list2 by karen

This Robin is no socialist bandit practicing freelance wealth redistribution, but rather a manly libertarian rebel striking out against high taxes and a big government scheme to trample the ancient liberties of property owners and provincial nobles.

Which is fair enough: the fight of ragged warriors against sniveling and sadistic tyrants appeals across tastes and ideologies.

The film?€™s politics, in any case, are more implicit than overt, so that the filmmakers can plausibly deny any particular topical agenda.

Which is fair enough: the fight of ragged warriors against sniveling and sadistic tyrants appeals across tastes and ideologies.

Perhaps taking its cue from the recent spate of superhero origin stories, ?€œRobin Hood?€ takes us back to the character?€™s early life, and shows how he became the mischievous outlaw of future Mel Brooks and Bugs Bunny spoofs.

The idea that an ordinary, anonymous person can have a big impact on world events is an attractively democratic notion ?€” one systematically undermined by the rest of the movie, which loads Robin with trappings of heroism that prove paralyzing to the narrative.

Mr. Crowe, heftier than he was back in those ancient Roman days, and attired in earth-toned tunics instead of sandals and togas, is adept at finding nuances within bluntly conceived characters.

Mr. Crowe, heftier than he was back in those ancient Roman days, and attired in earth-toned tunics instead of sandals and togas, is adept at finding nuances within bluntly conceived characters.

The film?€™s politics, in any case, are more implicit than overt, so that the filmmakers can plausibly deny any particular topical agenda.

You also expect skill and precision in the orchestration of large-scale action sequences, and there are enough of those in ?€œRobin Hood?€ to keep you alert and fitfully engaged.

In the long, bloody, self-serious new version of the legend, directed by Ridley Scott from a script by Brian Helgeland, Robin is not ?€œHood?€ at all, but Longstride, an archer in the army of King Richard the Lionheart on his way home from the Crusades.

But somebody has to be the villain, and ?€œRobin Hood?€ has a pretty good one in Godfrey (Mark Strong), a two-faced courtier whose diabolical scheme is to foment civil war between John and the northern nobles so that the French can conquer England all over again, just as they did in 1066.

If only the story were leaner and more nimble ?€” but then again this is a Ridley Scott film, so you go in expecting bombast and bloat in the service of leaden themes.

The idea that an ordinary, anonymous person can have a big impact on world events is an attractively democratic notion ?€” one systematically undermined by the rest of the movie, which loads Robin with trappings of heroism that prove paralyzing to the narrative.

As it crashes and bellows toward its sanguinary end, ?€œRobin Hood?€ makes a hash of the historical record, and also of its own hero?€™s biography, the truth of which is revealed through a series of preposterous and unsatisfying flashbacks.

Kind of, though that description makes the movie sound both more fun and more provocative than it actually is.

Which is fair enough: the fight of ragged warriors against sniveling and sadistic tyrants appeals across tastes and ideologies.

It?€™s a fairly pointless assault, and the results are catastrophic, but the battle gives Mr. Scott the opportunity to conduct a brief, brutal seminar in 12th-century military tactics, complete with massed archers, wall climbers and vats of boiling oil.

But somebody has to be the villain, and ?€œRobin Hood?€ has a pretty good one in Godfrey (Mark Strong), a two-faced courtier whose diabolical scheme is to foment civil war between John and the northern nobles so that the French can conquer England all over again, just as they did in 1066.

The film?€™s politics, in any case, are more implicit than overt, so that the filmmakers can plausibly deny any particular topical agenda.

The idea that an ordinary, anonymous person can have a big impact on world events is an attractively democratic notion ?€” one systematically undermined by the rest of the movie, which loads Robin with trappings of heroism that prove paralyzing to the narrative.

Mr. Crowe, heftier than he was back in those ancient Roman days, and attired in earth-toned tunics instead of sandals and togas, is adept at finding nuances within bluntly conceived characters.

If only the story were leaner and more nimble ?€” but then again this is a Ridley Scott film, so you go in expecting bombast and bloat in the service of leaden themes.

As it crashes and bellows toward its sanguinary end, ?€œRobin Hood?€ makes a hash of the historical record, and also of its own hero?€™s biography, the truth of which is revealed through a series of preposterous and unsatisfying flashbacks.

Robin and Marion engage in a bit of heavy-handed screwball antagonism before the imperatives of tax reform and heterosexuality unite them forever.

The film?€™s politics, in any case, are more implicit than overt, so that the filmmakers can plausibly deny any particular topical agenda.

Richard was nothing great: he nearly bankrupted the country to finance his crusades.

As with any long-lived figure in the popular imagination ?€” and the legend of the outlaw of Sherwood Forest and his Merry Men goes back to the Middle Ages ?€” the answer changes with the times.

Robin and Marion engage in a bit of heavy-handed screwball antagonism before the imperatives of tax reform and heterosexuality unite them forever.

Mr. Crowe, heftier than he was back in those ancient Roman days, and attired in earth-toned tunics instead of sandals and togas, is adept at finding nuances within bluntly conceived characters.

The idea that an ordinary, anonymous person can have a big impact on world events is an attractively democratic notion ?€” one systematically undermined by the rest of the movie, which loads Robin with trappings of heroism that prove paralyzing to the narrative.

You also expect skill and precision in the orchestration of large-scale action sequences, and there are enough of those in ?€œRobin Hood?€ to keep you alert and fitfully engaged.

Directed by Ridley Scott; written by Brian Helgeland, based on a story by Mr. Helgeland, Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris; director of photography, John Mathieson; edited by Pietro Scalia; music by Marc Streitenfeld; production designer, Arthur Max; costumes by Janty Yates; produced by Mr. Scott, Brian Grazer and Russell Crowe; released by Universal Pictures.

You also expect skill and precision in the orchestration of large-scale action sequences, and there are enough of those in ?€œRobin Hood?€ to keep you alert and fitfully engaged.

Fleeing the rout of the English Army, Robin comes upon a dying knight, Robert Loxley (Douglas Hodge), whose identity and sword he takes back to Nottinghamshire.

Directed by Ridley Scott; written by Brian Helgeland, based on a story by Mr. Helgeland, Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris; director of photography, John Mathieson; edited by Pietro Scalia; music by Marc Streitenfeld; production designer, Arthur Max; costumes by Janty Yates; produced by Mr. Scott, Brian Grazer and Russell Crowe; released by Universal Pictures.

Meanwhile ?€” and believe me, there is a whole lot of meanwhile in this crowded, lumbering film ?€” King Richard has been replaced by his younger brother John (Oscar Isaac).

He also engages in muscular and fast-moving exposition, sketching out the personalities of at least a half-dozen important characters (including Robin?€™s future right-hand outlaw, Little John, played by Kevin Durand) in the midst of the martial chaos.

The idea that an ordinary, anonymous person can have a big impact on world events is an attractively democratic notion ?€” one systematically undermined by the rest of the movie, which loads Robin with trappings of heroism that prove paralyzing to the narrative.

This Robin is no socialist bandit practicing freelance wealth redistribution, but rather a manly libertarian rebel striking out against high taxes and a big government scheme to trample the ancient liberties of property owners and provincial nobles.

Meanwhile ?€” and believe me, there is a whole lot of meanwhile in this crowded, lumbering film ?€” King Richard has been replaced by his younger brother John (Oscar Isaac).

Directed by Ridley Scott; written by Brian Helgeland, based on a story by Mr. Helgeland, Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris; director of photography, John Mathieson; edited by Pietro Scalia; music by Marc Streitenfeld; production designer, Arthur Max; costumes by Janty Yates; produced by Mr. Scott, Brian Grazer and Russell Crowe; released by Universal Pictures.

You also expect skill and precision in the orchestration of large-scale action sequences, and there are enough of those in ?€œRobin Hood?€ to keep you alert and fitfully engaged.

This Robin is no socialist bandit practicing freelance wealth redistribution, but rather a manly libertarian rebel striking out against high taxes and a big government scheme to trample the ancient liberties of property owners and provincial nobles.

John?€™s mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine (Eileen Atkins), something of a French aristocrat herself, does not approve.

Fleeing the rout of the English Army, Robin comes upon a dying knight, Robert Loxley (Douglas Hodge), whose identity and sword he takes back to Nottinghamshire.

Which is fair enough: the fight of ragged warriors against sniveling and sadistic tyrants appeals across tastes and ideologies.

Perhaps taking its cue from the recent spate of superhero origin stories, ?€œRobin Hood?€ takes us back to the character?€™s early life, and shows how he became the mischievous outlaw of future Mel Brooks and Bugs Bunny spoofs.

They did it most successfully in ?€œGladiator,?€ which this picture resembles perhaps a little too closely.

Robin is obviously cut from the same cloth as the gladiator Maximus, Jack Aubrey (from Peter Weir?€™s ?€œMaster and Commander?€), and Jim Braddock (of Ron Howard?€™s ?€œCinderella Man?€), but he displays a slyness and cunning appropriate to the story and the setting.

Robin is obviously cut from the same cloth as the gladiator Maximus, Jack Aubrey (from Peter Weir?€™s ?€œMaster and Commander?€), and Jim Braddock (of Ron Howard?€™s ?€œCinderella Man?€), but he displays a slyness and cunning appropriate to the story and the setting.

Mr. Crowe, heftier than he was back in those ancient Roman days, and attired in earth-toned tunics instead of sandals and togas, is adept at finding nuances within bluntly conceived characters.

Directed by Ridley Scott; written by Brian Helgeland, based on a story by Mr. Helgeland, Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris; director of photography, John Mathieson; edited by Pietro Scalia; music by Marc Streitenfeld; production designer, Arthur Max; costumes by Janty Yates; produced by Mr. Scott, Brian Grazer and Russell Crowe; released by Universal Pictures.

?€œRobin Hood?€ is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned).

The anti-French animus of ?€œRobin Hood?€ is amusingly over the top ?€” the French monarch is first glimpsed slurping oysters ?€” but also perhaps a little anachronistic, belonging less to 1200 than to 2003, the height of the Freedom Fries era.

The anti-French animus of ?€œRobin Hood?€ is amusingly over the top ?€” the French monarch is first glimpsed slurping oysters ?€” but also perhaps a little anachronistic, belonging less to 1200 than to 2003, the height of the Freedom Fries era.

For my money the best Ridley Scott set piece is an early scene in which King Richard (Danny Huston) and his soldiers pause in their slog home from Palestine to lay siege to a French castle.

Don?€™t tread on him!

If only the story were leaner and more nimble ?€” but then again this is a Ridley Scott film, so you go in expecting bombast and bloat in the service of leaden themes.

WITH: Russell Crowe (Robin Longstride), Cate Blanchett (Marion), William Hurt (Sir William Marshal), Mark Strong (Sir Godfrey), Mark Addy (Friar Tuck), Oscar Isaac (Prince John), Danny Huston (King Richard), Eileen Atkins (Eleanor of Aquitaine), Kevin Durand (Little John), Matthew Macfadyen (Sheriff), Douglas Hodge (Robert Loxley), L??a Seydoux (Isabella of Angoul??me), Scott Grimes (Will Scarlet), Alan Doyle (Allan A?€™Dayle) and Max von Sydow (Sir Walter Loxley).

Perhaps taking its cue from the recent spate of superhero origin stories, ?€œRobin Hood?€ takes us back to the character?€™s early life, and shows how he became the mischievous outlaw of future Mel Brooks and Bugs Bunny spoofs.

Directed by Ridley Scott; written by Brian Helgeland, based on a story by Mr. Helgeland, Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris; director of photography, John Mathieson; edited by Pietro Scalia; music by Marc Streitenfeld; production designer, Arthur Max; costumes by Janty Yates; produced by Mr. Scott, Brian Grazer and Russell Crowe; released by Universal Pictures.

Perhaps taking its cue from the recent spate of superhero origin stories, ?€œRobin Hood?€ takes us back to the character?€™s early life, and shows how he became the mischievous outlaw of future Mel Brooks and Bugs Bunny spoofs.

The idea that an ordinary, anonymous person can have a big impact on world events is an attractively democratic notion ?€” one systematically undermined by the rest of the movie, which loads Robin with trappings of heroism that prove paralyzing to the narrative.

This Robin is no socialist bandit practicing freelance wealth redistribution, but rather a manly libertarian rebel striking out against high taxes and a big government scheme to trample the ancient liberties of property owners and provincial nobles.

As it crashes and bellows toward its sanguinary end, ?€œRobin Hood?€ makes a hash of the historical record, and also of its own hero?€™s biography, the truth of which is revealed through a series of preposterous and unsatisfying flashbacks.

Robin is obviously cut from the same cloth as the gladiator Maximus, Jack Aubrey (from Peter Weir?€™s ?€œMaster and Commander?€), and Jim Braddock (of Ron Howard?€™s ?€œCinderella Man?€), but he displays a slyness and cunning appropriate to the story and the setting.

In the long, bloody, self-serious new version of the legend, directed by Ridley Scott from a script by Brian Helgeland, Robin is not ?€œHood?€ at all, but Longstride, an archer in the army of King Richard the Lionheart on his way home from the Crusades.

Perhaps taking its cue from the recent spate of superhero origin stories, ?€œRobin Hood?€ takes us back to the character?€™s early life, and shows how he became the mischievous outlaw of future Mel Brooks and Bugs Bunny spoofs.

This Robin is no socialist bandit practicing freelance wealth redistribution, but rather a manly libertarian rebel striking out against high taxes and a big government scheme to trample the ancient liberties of property owners and provincial nobles.

And more interested in having sex with an imported French aristocrat (L??a Seydoux) than with his lawful English wife.

You may have heard that Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor, but that was just liberal media propaganda.

For my money the best Ridley Scott set piece is an early scene in which King Richard (Danny Huston) and his soldiers pause in their slog home from Palestine to lay siege to a French castle.

But somebody has to be the villain, and ?€œRobin Hood?€ has a pretty good one in Godfrey (Mark Strong), a two-faced courtier whose diabolical scheme is to foment civil war between John and the northern nobles so that the French can conquer England all over again, just as they did in 1066.

Directed by Ridley Scott; written by Brian Helgeland, based on a story by Mr. Helgeland, Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris; director of photography, John Mathieson; edited by Pietro Scalia; music by Marc Streitenfeld; production designer, Arthur Max; costumes by Janty Yates; produced by Mr. Scott, Brian Grazer and Russell Crowe; released by Universal Pictures.

You also expect skill and precision in the orchestration of large-scale action sequences, and there are enough of those in ?€œRobin Hood?€ to keep you alert and fitfully engaged.

He also engages in muscular and fast-moving exposition, sketching out the personalities of at least a half-dozen important characters (including Robin?€™s future right-hand outlaw, Little John, played by Kevin Durand) in the midst of the martial chaos.

The idea that an ordinary, anonymous person can have a big impact on world events is an attractively democratic notion ?€” one systematically undermined by the rest of the movie, which loads Robin with trappings of heroism that prove paralyzing to the narrative.

You also expect skill and precision in the orchestration of large-scale action sequences, and there are enough of those in ?€œRobin Hood?€ to keep you alert and fitfully engaged.

You may have heard that Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor, but that was just liberal media propaganda.

It?€™s a fairly pointless assault, and the results are catastrophic, but the battle gives Mr. Scott the opportunity to conduct a brief, brutal seminar in 12th-century military tactics, complete with massed archers, wall climbers and vats of boiling oil.

Fleeing the rout of the English Army, Robin comes upon a dying knight, Robert Loxley (Douglas Hodge), whose identity and sword he takes back to Nottinghamshire.

It?€™s a fairly pointless assault, and the results are catastrophic, but the battle gives Mr. Scott the opportunity to conduct a brief, brutal seminar in 12th-century military tactics, complete with massed archers, wall climbers and vats of boiling oil.

Fleeing the rout of the English Army, Robin comes upon a dying knight, Robert Loxley (Douglas Hodge), whose identity and sword he takes back to Nottinghamshire.

Perhaps taking its cue from the recent spate of superhero origin stories, ?€œRobin Hood?€ takes us back to the character?€™s early life, and shows how he became the mischievous outlaw of future Mel Brooks and Bugs Bunny spoofs.

As it crashes and bellows toward its sanguinary end, ?€œRobin Hood?€ makes a hash of the historical record, and also of its own hero?€™s biography, the truth of which is revealed through a series of preposterous and unsatisfying flashbacks.

After more than two hours of flaming arrows, loud music and defiant sloganeering, it?€™s oddly hard to tell.

The film?€™s politics, in any case, are more implicit than overt, so that the filmmakers can plausibly deny any particular topical agenda.

As it crashes and bellows toward its sanguinary end, ?€œRobin Hood?€ makes a hash of the historical record, and also of its own hero?€™s biography, the truth of which is revealed through a series of preposterous and unsatisfying flashbacks.

But somebody has to be the villain, and ?€œRobin Hood?€ has a pretty good one in Godfrey (Mark Strong), a two-faced courtier whose diabolical scheme is to foment civil war between John and the northern nobles so that the French can conquer England all over again, just as they did in 1066.

Which is fair enough: the fight of ragged warriors against sniveling and sadistic tyrants appeals across tastes and ideologies.

This Robin is no socialist bandit practicing freelance wealth redistribution, but rather a manly libertarian rebel striking out against high taxes and a big government scheme to trample the ancient liberties of property owners and provincial nobles.

It?€™s a fairly pointless assault, and the results are catastrophic, but the battle gives Mr. Scott the opportunity to conduct a brief, brutal seminar in 12th-century military tactics, complete with massed archers, wall climbers and vats of boiling oil.

It?€™s a fairly pointless assault, and the results are catastrophic, but the battle gives Mr. Scott the opportunity to conduct a brief, brutal seminar in 12th-century military tactics, complete with massed archers, wall climbers and vats of boiling oil.

This Robin is no socialist bandit practicing freelance wealth redistribution, but rather a manly libertarian rebel striking out against high taxes and a big government scheme to trample the ancient liberties of property owners and provincial nobles.

It?€™s a fairly pointless assault, and the results are catastrophic, but the battle gives Mr. Scott the opportunity to conduct a brief, brutal seminar in 12th-century military tactics, complete with massed archers, wall climbers and vats of boiling oil.

Meanwhile ?€” and believe me, there is a whole lot of meanwhile in this crowded, lumbering film ?€” King Richard has been replaced by his younger brother John (Oscar Isaac).

The idea that an ordinary, anonymous person can have a big impact on world events is an attractively democratic notion ?€” one systematically undermined by the rest of the movie, which loads Robin with trappings of heroism that prove paralyzing to the narrative.

?€œRobin Hood?€ is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned).

As it crashes and bellows toward its sanguinary end, ?€œRobin Hood?€ makes a hash of the historical record, and also of its own hero?€™s biography, the truth of which is revealed through a series of preposterous and unsatisfying flashbacks.

It?€™s a fairly pointless assault, and the results are catastrophic, but the battle gives Mr. Scott the opportunity to conduct a brief, brutal seminar in 12th-century military tactics, complete with massed archers, wall climbers and vats of boiling oil.