Robin Hood… again? Seriously???


If you search IMDB (Internet Movie Database) for Robin Hood, you will be accosted by a list that goes on and on and on.  This will include the various cartoons, parodies, comedies and musicals that are out there.

Most recently to don the tight is now Russell Crowe.  Joining such names as Douglas Fairbanks, Groucho Marx, Errol Flynn, Patrick Steward and Daffy Duck (Mel Blanc.)

The question I have, though, is WHY?

Do we really need another Robin Hood movie?  I have asked this many times and the question still stands.  With all the talent out there yet to be discovered, are we really that desperate for ideas that we are once again re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-rehashing something like Robin Hood to grace the screen to go of and once again rescue our favorite professional “Damsel in Distress” from the evil sheriff?

This story is so tired and worn out, I have to think that the only people that are really going to be busting the doors down to see it will either be SCA nerds who’s sole intent is to take it apart or women (and I am sure a few guys) going to see the latest flick with Russell Crowe.

This is a movie that I will not see… I have no interest in it at all.  In fact, I can say with pretty good certainty that it was Kevin Costner that killed Robin Hood for me.  It was, in my humble opinion, like watching a very slow moving train wreck.  Even Cary Elwes opted out of this movie when he was approached, before Costner, for the part of Hood.

To be honest… I cannot recall the last, serious, Robin Hood movie that I really enjoyed.  I know that Mel Brooks’ “Men In Tights” adaptation was great and topped off only by Cary Elwes as Hood (remember, he was offered the REAL roll, but turned it down and later accepted the parody roll.) and Patrick Stewart’s last minute appearance as King Richard.  I also have to mention the unforgettable role of  Roger Rees as the Sheriff of Nottingham.  He was classic.

So… I should correct myself.  The last version of Robin Hood that thrilled me was Mel Brooks’.  There is something inherently sad about that.

I doubt that any of the modern versions would be able to tell the story in the same way as the greats did…  Like Errol Flynn and Douglas Fairbanks.   These were people that did not need the special effects to accomplish anything.  They simple told a story and captured our hearts with that alone.


Latest posts by Samuel Wright (see all)

2 thoughts on “Robin Hood… again? Seriously???”

  1. Howdy! It's been a long time, no?

    So, I have to say I enjoyed this telling of Robin Hood because it gave the back-story of how Robin Hood became an outlaw. The movie essentially ends where the story we are all know picks up. They did not play on that when they did the marketing, which they should have as it wasn't the Robin Hood story I was expecting.

    But if you want any reason to see the movie – just a reason – I'd have to say simply because it is a Ridley Scott film. A fantastic director! Yes, this was no Black Hawk Down / Gladiator but still, you have to love him in an action movie!

    Hope life is treating you well.

  2. Good to hear from you again, Van. I have been a little neglegent in visiting your site the last month or so. I am sorry.

    I think that I am suffering from this movie in a two-fold manner. One, because I think I got burned out from too much Russell Crowe, and Two, because the Robin Hood story has had the crap beaten out of it the last several years.

    I may, in the fullness of time, watch this movie… more than likely when it comes to Netflix.

    This is no disrespect to Scott… he is one hell of a artist. But even Picasso could screw up a painting… well… perhaps Picasso is a bad example, his work had to have been the result of LSD. But you see my point.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Bad Behavior has blocked 831 access attempts in the last 7 days.