March 11, 2010

Robin Hood gets a new (and better) Trailer...

...one that you can watch right now:


-Thoughts?

12 comments:

  1. Now THAT'S a satisfying trailer for this film. Cate Blanchett wielding a sword? Yes please!

    ReplyDelete
  2. much better, but im hearing bad early word..

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm not impressed, but we'll see...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Really, this man made Gladiator? I wouldn't have guessed...

    ReplyDelete
  5. much, much better than the first trailer. I'm excited for this one now, but I don't think its going to be a big Oscar contender.

    Max Von Sydow seems to be having a great year, with this and his incredible performance in Shutter Island. I felt he was snubbed a few years ago for The Diving Bell and The Butterfly

    -Robbie

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mmm. The trailer is certainly better in the sense that it's an improvement over the previous one. Not so much in the sense that it has me particularly interested in seeing the movie. I just can't help but feel like this is a story we've seen so many times before, and doing a straight adaptation of "the true story behind the legend" or whatever didn't exactly work wonders for King Arthur, now did it? I love all the talent involved, I just wish they'd pool their efforts into a more interesting project.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I second Myles' opining on the subject...

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have to say, it's nice to see Blanchett representing the "common man" rather than royalty. I'm interested to see how she handles that.

    Her few scenes in this trailer are a little too reminiscent of "Elizabeth I/II"....at least in my opinion. I obviously can't judge if that's a good thing or bad since I haven't seen the finished work.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Myles, I couldn't quite sense what looked or seemed wrong about the film, but I think you put your finger right on it. It would've been much more interesting if Scott had stuck with the original idea circulating around, in which the title character would be changed significantly to be much darker, and perhaps more villainous.

    There is definitely a great deal of talent involved, but Scott hasn't really made a truly special film since "Matchstick Men". He's an expert at visual style and action set-pieces, and I know he's talented enough to handle some dramatic (and comedic) material as well, but he just seems to be taking the popular approach and continues to make films which may be big come Oscar time...

    ReplyDelete
  10. I"m so happy that I'm not the only one that thought Matchstick Men was one of Ridley's finer works. Although I don't care about Scott as much as I do Crowe: that man is a damn fine actor, but he hasn't had a great acting role since either '03 - Master and Commander - or '01 - A Beautiful Mind - (I'd need to rewatch Master and Commander again to be sure). He's been choosing decent movies (American Gangster, 3:10 to Yuma, Cinderella Man, State of Play), but nothing to really show off his range...which, to me, is a tragedy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. bryce, I agree to some extent. He's still done some great work in, for instance, "3:10 to Yuma", but it's not like it was an extremely difficult role for him to tackle.

    It seems like he's content with his Oscar, and feels like making films that aren't challenging anymore since he got what he wanted.

    It's definitely a waste, and in a way his career could have been a lot like DeNiro's, except for the fact that he's beginning to approach most of his roles in a similar fashion that DeNiro did for a great deal of his career, most notably after he won his second Oscar. Yet, much like Crowe, he's still done some great work over the years, although little if none of it will ever compare to performances like his in "The Godfather Part II", "The Deer Hunter", "Raging Bull", or especially "Taxi Driver", which is the best performance ever captured on film, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete