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  

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 !!  

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       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.  

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!!!      

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.