Robin Hood” will strike a chord of relevance to current economic concerns? Maybe not, but it will be a fun time at the movies.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Robin Hood (2018) in Movies
Dec 5, 2018
A Lacklustre take on the legend
I’d expected this to be very similar to the recent King Arthur adaptation, and sadly I wasn’t too far off. Never before have I seen such a dull and lacklustre adaptation of the story of Robin Hood - even the Kevin Costner version was better than this!
The action was dull, the script cheesy and even some decent actors couldn’t make this likeable. I like Taron Egerton, but even he doesn’t come off well in this. His Robin comes across as a love sick puppy and i cringed every time him and Marian are on screen together. A lot of the slow motion was unnecessary (slow mo shots of the Sheriff getting dressed?) and I didn’t understand the costume design and makeup on this. Some of the costumes seemed in keeping with the time this is meant to be set, but a lot, especially Marian’s, just seemed quite inappropriate. Even the script wasn’t quite “of the times” and some of the language didn’t fit in.
If you want to watch a decent film about Robin Hood, choose the Disney version. Or even Men in Tights, they’re far superior to this mess.
The action was dull, the script cheesy and even some decent actors couldn’t make this likeable. I like Taron Egerton, but even he doesn’t come off well in this. His Robin comes across as a love sick puppy and i cringed every time him and Marian are on screen together. A lot of the slow motion was unnecessary (slow mo shots of the Sheriff getting dressed?) and I didn’t understand the costume design and makeup on this. Some of the costumes seemed in keeping with the time this is meant to be set, but a lot, especially Marian’s, just seemed quite inappropriate. Even the script wasn’t quite “of the times” and some of the language didn’t fit in.
If you want to watch a decent film about Robin Hood, choose the Disney version. Or even Men in Tights, they’re far superior to this mess.
David McK (3219 KP) rated The Count of Monte Cristo (2002) in Movies
Jan 23, 2021
Kevin Reynolds - who also directed Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves - take on the classic Alexandre Dumas (probably more famous for The Three Musketeers) tale of love, loss and revenge, starring Jim Caviezel as Edmond Dantes, who is wrongly imprisoned for treason and who - 13 odd years or so later - finally escapes with the aid of another Prisoner, who vouch safes to Dumas the location of a vast treasure that Dumas then spends to gain his revenge on those who betrayed him (including his former best friend).
Since I've never read (or listened to) the book, I cannot speak to how accurate this is to the source.
I can say, however, that it is an enjoyable enough watch, that reminds me (somewhat) of the likes of 'The Man In The Iron Mask' as well as 'The Three Musketeers' - no surprise there!
Since I've never read (or listened to) the book, I cannot speak to how accurate this is to the source.
I can say, however, that it is an enjoyable enough watch, that reminds me (somewhat) of the likes of 'The Man In The Iron Mask' as well as 'The Three Musketeers' - no surprise there!
JT (287 KP) rated The Highwaymen (2019) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
The legend of Bonnie and Clyde is cemented in criminal folklore. The murderous couple were idolised by the public for their robin hood style capers. They left a trail of destruction during their crime spree that was eventually ended in a spectacular ambush.
That ambush was orchestrated by former Texas Rangers Frank Hamer (Kevin Costner) and Maney Gault (Woody Harrelson), who were coaxed out of retirement by Texas Governor Miriam ‘Ma’ Ferguson (Kathy Bates) as the only ones capable of taking down the two outlaws.
The onscreen chemistry between Costner and Harrelson is great and the grumpy old men regail each other with tales of the past and how things have changed – not always for the better. It is this chemistry which holds the film together.
Their road trip takes them through quiet and sometimes picturesque Southern American landscapes and towns, as they retrace the bloodshed that Bonnie and Clyde leave behind. Bonnie (Emily Brobst) and Clyde (Edward Bossert) are seen but never heard and only glimpsed now and again, this subtle approach leaves the light to shine firmly on the long arm of the law.
The project itself was earmarked for a Paul Newman and Robert Redford pairing, something that I would have love to have seen given their previous work. As it was it fell to the hands of Costner and Harrelson who both do an admirable job.
That ambush was orchestrated by former Texas Rangers Frank Hamer (Kevin Costner) and Maney Gault (Woody Harrelson), who were coaxed out of retirement by Texas Governor Miriam ‘Ma’ Ferguson (Kathy Bates) as the only ones capable of taking down the two outlaws.
The onscreen chemistry between Costner and Harrelson is great and the grumpy old men regail each other with tales of the past and how things have changed – not always for the better. It is this chemistry which holds the film together.
Their road trip takes them through quiet and sometimes picturesque Southern American landscapes and towns, as they retrace the bloodshed that Bonnie and Clyde leave behind. Bonnie (Emily Brobst) and Clyde (Edward Bossert) are seen but never heard and only glimpsed now and again, this subtle approach leaves the light to shine firmly on the long arm of the law.
The project itself was earmarked for a Paul Newman and Robert Redford pairing, something that I would have love to have seen given their previous work. As it was it fell to the hands of Costner and Harrelson who both do an admirable job.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Robin Hood (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
At this point I feel like I've grown u with definitive versions of Robin Hood. Kevin Costner will always be a front runner, and Disney's foxified version brings a smile to my face every time. I was also lucky to have been shown Robin Hood Men In Tights when I was younger and will always appreciate Cary Elwes' rendition. Errol Flynn will always be the high point for class in the role. There's always that one we don't talk about... Russell Crowe, I'm looking at you. We probably should consider the small screen as well, after all should we be excluding Robin from Madi Marian and Her Merry Men?
After the one we don't talk about I had fairly low expectations for this. Did we really need to reboot this icon?
The answer is evidently a resounding yes. No one is more surprised about this than I am. He's still not the best Robin (sorry... Rob) but he's an excellent modern adaptation for those who don't want to go old school with their viewing.
Taron Egerton doesn't quite have the on-screen presence of a lord, he's something or a whipper-snapper in Robin terms. He'd be much more at home in an episode of Arrow. Watch out, Roy. In fact that would be my guess of what happened in the pitching of this one. "Arrow is basically Robin Hood, shall we just do that?"
Ben Mendelsohn proved himself to be an excellent villain in Ready Player One, and he's brought himself back to that high with the Sheriff of Nottingham. Cruel and egotistical he makes an easy focus for everyone's revolutionary efforts.
Friar Tuck... hmm. Tim Minchin was an interesting choice. My main issue is that he basically seems to have played it as Bill Bailey. That was something that stuck out from the very first time we saw him and from that point on all I could think was that they might as well have got Bill Bailey to do it.
I had hoped that like the trailer the film would feature some modern music as well as what turned out to be some very atmospheric background ensemble. Sadly not though. Maybe it's just me pining back to A Knight's Tale.
Round of applause for the cinematography. Everything flowed really well and that opening scene of war (which you can see some of in the trailer above) really drew you in. In fact, the whole scene felt very much more modern than bows and arrows and was a striking moment in the film.
If cinematography is at the top, the writing is somewhere near the bottom. Generally it was passable and I didn't really notice it. That sounds odd, but you know what I mean, sometimes it is just there and doesn't really leave a mark. Every now and then you'd get a curve ball of a line that made me recoil and stopped my enjoyment of the film. Speeches that should have had power in the words didn't, there was no feeling of being roused to action like so many great films are able to do.
As a final comment... why must you mess with the naturally accepted order of characters?
What you should do
Go for the action, not the script. It's quite impressive on the big screen and Jamie Foxx's John holds some quiet moments of humour that are worth seeing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would quite like John's ability to heal and not die. That seems like a massively impressive part of his character.
After the one we don't talk about I had fairly low expectations for this. Did we really need to reboot this icon?
The answer is evidently a resounding yes. No one is more surprised about this than I am. He's still not the best Robin (sorry... Rob) but he's an excellent modern adaptation for those who don't want to go old school with their viewing.
Taron Egerton doesn't quite have the on-screen presence of a lord, he's something or a whipper-snapper in Robin terms. He'd be much more at home in an episode of Arrow. Watch out, Roy. In fact that would be my guess of what happened in the pitching of this one. "Arrow is basically Robin Hood, shall we just do that?"
Ben Mendelsohn proved himself to be an excellent villain in Ready Player One, and he's brought himself back to that high with the Sheriff of Nottingham. Cruel and egotistical he makes an easy focus for everyone's revolutionary efforts.
Friar Tuck... hmm. Tim Minchin was an interesting choice. My main issue is that he basically seems to have played it as Bill Bailey. That was something that stuck out from the very first time we saw him and from that point on all I could think was that they might as well have got Bill Bailey to do it.
I had hoped that like the trailer the film would feature some modern music as well as what turned out to be some very atmospheric background ensemble. Sadly not though. Maybe it's just me pining back to A Knight's Tale.
Round of applause for the cinematography. Everything flowed really well and that opening scene of war (which you can see some of in the trailer above) really drew you in. In fact, the whole scene felt very much more modern than bows and arrows and was a striking moment in the film.
If cinematography is at the top, the writing is somewhere near the bottom. Generally it was passable and I didn't really notice it. That sounds odd, but you know what I mean, sometimes it is just there and doesn't really leave a mark. Every now and then you'd get a curve ball of a line that made me recoil and stopped my enjoyment of the film. Speeches that should have had power in the words didn't, there was no feeling of being roused to action like so many great films are able to do.
As a final comment... why must you mess with the naturally accepted order of characters?
What you should do
Go for the action, not the script. It's quite impressive on the big screen and Jamie Foxx's John holds some quiet moments of humour that are worth seeing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would quite like John's ability to heal and not die. That seems like a massively impressive part of his character.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Batman (1989) in Movies
Oct 10, 2019
Batman- i love this movie, i have seen it about 7-9 times. I love michael Keaton as bruce wayne/batman. I love jack nicholson as the joker. This movie has action, comedy, suspense, laughing gas, a prince song, adventure and so much more. Also you have darkness, romance, lots of screaming from Vicki Vale played by Kim Basinger. Did i mention that Tim Burton directed this film.
The Plot: Having witnessed his parents' brutal murder as a child, millionaire philanthropist Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton) fights crime in Gotham City disguised as Batman, a costumed hero who strikes fear into the hearts of villains. But when a deformed madman who calls himself "The Joker" (Jack Nicholson) seizes control of Gotham's criminal underworld, Batman must face his most ruthless nemesis ever while protecting both his identity and his love interest, reporter Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger).
Keaton's casting caused a controversy since, by 1988, he had become typecast as a comedic actor and many observers doubted he could portray a serious role. Nicholson accepted the role of the Joker under strict conditions that dictated top billing, a high salary, a portion of the box office profits and his own shooting schedule.
The tone and themes of the film were influenced in part by Alan Moore and Brian Bolland's The Killing Joke and Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. The film primarily adapts the "Red Hood" origin story for the Joker, in which Batman inadvertently creates the Joker by causing him to fall into Axis Chemical acid, resulting in his transformation into a psychopath, but it adds a unique twist in presenting him specifically as a gangster named Jack Napier.
Considered the role of Batman, including Mel Gibson, Kevin Costner, Charlie Sheen, Tom Selleck, Bill Murray, Harrison Ford and Dennis Quaid.
Brad Dourif, Tim Curry, David Bowie, John Lithgow and James Woods were considered for the Joker.
This film is great and should be watched.
The Plot: Having witnessed his parents' brutal murder as a child, millionaire philanthropist Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton) fights crime in Gotham City disguised as Batman, a costumed hero who strikes fear into the hearts of villains. But when a deformed madman who calls himself "The Joker" (Jack Nicholson) seizes control of Gotham's criminal underworld, Batman must face his most ruthless nemesis ever while protecting both his identity and his love interest, reporter Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger).
Keaton's casting caused a controversy since, by 1988, he had become typecast as a comedic actor and many observers doubted he could portray a serious role. Nicholson accepted the role of the Joker under strict conditions that dictated top billing, a high salary, a portion of the box office profits and his own shooting schedule.
The tone and themes of the film were influenced in part by Alan Moore and Brian Bolland's The Killing Joke and Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. The film primarily adapts the "Red Hood" origin story for the Joker, in which Batman inadvertently creates the Joker by causing him to fall into Axis Chemical acid, resulting in his transformation into a psychopath, but it adds a unique twist in presenting him specifically as a gangster named Jack Napier.
Considered the role of Batman, including Mel Gibson, Kevin Costner, Charlie Sheen, Tom Selleck, Bill Murray, Harrison Ford and Dennis Quaid.
Brad Dourif, Tim Curry, David Bowie, John Lithgow and James Woods were considered for the Joker.
This film is great and should be watched.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Moonlight (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Waxing or Waning?
Seldom do I go to see a movie where I know so little about the plot as this one. I knew it was a “coming of age” drama about a young man growing up in a black neighbourhood in Miami. Period. That ignorance was bliss (so that’s the way this review will stay: I will avoid my usual high-level summary here). For there are twists in this story that you don’t see coming, and moments of such dramatic force that they are cinematically searing.
Playing the young man, Chiron, over three stages of his life are the actors Alex Hibbert, Ashton Sanders and Trevante Rhodes. However, Mahershala Ali, who plays Juan – the drug dealer with a heart – has been the one with all the awards visibility (having this week won the Screen Actors Guild Supporting Actor award, as well as being within the ensemble cast award for the upcoming “Hidden Numbers”). For the avoidance of doubt, Ali and all of these other actors are excellent, as is Jharrel Jerome (in his feature film debut) as Chiron’s 16-year old friend Kevin. But the performance that really spoke to me was that of Ashton Sanders, who has both an uplifting and heartbreaking role as the “middle” Chiron and delivers it supremely well. A real breakout role for him.
Also shining with a dramatic and extremely emotional performance is London’s own Naomie Harris (“Spectre“), justifiably nominated for a Supporting Actress Oscar. Unlike last year’s insipid and dull “Our Kind of Traitor“, where she was given criminally little to do, here she is blisteringly real as a caring mother spiralling down an addiction plug-hole. A career best.
Grammy-nominated musician Janelle Monáe, in her feature film debut, is also eminently watchable alongside Mahershala Ali as Juan’s girlfriend Teresa.
Above all, this powerful ensemble is the best evidence possible that the diversity arguments all over last year’s Oscars were 100% correct. These are all indisputably realistic performances by black actors that must surely move viewers regardless of their colour or creed.
The film has eight Oscar nominations, and I definitely agree with the acting nominations to Maharhala Ali and Naomie Harris. I’d also agree with the award for music to Nicolas Britell (“The Big Short”) which is astonishingly eclectic and jarringly appropriate to the story that unfolds. I could even go along with the Best Film Editing nomination, although I am hardly an expert in the subject.
The remaining nominations are for Best Picture, Best Director (Barry Jenkins), Best Writing Adapted Screenplay (also Barry Jenkins) and Best Cinematography (James Laxton). However, here my opinion diverges with the Academy and – I suspect – many critics. Yes, this is a really engrossing film with a fine and surprisingly non-standard Hollywood ending. It is certainly well worth watching, but is it a top film of the year? No, I don’t think so. There are some aspects of the film that just plain irritated me.
Firstly, the camera work is frequently of the hand-held variety, particularly in the first half of the film, that leads to a serious case of seasickness if you are sitting anywhere other than the back row of the cinema.
More crucially for me, the film introduces two fantastic and atypical characters, but then – inexplicably – the script just unceremoniously dumps them with hardly any further reference made. I found that enormously frustrating and mystifying and spent the rest of the film waiting for a closure that never came.
There is also enormously pervasive use of the “N-word”, right from the opening music track. I appreciate this is probably perfectly appropriate to the ‘hood that the characters occupy, but the continual usage is shocking (at least to a white audience). It is probably designed to shock, but after a while the shock wears off and it becomes more tiresome than offensive.
Based on all the Oscar hype then, this was a bit of a disappointment. But that view is purely relative to all of the great Oscar Best Film candidates I’ve seen in the last few weeks. It is still a very interesting film due to the story that goes off in a novel and surprising direction, and one that is worthy of your movie dollar investment.
Playing the young man, Chiron, over three stages of his life are the actors Alex Hibbert, Ashton Sanders and Trevante Rhodes. However, Mahershala Ali, who plays Juan – the drug dealer with a heart – has been the one with all the awards visibility (having this week won the Screen Actors Guild Supporting Actor award, as well as being within the ensemble cast award for the upcoming “Hidden Numbers”). For the avoidance of doubt, Ali and all of these other actors are excellent, as is Jharrel Jerome (in his feature film debut) as Chiron’s 16-year old friend Kevin. But the performance that really spoke to me was that of Ashton Sanders, who has both an uplifting and heartbreaking role as the “middle” Chiron and delivers it supremely well. A real breakout role for him.
Also shining with a dramatic and extremely emotional performance is London’s own Naomie Harris (“Spectre“), justifiably nominated for a Supporting Actress Oscar. Unlike last year’s insipid and dull “Our Kind of Traitor“, where she was given criminally little to do, here she is blisteringly real as a caring mother spiralling down an addiction plug-hole. A career best.
Grammy-nominated musician Janelle Monáe, in her feature film debut, is also eminently watchable alongside Mahershala Ali as Juan’s girlfriend Teresa.
Above all, this powerful ensemble is the best evidence possible that the diversity arguments all over last year’s Oscars were 100% correct. These are all indisputably realistic performances by black actors that must surely move viewers regardless of their colour or creed.
The film has eight Oscar nominations, and I definitely agree with the acting nominations to Maharhala Ali and Naomie Harris. I’d also agree with the award for music to Nicolas Britell (“The Big Short”) which is astonishingly eclectic and jarringly appropriate to the story that unfolds. I could even go along with the Best Film Editing nomination, although I am hardly an expert in the subject.
The remaining nominations are for Best Picture, Best Director (Barry Jenkins), Best Writing Adapted Screenplay (also Barry Jenkins) and Best Cinematography (James Laxton). However, here my opinion diverges with the Academy and – I suspect – many critics. Yes, this is a really engrossing film with a fine and surprisingly non-standard Hollywood ending. It is certainly well worth watching, but is it a top film of the year? No, I don’t think so. There are some aspects of the film that just plain irritated me.
Firstly, the camera work is frequently of the hand-held variety, particularly in the first half of the film, that leads to a serious case of seasickness if you are sitting anywhere other than the back row of the cinema.
More crucially for me, the film introduces two fantastic and atypical characters, but then – inexplicably – the script just unceremoniously dumps them with hardly any further reference made. I found that enormously frustrating and mystifying and spent the rest of the film waiting for a closure that never came.
There is also enormously pervasive use of the “N-word”, right from the opening music track. I appreciate this is probably perfectly appropriate to the ‘hood that the characters occupy, but the continual usage is shocking (at least to a white audience). It is probably designed to shock, but after a while the shock wears off and it becomes more tiresome than offensive.
Based on all the Oscar hype then, this was a bit of a disappointment. But that view is purely relative to all of the great Oscar Best Film candidates I’ve seen in the last few weeks. It is still a very interesting film due to the story that goes off in a novel and surprising direction, and one that is worthy of your movie dollar investment.