Took the boys to see the new movie with Russell Crowe as Robin Hood. Excellent movie, and some great longbow shooting scenes.
Any time I see that hail of arrows raining down on the intended targets, I am amazed at how deadly that tactic was. Truly the longbow was the original assault weapon. Plus i always love watching those crossbow shooters gettin their butts kicked.
This was a good flick, I highly recommend it.
I was planning on going to see it this evening but got caught up in shooting my bow and missed out on the times when I could see it and be back home by the time my wife got home from rocking little babies.
Oh well, maybe tomorrow.
Thanks for the review.
God bless,Mudd
Great flick. Thought it would be more about the bow though.
I just got back from watching it with Reed. We both enjoyed it. There was not as mjch archery as I thought there would be but it was still a good movie.
Saw an interview with Crow about the making of the movie...he shoots a 38lb. self bow (insert grunt here)and seemed quite proud of that. "Spent a few days shooting it before filming started"
So...he's got that going for him.
Went with the wifey tonight. We both really enjoyed it. No trashy sex scenes and usual Hollywood junk, just a very pleasant and tastefully done movie.
Crowe was great as always. Those lonbow scenes as the French made their amphibious landing were excellent. The action scenes were also not overdone, making it credible, except for just a few shots that I won't eloborate more on; for the benefit of those who haven't seen it yet.
Oh thanks alot Buckmeister.....no need to see it now. Why waist time and money if I already know what's gonna happen. :smileystooges:
QuoteOriginally posted by Sliver Sticks:
he shoots a 38lb.
I find this hilarious, considering people of those times could have possibly been shooting 4x that weight.
Really interesting.
A couple guys on another site I visit saw it and were thouroughly disappointed by the show.
I doubt I'll go see it. But then, I don't like Crowe and don't often go to the movies anyway.
Guy
I was gonna go tonight, but got held at work too late. Looking foward to seeing it.
Russel Crow was a close friend of the Crocodile Hunter, so I would imagine he is nay on hunting, but you never know..
I didnt see this thread,before i posted another,concerning why this is a taboo topic on another site.Is there something i should know about Crow?The Thread is,"Does Anybody Know?" if someone cares to share their insight.
Oh,And i noticed that too Guy.
Chris O youre exactly right I chuckled myself im anxious to see it now boys! :bigsmyl:
Probably,because they are actors first and recent archers,with a bit of Training.Maybe their coach saw fit to start em light,to develope good form,so they would look like they knew what they were doing and could actually hit somethin with it.LOLI doubt they wanted to wait the time it took to build up to the weight that those early archers used.Im probly the worst at nitpickin a film to death at inacuracies,but Cmon guys,lets be practical.LOLIm not usually up in arms about any movie,especially when it deals with history of which im familiar.Im usually very dissapointed but,i saw an interview on Tv with Crow,promoteing the movie,and was impressed with his genuine enthusiasm toward the history and craftmanship,pertaining to early archery.I mean the Guy was Genuinely exicited about it and forced the cameraman to do a closeup of the bow as he described the difference between the sapwood and heartwood and the why of it all.I can tell the Guy may be hooked.
Me and the wife just saw it today. It was a real good movie, just wish it would have been more about them shooting instead of just the war aspect of it. But it did do it's job to tell the story up till, and why he became an outlaw.
I think the the next one will be more what I would like to see. Stuff like the guys just shootin' and havin' fun, you know "Merry Men" and all that kinda stuff. Some tournaments, and some good archery scenes instead of the war tactics of just letting waves of arrows darken the skies. It was good though, but I think the next will be more enjoyable. Hope so anyway.
The boy and I just got home, awesome movie! Probably go see it again here soon! I'm hoping for a part 2 of some sort!!
This may interest some.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0eOZbhCOb0
Brothers of the Bow do Robin Hood. I just got back from the movie with my two brothers and Gene and Barry. We took a break from editing our sequel to Primal Dreams. RH was entertaining, but I guess it also depends on who you go to the show with. Ha! Now its back to editing. Mike
I'm with traxx I havnt seen the movie yet but I did see that particular interview. I was impressed he had been given a thorough working knowledge of the bow and it's use, etc.
My guess is, we as Avid Traditional archers, are going to naturally be WAY too Judgmental of what we see on the big screen. Especially when it comes to our passion. We must understand This is a hollywood portrayal of Robinhood and not a lesson in the selfbow and how he used it. I say sit back and enjoy and maybe this will Spark the interest in someone to pick up a bow and learn to shoot..
I'm with you, Matty. I went to see it last night. My wife and adult daughters accompanied me. They, of course, would have preferred one of the new chick flicks playing but went with me for my birthday. They all enjoyed the movie and I was thankful for them going.
I would have liked to have seen more archery, too. I thought the wraps he wore on his fingers were interesting. Never seen those before.
They certainly left it open for a sequel but I'm not holding my breath.
QuoteOriginally posted by Traxx:
Probably,because they are actors first and recent archers,with a bit of Training.Maybe their coach saw fit to start em light,to develope good form,so they would look like they knew what they were doing and could actually hit somethin with it.LOLI doubt they wanted to wait the time it took to build up to the weight that those early archers used.Im probly the worst at nitpickin a film to death at inacuracies,but Cmon guys,lets be practical.
I'm not putting him down or anything. I think its great to get some light on trad archery and I would never expect them to shoot accurate weights of the time. I just thought it was funny since there is such a large difference. I wish I could shoot a 150# bow!
Just had an epiphany (sp?).
To us trad archers, the movie is/should be about archery because that's what interests us and that is the aspect of the movie that we tend to focus on. We look at the leather hand guard thing he wore to protect his fingers while shooting off the hand. We look at the bows and try to decide what kind of wood they used to make them. We look at the arrow fletching and how it's attached to the arrow. We notice the size of the arrow shafts and the self nocks. We notice how Maid Marian strung her longbow at the first of the movie. And I'm still intrigued by Robin's leather finger wraps ... only on two fingers.
Most movie goers never notice these things. I doubt seriously my family even did. To the general population it's just an adventure movie.
I plan on taking the wife to see it tonight. Hope its as good as you guys say it is. I'm going for the action and bows she going because she likes watching movies from that era.
We're headed out in a few minutes for a 4:40pm showing. Us old folks can't stay out late any more..lol
I'll give my report on it afterwards.
God bless,Mudd
There was a full page article about the movie in a recent newspaper. It stated that Crowe was shooting 200 arrows a day for several months to prepare, and even went bowhunting barefoot once. Of course hunting to Hollywood types might be stalking Sparrows in the backyard. It did say that Crowe really took to the Archery aspect of his part. I'm not a fan of his personality, but he does prepare intensely for his work and is very good at it. I'm anxious for it to come out on DVD, as I never go to movies.
Me and the missus will be seeing an afternoon showing tomorrow and look forward to it. Going for entertainment purposes only. I'm sure I will watch for the same things we all would watch for, but Im a big fan of Crowe movies. This one is right up my alley. His shooting prep for the role was intense. I saw it on OPRAH :banghead: in the film.
I have a 10 and 6 year old, both boys. Would you say this movie is too intense for younger viewers?
No I wound not say it is to intense. There is some violence in the battles scenes. I think that children can handle the violence since it is presentd in a realistic manner and is not just gratuitous. I always talk with my kids about it before and after the movie to help them understand what they saw.
Thanks Clay!!! I know where I am going tonight.
(this was my 100th post!!!)
MIKE, you guys didn't invite me to come up and go too, HA!!
The wife and I just got home from the movies.(Robin Hood) It was well worth watching but I'll be even happier when they come out with the sequel. I'm sure they will, it's too well set up for one to miss the chance. One way to measure how good a movie is, how long does it feel? This one is 2 hrs and 20 minutes but sure didn't feel like it.
I believe they gave two hints to a sequel. I will hold off on giving those hints so as not to ruin anything for those who haven't had a chance to view it yet.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
My 2 cents worth.
God bless, Mudd
just got back from the show. i liked it but was lost. byron fergeson said he did a robin hood for the movie in one of his seminars but did not see one. i was kinda dissapointed of that. did enjoy it and me and my wife just rented the old one and are getting ready to watch.
I'm with POWDUCK,
that was some sweet archery gear and I loved those heads. Wonder if I can get those in 190 grain LOL
Mudd, I was thinking the same thing at the end of the movie that they set it up for good for part 2.
I really like those kind of movies anyway so you know I couldn't resist. My papa used to call me Robin Hood all the time cause I was shooting a bow and hunting with a bow while everybody else was shooting guns.
Stiks
Just got home from watching it and my and mama give it a 10 out of 10, very good movie.
I cant wait for the second one. It will fit us archers a little better I think. I believe it will be more like the stories we read and saw in the previous years.
Saw it last night with the wife, and I enjoyed it.
Robin Hood has been my Hero since age 6. Every movie on him is in my library or at least they were until my grandson came along. These movies are a great way to pass the love of the bow down to the next generation. I'm trying to find a time my Grandson and I can get together to go see it.
It was a pretty good movie. I was hopeing to see more archery and more longbow shots in the movie. But it was a good movie.
As a history buff, I really appreciated the research into the true story of Robin, the archer in King Richard's crusade army. I liked the new corrected story and the way the movie tells the story of how Robin becomes an outlaw in Sherwood forest.
As a kid who grew up in archery in the 50s~60s we talked for hours on end about Howard Hill's trick shots in the Erroll Flynn version. Unfortunately all the "trick shots" in the new movie are CGI but the movie is great.
My favorite shot is the Sheriff asking for a nail to nail the outlaw notice of Robin to the tree :D
I'll probably go again this week - it makes me feel like a kid in archery again :thumbsup:
this is the Russell Crowe interview on Oprah (http://www.oprah.com/entertainment/Russell-Crowe-Has-a-Special-Gift-for-Oprah-Video)
What are the chances this movie could be like the movie the River Runs Through It and focus a lot of attention on the longbow and possibly bow hunting? I think the River Runs Through It had a huge effect on fly fishing.
coffee I think like the Erroll Flynn Robin Hood movie, this movie is going to bring a lot of new folks to archery. I don't know if it will bring them mostly to traditional archery? but it's going to get some new folks to try the sport.
I just saw the live Crowe interview with Oprah where he gave her a sword from the film, along with a longbow and arrow, which he strung onstage while giving her a little history on wood selection, the bow's simplistic, yet effective design, etc. I've seen him doing the rounds promoting his films before, which of course they all must do due to contract committments, however this time he really seemed to be dead serious about what he was saying. Here's the YouTube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc_p-kYhNB4&feature=related
If Tuck was taller- he could be Biggie. I think Biggie even has a few beehives in his backyard.
If there's a sequel I vote for Biggie as "Little" John, Barry or Gene can double for one another as Friar Tuck, and Paul Brunner?? Nope, can't use Paul, I forgot that he's in New Zealand getting ready to star in "The Hobbit":^)
Gary, We would have ask you to come, but I'm sure you are sick of water. :>) We just had a bunch of flooding and I couldn't even get to Whitey's house. Editing is going slow, but we are making progress.
I hope you guys have better temps for this film's editing session. As I recall you had a "sweat lodge" last time:^)
Finally got to see this and they did a great job. The man that was demonstrating the weapons could really shoot that longbow.
Sam
I got to see the movie today with the family too. I was talking about the Hist Channel in the prev post. This was a great movie and let me add my recommend if you have not seen it
That last shot was terrific
Sam
CaptJack - ""trick shots" in the new movie are CGI but the movie is great"
Okay, thought I've run across every acronym imaginable, but what the heck is "CGI"?
I'm guessing "computer graphic image"???
This is in my field of expertise. The "CGI" you're referring to stands for "Computer Generated Imagery". In Internet terminology it also means "Common Gateway Interface", but we don't need to go there:^)
One of my former computer graphic students is a top CGI supervisor for WETA in New Zealand. He's worked on films like Avatar, The Matrix, and even won an Academy Award for his Skull Island water effects work King Kong. I believe his next film is "The Hobbit".
Just got back from seeing Robin Hood with all of the family and everyone liked it. Not perfect, but that's subjective at best. Let me put it this way; there's enough of the "right stuff" in the film to make it worth seeing.
Anyone know when the History Channel will replay the Robin Hood show?
was it just me or did someone else notice this, when he was on oprah and he was describing the heartwood and the sapwood on the longbow he got them backwards :banghead:
I noticed that too but I figured he was just nervous being in the "queens" presence..lol
God bless,Mudd
The only thing I did not like about the archery was the creaking and groaning of the bow when he pulled back. I am a little surprised the technical advisor didn't object. Last time I had a bow make a sound like that, it broke.
Does anybody know much about Mr. Ralph, the archery consultant? I saw a brief blurb that indicates he's pretty knowledgeble both about the technical aspects of the longbow and its historical perspective, but I would like more info. Do any of the European members know him?
Steve Ralphs (http://www.steveralphs.com/) really does know his stuff. He's somehow become the 'go-to' guy for films that have archery in them. I'd normally tend to hold that against someone, but he seems to be the real deal.
Guy
There was a flash video posted under the history channel topic and the actors really learned to shoot. The coach and bowyer said they made over 200 longbows for the film and about 5000 arrows. Something like that. Wonder if some of those bows are lying around maybe you could get one.
Wonder what pull they had?
sam
I'm off to see it today after work, I sure hope its as good as every says it is.
We saw if opening night and enjoyed it. Hopefully this will encourage some that don't shoot much anymore to pick it up once again and encourage some new youth into our great sport.
ive not seen the movie yet looks good tho!
Amazing what good character, good acting and a good story can do. Avatar had great special effects but none of the above.
I had an issue with the french landing craft but otherwise everything looked great. I guess the peasants could have been dirtier.
If I keep looking at this I will have to go to the Imax theater and spend that $25.00 for a small popcorn.Trying to hold out for it to be on demand.But my grip is slipping.
I really liked the size and scope of the battles, TV won't do it justice (unless you have a 50" TV)
Have to say it, I was very disapointed. They took some liberties with the story line, (understandable) but I was not a fan. It was a ripoff of all the med-evil battle movies that have been done. Robin Hood has never been about 300 people shooting arrows at 300 people 200 yds away. Stupid hollywood, and Robin hood really only made one cool arrow shot. Just.. disapointed, glad others seem to have enjoyed it though.
I havn't seen the movie yet but have been able to watch a couple History Channel specials that featured clips and interviews.
I think some people are confusing myth vs legend...many of our popular Robin Hood movies and shows are closer to the myth.
QuoteOriginally posted by Joshua Lee:
Have to say it, I was very disapointed. They took some liberties with the story line, (understandable) but I was not a fan. It was a ripoff of all the med-evil battle movies that have been done. Robin Hood has never been about 300 people shooting arrows at 300 people 200 yds away. Stupid hollywood, and Robin hood really only made one cool arrow shot. Just.. disapointed, glad others seem to have enjoyed it though.
I am with you, I did not like it at all. I will stick with the Kevin Costner version.
Joshua,
The story of Robin Hood is derived from the old Pagan belief in the "Greenman".
The history of that goes back many hundreds of years before the "story tale" of Robin Hood ever came along.
The story has no basis in fact,,so there can be no Libertys taken because there is no real basis in fact for the story anyway.
As far as costner goes,,,,,an old English legend with an American accent is really true to the story huh,,,lol.
I saw it and was disappointed. I did not have high expectations, so I went with an open mind.
The movie appears to be a set up for a sequel. I think the sequel will be great.
I have not see it yet but I will. It may "issues" but I'll see any movie with archery in it; beats usual robots or fast cars or glorifying thugs.
QuoteOriginally posted by Horner:
I am with you, I did not like it at all. I will stick with the Kevin Costner version.
I have to say, while this story was different in this new one then I am used to, I would take "Men in Tights" over Kevin Costner's Robin Hood (no offense). Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurman made a pretty fair Robin Hood about the same time as Costner's, if you haven't seen it, it's worth a look.
I do think this could setup for a great sequel, though I doubt they will make it.
I still prefer Erroll Flynn as Robin Hood. It was a true old-fshioned adventure yarn without so many historically inaccurate special effects (ie. WWII style landing craft). Plus I like the fact that Howard Hill was in it.
Still, I like the new filck, too. I don't look for much historical accuracy in this type of movie, just a couple of hours worth of entertainment made a little more enjoyable because I like longbows. I would really like to hav an Englih warbow made of yew - just not in the old military draw weight.
Historical accuracy is just not in the cards when it is not known if he really ever existed. But the new movie does address one question I have wondered about. If he was a nobleman as depicted in earlier tales, would he have actually been an archer or mounted knight on horseback?
I too fall into the disappointed crowd. Russell Crowe gives Robin a dull and dark personality (much like most of his movies.)
Yep, no sequel here I bet. It was not even #1 at the movies after it's first week, so doubt it will make enough money to justify another sleeper.
Boring!
Robin Hood history
The true name of ROBIN HOOD, was ROBERT FITZ-OOTH, the addition of FITZ, common to many Norman names, was afterwards often omitted or dropped : The two last letters TH being turned into D, he was called by the common people Ood or Hood. It is evident he was a man of quality, as by the annexed Pedigree, copied from Dr. STUKELEY'S Paloeographia Britanniae: JOHN SCOT, 10th Earl of Huntington, dying anno 1237, without issue R. FITZ-OOTH, was by the female line next heir to that title, as descended from GILBERT DE GAUNT Earl of Kyme and Lindsey. The title lying dormant during the last ten years of his life, there could be nothing unreasonable or extraordinary in his pretensions to that honor. The arms of ROBIN HOOD were gules, two bends engrailed or. In the old garland he is said to have been born at LOXLEY in Staffordshire; and in a shooting match, made by the KING and QUEEN, being chose by the latter for her archer, she calls him Loxley, a custom very common in those days to call persons of eminence by the name of the town where they were born.
------------
King Richard never called England home and barely spoke the language if at all. He was born in England but was taken to France as a child because he was never expected to take the throne, since his 2 brothers were older than he. Actually, he only thought of England as a wet dirty place that he could get money from for his war making. One of which was against his father and brothers, in which he took the crown from. John was actually the rightful heir to the throne. Richard spent a few months in England after being crowned and then set off on his crusade. On his return from the crusade.
he was captured and held ransom for 150,000 marks by Leopold, duke of Austria. His Brother John offered the duke 80,000 marks to hold him a bit longer until he was crowned king... unfortunately for John, the duke thought the idea less than virtuous.
Richard never made it back to England from the crusade. But he did forgive his brother after his release and actually named him heir instead of his son Arthur.
In 1199, he was in battle in France suppressing a revolt when he was shot with a crossbow bolt fired from a youth who was using a frying pan as a shield. The King applauded the shot and rewarded the boy with 100 shillings. Unfortunately, after Richard died, the boy was flayed alive. Richard was 41 years old.
IronHood
Photoshop is so kewl (http://i50.tinypic.com/20ztyfl.gif)
(http://i48.tinypic.com/veqh5v.jpg)
(http://i50.tinypic.com/200r5sg.jpg)
As a kid from the 50s, I grew up with the Erroll Flynn version. We all knew that Howard Hill had done all the trick shots (no special effects, well almost none - split arrow ;-)
We loved that movie - I still love that movie - if you're an archery buff you have to love that movie !! (http://i50.tinypic.com/20ztyfl.gif)
For a movie titled "Robin Hood" this *was* a disappointment...save your money....
On the other hand it is difficult to beat some of the AWESOME archery scenes and the variety of bows in THE LORD OF THE RINGS triology!
Shoot straight, Shinken
Just returned from seeing this movie...
Not spectacular, not boring, good entertainment and good fodder for we 'archers of tradition'.
Those who do not have a love of archery, in my opinion; will see a love story and a story of the corruption of the powerful....
That said, good story background and well set up for a sequel; and that is where the archery will shine: if it's made!
Well, I LOVED the LOTR MOVIES :readit: BUT I will rent it to make My Own Decision, and THOSE MOVIES Usually DO SUCK!!
So there LIES MY DILEMMA . My "Feeble Mind" WILL Decide if it is Awsome, or Sucks. My 2 Cents Anyway. :campfire:
I saw it and had mixed feelings also,but a different twist on things,maybe gets one to thinking what the truth might have been?anyhow better than some of the stuff out there and good for archery.Ironman robinhood kicks butt!!! :thumbsup: :archer2:
Earthdog
You can take liberties with something that is not based on fact. I was referring to how they took liberties with the characters and story line. I never said it was based on an actual event, stop bustin my chops and get back to your mid-evil times job. (see how I took liberties with your knowledge of the dark ages) Just teasing, Don't take serious.
Josh
oh yea and how is Russel (I EAT) Crow any better than Kevin Costner as far as accents go? Not that I was saying Costner was good.
My wife and I just got back from the movie, and I enjoyed it! I did not go to pick apart details and historical inaccuracies, just went for the entertainment.....and I was not disappointed. I just thought it was an interesting take on a legendary figure and story. Some people will pick it apart, but that's their perogative....just my opinion.....
lee
I have enjoyed all the versions of Robin Hood including this one. It had a very different positioning and refreshing story line. No historical accuracy hang ups here-all legend anyway-and no disappointments either, just expected to be entertained. May even go again.
Another one for the "disappointed" column. Just didn't feel like Robin Hood- seemed like a rather disjointed story with battle scenes we've seen in lots of other movies. I'll stick with original Errol Flynn version.
I grew up with Errol's version and tho I liked it as a child it is a bit milk toast to me now, think that glitter on some of the costumes was a bit much but that was Hollywood of that era no realism..
Bout time for a little different take on the whole legend. I have not seen it yet but hope to see something different from what has been out there.
I taught a college course on American film for a few years which had the "special effect" of ruining some of the entertainment value of many, otherwise decent movies:^( . . . casualties of too much critical analysis. At one point I began including the following statement at the top of each semester's course syllabus: "After completing this course please remember to always view future films as a member of the audience FIRST, then return to the theater later - if you will, to reexamine it with your newly acquired critical eye." I've tried to follow my own advice and so went to see the new RH film as such, someone simply out for a little entertainment. That being said, the movie, despite it's long running time, went rather fast for me and the archery footage was a bonus. My family and I enjoyed it. PS: My daughter remarked that Robin "lacked a mullet this time."
I saw this last night , and as a Robin Hood fanatic since childhood [ I collect Robin Hood memorabilia etc ]and Film geek , all i can say is that i thought this was a really good enjoyable film and i would willingly go and see this again today .
this film had flaws...don't they all , but the little kid in me wanted fling arrows and ride through those forests with them !
So this is now tied with LOTR and the Errol Flynn version as my favourite film ...
very cool .!
I saw the movie and dispite a few things that i thought should have been done differently i thought that the plausability of the story, the archery, and the gear used was amazing. I throughly enjoyed the fill for many different reasons. That said, i enjoy the Men In Tights for many different reasons.
I was looking forward to this - and too a point thought it might help "us" just by raising an interest in archery - and it might. The movie is contrived, boring and dull, IMO. A few scenes with many arrows "in the air" were very cool - scenes of conflict were edited to please the "mr rogers neighborhood crowd". Anyone on the fence should save their money. The last chance for a decent scene would have been for robin to post the warning document by shooting through the government workers hand! - and would have been a better set up for a sequel too - an opportunity squandered - like most of the movie.
<>< <-----------------<<<<<
OUCH!! :scared: Oh Well, I am gonna go see it anyway. :archer2:
I took my wife for date night and we both enjoyed it. She commented it was nice that they left out all the battle scene blood and guts.
I suppose some weren't happy with their popcorn either. :rolleyes:
Wife and I went last night. It was OK. I had a hard time understanding what some of the actors were saying because a) my bad hearing and b) the accent. I judge a movie if I would see it twice and this one I would not.
Maid Marion kind of turned into a Joan of Arc type actress with her showing up at the battle in armor and fighting which I had not seen before in a Robin Hood movie.
I saw the movie yesterday, and I was quite disappointed. Apart from the scenery, I thought it was kind of amateur'ish. Definetely not one of Ridley Scott's best movies. It had the potential, but wasted it.