Re: What are you...
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 9:48 pm
THE Robin Hood is the 1939 version starring Errol Flyn, Basil Rathbone and some very good character actors of the time.
SB
SB
Welcome to Triaxian Silk's BBS!
https://www.triaxiansilk.com/phpBB3/
Kotik wrote:I didn't post the name of author and story for a reason And besides, I still do not understand, why one would be a TnT shipper (which you are if you sign up here) and then take joy in see them NOT be together for the entire duration of two long chaptered stories - that's just ridiculous in my book. Sorry
WarpGirl wrote:Enjoy your rest, I have no idea why but on my TV today there is every crappy version of Robin Hood ever made. I'm in agony here. Kevin Costner's is rediculous (he didn't even try to have an accent) Russel Crow's is just dreary and depressing, and SYFY had a version on last night with some kind of freaky warewolf in it. I TURNED THAT OFF FAST! Why is everyone destroying Robin Hood these days?
Snorpenbass wrote:My own personal favorites of the Robin Hoods are actually:
"Robin and Marian" with Sean Connery and Audrey Hepburn. An elderly Robin Hood reunites with his long lost love and friends for one last stand. Very good movie, and darkly funny in the tune of the original folk tales (it begins with Robin and Little John in jail for having pointed out to King Richard that he's a bit of an ass).
"Robin Hood", a made-for-TV movie with Patrick Bergin, Uma Thurman and Jürgen Prochnow. It's more historically correct (the Normans are actual French people, not Upper Class English as so often depicted, prince John isn't a complete monster and Richard is no saintly king, the whole conflict is actually rather petty) as far as depicting the era goes, though naturally the story itself is made up. And Bergin strikes a nice balance between serious and mischievous.
Thing is, the image people have of Robin Hood often differs depending on what they were introduced to the character with. Me, I actually read a collection of the original, sort of, folk tales, so when I watched Errol Flynn's version I wondered who the heck the ridiculous guy in tights was, and why he was rambling about liberty and rightful kings. The original Robin Hood would have drunk Flynn's Hood under the table, robbed him blind, and walked away laughing. He was more of an old-school selfish trickster than a smiling rebel leader.
...that said, the Costner version is awful. Only thing that saves any of it is Alan Rickman's brilliant Sheriff, and that's only as compared to some other versions. Him and Michael Wincott feels like they were the only ones of the main cast (apart from Freeman, who is of the Michael Caine school of acting, that is he doesn't give a crap how bad a movie is as long as he gets nicely paid) realizing how incredibly ridiculous the movie truly was. The Russell Crowe version I boycott on a general dislike of it. "And cancel Christmas!"
As for what I'm doing...procrastinating because I'm facing a major life changer within less than two weeks and need a quick breather to plot and plan.