Reviews

Robin Hood

2

Ridley and Russell go Robin-robbing

Robin Hood review

Robin Hood Review - Seen Gladiator? Highlander? Braveheart? Any of the Lord Of The Rings trilogy? How about Troy? 300? King Arthur? Kingdom Of Heaven?

If you nodded for at least half of those, then you really don’t need to see Ridley Scott’s turgid and joyless take on the outlaw icon.

Robin Hood is a redundant franken-movie stitched together from embarrassingly recognisable riffs from other – mostly better – mud ‘n blood epics.

Soil-smeared extras clanging swords in photogenic forests; shaky-cam castle stormings; disfigured bad guys; cackling pillagers terrorising villagers…

An arcing arrow POV shot here; a saliva-spraying battle cry there… But barely a whiff of freshness anywhere.

Scott even has the nerve to sling a Saving Private Ryan offcut into the stew, as a phalanx of venal Frenchies storm a Blighty beach courtesy of some historically dubious landing craft.

The ambition - a grown-up, semi-Shakespearean reclaiming of a cartoonish character – is admirable. Shame the execution is deadly dry and bloodless. (There is violence, but a suspiciously rating-conscious shortage of vein-juice).

After the well-documented script tussles, Scott has settled on the slooowly cranking tale of how 12th century soldier Robin Longstride (Crowe) rises from sullen, dead-eye archer to all-round leader of unshaven men and smiter of tyranny and corruption wherever it may dwell.

At first, it seems the source of tyranny and corruption is the pantomime-villain Sheriff of Nottingham (Macfadyen). But he turns out to be just a pawn in the bigger game of tyranny and corruption played by the petulant King John (Isaac).

And then his shameless tyranny and corruption is soon usurped by the underhand tyranny and corruption of multilingual turncoat Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong).

It’s like an episode of 24 with furrier overcoats.

The Incorruptible Mr Longstride’s transformation into The Thieving Mr Hood should be squared away in the first forty minutes, Batman Begins-style.

Instead, Scott stubbornly refuses to cut to the guts and glamour, spunking two and a half hours on a crusty old creation myth that’s little more than a blatant set-up for Robin Hood 2.

Next: Robin Hood review conclusion[page-break]

Robin Hood review

There is the odd performance to distract from smartphone-fiddling and mental shopping-list compilation… Blanchett is deft and dignified as Lady Marian and Isaac enjoyably plays his volatile monarch as a demon Blackadder.

But the battles are so bland, the action so transparently choreographed and the characters so interchangeable, it’s never clear who to root for or what to care about.

The choice mostly comes down to either ‘Bad guy hit by an arrow. Good!’ or ‘Good guy hit by an arrow. Bad!’

Crowe seems happy to coast. For an actor of his ability, it’s criminal that no director has stretched him since Peter Weir in 2003’s Master And Commander.

In some scenes, he’s grizzled and mumbling and inscrutable. In others, he just aims for inscrutable and goes easy on the grizzled, with maybe a little mumbling for good measure.

His accent ping-pongs from sing-song Oirish to angular Aussie-Scottish until it finally settles on fookin’ Northern/Nottingham for t’film’s inevitable inspirational-speech moment.

Surely, Sean Bean would have been cheaper and lower maintenance?

But then bluster buddies Ridley and Russell would have had to make a movie without each other (this is their fifth). And there, we suggest, is the problem…

This is a misguided collaboration between two artistically unassailable mates. It’s what happens when you pair a star with too much power and a director with too much stature.

(A stature, it has to be said, that looks pretty rickety when you consider Scott hasn’t made a good film for ten years).

Kevin Reynolds’ Anglophilic, Costner-starring 1991 version of the Hood story is easy meat for sneering purists. But at least it’s fun and frothy and isn’t afraid to revel in antihero folklore.

An average UK cinema ticket is around 8 pounds. Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves is currently going for just over half that on Play. You know what to do…

 

Verdict:

The most pointless and bloated vanity project since Battlefield Earth. Overthought, overwrought and not over soon enough.

Film Details

User Reviews

    • BruceShark

      May 12th 2010, 1:49

      5

      Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. What film were you (sounds like you have a mighty problem with Mr Crowe & Scott) watching. Clearly the best Robin Hood film ever. I have never seen a review so fair of the mark. Shame on you. Your punishment is to watch Prince Of Thieves. Now that is a vanity project.

      Alert a moderator

    • wenzu

      May 12th 2010, 6:57

      It seems to me that this was a 'reaction' type of review. In my view these reviews happen only when not enough exposure is given to big budget movies on certain mags. Am a long time subscriber to this awesome mag, and I've never seen a ROBIN HOOD cover and exclusive feature. I repeat, that's just my premature view, cause am still to catch this 'bloated' effort. Good day you all.

      Alert a moderator

    • tu12nip

      May 12th 2010, 11:20

      5

      An utterly unbelievable review. So off the mark I am cancelling my Total Film magazine subscription. This film has been praised by almost all of the critics that have seen it. Gladiator, Kingdom of heaven (ridley's version) are some of the best films in modern cinema. People who have seen those films listed at the beginning will love to see robin hood. And for some bizarre reason you have included King Arthur just to make it seem even worse as people will draw comparisons. You might as well include The Last Legion and Centurion in there and then people will definately hate it. You are clearly fed up of period films such as gladiator, troy, Braveheart so why on earth did YOU bother to go and see the film. You are clearky the wrong man to review this film on behalf of Total Film as you have gone into it feeling anti gladiatoresque films from the off. I ask someone who has a feel for this genre within Total Film to watch this film and review it, and get rid of this unfair review by Andy Lowe

      Alert a moderator

    • tomcyclops54

      May 12th 2010, 11:47

      5

      andy lowe your very wrong its the best version of robin hood to date give up the day job

      Alert a moderator

    • Lingdada

      May 12th 2010, 14:31

      1

      Yet another cliched version of an already mindnumbingly tired story! A fighting Maid Marion,the obligatory cruel Sheriff,the predictable portly actor as Friar Tuck and the latest teen totty as Will Scarlet! Graphic blood and guts sword slashings with assorted arrows-in-heads...yawn!!

      Alert a moderator

    • Vespertine

      May 12th 2010, 15:11

      Total Film gave Transformers 2 a 4 star review. They are to film what Helen Keller is to musical theatre.

      Alert a moderator

    • McGuffin

      May 12th 2010, 15:16

      i agree that Total Film has gone down hill drastically over the past year or so. used to such a good magazine with reliable reviews...such a shame. oh, and Vespertine. Could you please stop dragging the Transformers 2 review up please. we all know it was rubbish; change the record mate!!!

      Alert a moderator

    • Vespertine

      May 12th 2010, 15:18

      Oi McGuffin I'll alert a moderator on your a**e, can't believe you think Pirates of the Carribbean was better than Rear Window.

      Alert a moderator

    • ChrisWootton

      May 12th 2010, 17:01

      I actually think the mag has upped its game recently and I find it a better read than t'other. It is only a review and the opinion of one reviewer and to be honest I'd prefer someone to be honest with their opinion than get a front cover out of it. Either way i (personally) think the film looks s**t and have no interest in seeing it. Give em a break!

      Alert a moderator

    • BeckyM84

      May 12th 2010, 17:24

      5

      I've not long got back from the cinema and really enjoyed Robin Hood. Okay, so Russell Crowe's accent is not perfect, but at least he tries, unlike some other actors who've played the role. Personally I think he's the best Robin Hood I've seen. As for Lingdada's complaint about the "cliched" characters - Maid Marian, Friar Tuck and co have been part of English folklore for centuries and people have expectations that those roles should be played a certain way so there would probably be complaints if Friar Tuck was slim etc. As for the French landing craft, they looked plausible enough to me - who's to say they didn't use such a design back then, it's not like we can go back and check! Overall, I think it's a very good film, the plot is interesting, the battle scenes are good and I should also give a mention of the end credits which are brilliant. No-one left the cinema until the images faded to the usual plain black background. I hope they're still the same on the DVD.

      Alert a moderator

    • macatae

      May 12th 2010, 21:53

      5

      Seen the film tonight and never have I read such a forth rate film review by a guy who clearly does not think Ridley Scott has any talent at all. Not made a good film in 10 years my erse. This reviewer (if I was his editor the sack awaits) is so full of his own importance his use of language is overblown and negative did he actally watch the film?

      Alert a moderator

    • fuzzcaminski

      May 12th 2010, 22:36

      Wow, there really seems to be some vitriol in this review. When all the other reviews generally suggest this is a well paced, entertaining and exciting film, it does make me wonder why there has been such a negative review from Total Film. What is more, to randomly collect so many films together and claim they are all better representations of outlaw action is an insult to the reader, especially when the films the reviewer has suggested are so wide ranging in genre it almost seems a redundant statement. Maybe it's just my opinion, but the reviewer seems to have already made their mind up about the film a long time before watching it, and there is a real sense of vindictiveness in the language used. But I am just one man with one opinion. BTW, If you really do want to be critical of the film, don't bother criticising the accent, giving Robin Hood a northern accent is the biggest leap forward in the telling of the legend on cinema since the story was first put to film. And so what if it might have been 'cheaper' to get Sean Bean to play him but surely it would have been cheaper to get a child to write this revue, but you want to get the person who is most able to complete the job asked for them. With that in mind, I assume everyone else out for lunch when the review needed to be written, ay?

      Alert a moderator

    • JacksSR

      May 13th 2010, 8:53

      So, Ridley Scott hasn't made a good film for 10 years? What about American Gangster from 2007? Total Film gave it 4 stars and said it was 'top-of-the-range genre filmmaking'. It would be easier to believe Total Film's reviews if they were at least consistent with their own work.

      Alert a moderator

    • ChrisWootton

      May 13th 2010, 12:53

      Yeah actually the "not made a good film in 10 years" quote is way off. Black Hawk Down, Matchstick Men, even Kingdom of Heaven was ok (especially the directors cut), Hannibal is a 3 star movie thats perfectly watchable.

      Alert a moderator

    • hulk68

      May 13th 2010, 22:02

      4

      Alert a moderator

    • hulk68

      May 13th 2010, 22:07

      4

      I very much enjoyed its much more than a Robin Hood film. Excuse my language but the review is rubbish. Are you rating this peace of art as low as Clash of the Titans two stars(I agree with your rating on that).Its not a perfect movie though and its not Gladiator I well deserves 3.5 stars which is not an option, hence I gave it 4.

      Alert a moderator

    • Ali1748

      May 14th 2010, 1:25

      4

      The reviewers at Total Film are incompetent.

      Alert a moderator

    • fuzzcaminski

      May 14th 2010, 10:06

      4

      Watched the film yesterday, have to say, I thought it had a great script, treated the audience as adults and didn't spoon feed us the plot. The Battle scenes were exciting and captivating and the characters were entertaining and well written. Also, the story does give two days for the characters to get from Nottingham to Dover if you listen to the script, so it is to a degree realistic in terms of time and space. I really don't think the reviewer watched the same film as most of the people who have commented on this did.

      Alert a moderator

    • antonella21

      May 14th 2010, 12:40

      2

      The reviewer is right. The film is annoying and useless. Thank God I didn't pay for it but it is bad and I can't see the point in Ridley Scott's keeping on churning more movies considering it seems he's lost his mojo. There's no exploration of the characters' personalities and Russell Crowe blurting out of the blue 'I love you' to Cate Blanchett before going to battle seems so out of context (where did it come from?! They weren't even emotionally 'getting closer') that it seemed like being put there to show 'Ah the hero has feelings! What a good hero!'. Stereotypes galore. Awful.

      Alert a moderator

    • DanRose

      May 14th 2010, 14:45

      I'd love to know what Andy Lowe's response is to this... however I have never ever seen a Total Film writer ever appear on these user reports.... never. They are either to lazy, not bothered or just don't care otherwise why not respond? Go on Andy prove you have actually read all this... defend yourself...

      Alert a moderator

    • tazman

      May 14th 2010, 19:44

      4

      Saw this yesterday and was thoroughly entertained. The Total Film review by Andy Lowe seems to have been written by a person that had already decided their view prior to seeing the actual film and presumably written by a Kevin Costner fan. This film clearly isn't meant to be a romp it's more of a historical epic - attempting to do for bows and arrows what Gladiator did for swords and sandles. It's not meant either to portray the Robin Hood of the legend but Robin PRIOR to his days as the man of the forest etc etc. So the revelling in folklore is irrevelent at this point in Robin's story as portrayed in the film. For me it more mirrors the Robin & Marian narration of the Robin Hood legend rather than the flamboyant and definitely historically inaccurate Prince of Thieves. The beauty of this film is that it detaches itself from the folklore rather than attempting to adhere to it. For me, it was much more enjoyable than Prince of Thieves because it treated the audience like adults not having to explain bits of plot all the time and had moments of very subtle but good humour not out of place. I would agree that some of the battle scenes weren't original and maybe took liberties with actual ship styles, but let's face it there's only so many ways of filming a sword fight and do people go to the movies to see totally historically accurate events or do they go to enjoy themselves. Also in this film you should be clearly be shouting for Robin and his allies - there is no blurring of that at all. It's very clear almost from the very start who the real bad guy is, as Mark Strong doesn't need to be rubberstamped as such if the plot of the film is followed - there is no 24 style confusion of who is bad and who is good at all. King John's character is power obsessed and clearly chooses the wrong people to trust but he realizes that but once eliminated he then betrays the people he then put his trust in - that's sadly typical of royal behaviour of those times and isn't necessarily totally inaccurate. So what that Russell Crowe's accent isn't totally authentic - does that really, really matter ? Who knows what accents were actually used in the 12th century - as far as I know there's no-one from then still around to confirm/deny it's accuracy. The script is intelligent, at times witty and demonstrates real character development (what Brian Helgeland is good at) whilst mixing in the prerequisite battle sequences that audiences expect from these types of historical epics. As a purchaser of Total Film since it's launch I feel that this review is the most inaccurate and unfairly biased since it's launch. Perhaps Mr Lowe needs a break, a holiday or is just brassed off with the election result - whatever it was it's made him write what I consider to be an unfair review and one that most here seem to disagree with. Go watch it again, Mr Lowe, and this time don't go in expecting Prince of Thieves or Errol Flynn but more Robin and Marian and you might enjoy the film much more. Hopefully you'll then be able give the film a fair and not blinkered review that it really deserves but I won't hold my breath !!

      Alert a moderator

    • jceaser

      May 15th 2010, 0:21

      always felt that crowe needs to lighten up a bit. (a lot ) and not take himself so bloody seriously. having said that i have liked most of his films. with more than a few duds thrown in.

      Alert a moderator

    • lordofthepies

      May 15th 2010, 14:18

      3

      Side By side were looking at an Average attempt at Robin Hood. We need a darker and more menacing Hood Film not another Kid flick. The writers had no clue to what they were doing and need a good thonging! NOTE: This is not Robin Hood just mere attempt!

      Alert a moderator

    • Rabbit

      May 15th 2010, 17:55

      1

      Andy Lowe- I 100% agree with you.With every word. I spent most of this film on twitter on my phone posting my outrage with every appalling accent shift in Crowes delivery. Scottish!Irish!Geordie!Scouse!Oooo- Russell managed 2 ENTIRE sentances in a Northern' accent. Has he not heard of a dialogue coach? I guess the movie's budget couldn't stretch that far.... Mark Addy, Mark Strong, Cate Blanchett, the brilliant guy playing King John - all very good. Sadly their performances were all made irrelevant with every word Crowe muttered. Apalling. Seriously- have any of the other posters on here actually SEEN the film?!! I love Total Film and Andy Lowe is Damn right with his review. At least he's not having to sneak back and reduce his original Star rating like Peter Bradshaw who, after reading user comments under his initial review obviously realised he was..er wrong and dropped a star. The Independant gave it 2 Stars, The Times only gave it 3. Again- Andy- you're not going mad- it WAS rubbish.

      Alert a moderator

    • BruceShark

      May 15th 2010, 20:32

      Mr Rabbit, maybe going out on a limb but I'm guessing most, if not all, of the people who commented on here have seen the film. And I'm also guessing most of them, again if not all, were watching the screen instead of twittering during the film. Sounds like you're the only person on here who hasn't seen it. Oh, and switch your phone off.

      Alert a moderator

    • fortunesfool

      May 16th 2010, 19:50

      4

      Tremendous fun. This review is just what I expect from a magazine that named Star Trek, sci-fi film of the decade. Andy Lowe clearly prefers idiotic, ADD edited movie that you don't have to think about or bother listening too. And to say Ridley Scott hasn't made a good film in ten years is just spectacularly ignorant.

      Alert a moderator

    • Stuart22

      May 17th 2010, 12:38

      2

      I have to say for all the pre-release hype I was hugely disappointed by Robin Hood. The performances were average excepting Cate Blanchet and Strong. The characters outside of Robin and Marion weren't developed at all, Little John, Alan of Dale and Will Scarlet could as easily have been nameless followers for all they were developed, and it should be criminal to so underuse a character like the Sheriff of Nottingham. I understand some points that at least Crowe attempted an accent, but if he cannot nail it, then I would probably prefer not to bother at all. It really is distracting when you have to spend 30 minutes trying to work out where Robin is meant to come from, and by the end of the film I still couldn't work out where Scarlet was from(excluding verbal references to Wales). The entire film felt exactly like a precursor to the sequel, but I couldn't help but feel shortchanged. Prince of Thieves may not have been to everyone's taste, but it was clear about it was; it was a film not to be taken too seriously, it was fun, the performances were spectacularly over the top and the action was entertaining. Sadly Robin Hood didn't really hit any of those notes, and it didn't even have the saving grace of being historically accurate, unless in the 11th century they really did use troop carriers similar to World War 2? Overall very disappointed, expected great things, but in a similar vein to Iron Man 2, it largely failed to deliver.

      Alert a moderator

    • Dobsew

      May 17th 2010, 18:11

      2

      The beauty of reviews is that everyone has an opinion and good on Andy for being honest and not sucking up to two huge names that are tied in with Robin Hood. I went to see the film to see what all the fuss was about and having fallen asleep for quite a large lump of the film that speaks volume to me. It is very tiresome watching the same old battle scenes, that were pretty poor to the likes of LOTR and Braveheart. Not a huge fan of Crowe, he is definitely a seeker of awards and I really hope that this film doesn't get any nominations - it is not worth it. Have given the film two stars just incase I did miss something great whilst asleep but I'm pretty sure I didn't. It is so evident that the film is set up for RH2 and it could actually be better because it will actually start with what Robin Hood is all about - the outlaw who robs from the rich and gives to the poor - fingers crossed if RH2 is made they stick to the tales of old and get it right second time round.

      Alert a moderator

    • MikeyRix

      May 17th 2010, 22:30

      2

      It wasn't a terrible film, it was just a lazy one. Bad accents? Yep. Dodgy-as-hell-era dialogue? Check. Unengaging action? Double check. Bland acting? Check. Generic music? Check. Ridley, Ridley, Ridley, I am very upset by this.

      Alert a moderator

    • hendrixisgod777

      May 18th 2010, 17:37

      Well it seems that the cat has finally come out of the bag regarding the drop in standard (particularly the online versions)of Total Film's reviews. Having not watched the film I didn't find this review particularly offensive however I was amused by how similar it was to something I wrote for a fanzine over 10 years ago about 'Gladiator', which for me, featured an underwhelming Russell Crowe, dogdy jump cuts, a scandalous attempt at a storyline and more rewriting of history than Forrest Gump on steroids. I'm not in the camp that thinks Ridley Scott has lost it. I thoroughly enjoyed 'Black Hawk Down' and 'Kingdom of Heaven' and while at times I find Crowe, barely watchable as an actor, I will concede that he was good in 'Cinderella Man' and 'A Beautiful Mind'. The problem is that we don't really need another Robin Hood film and unless it hasn't got the full array of bells and whistles it's gonna get a hard time when it comes to reviews. Things aren't helped when you've got Crowe using every opportunity to congratulate himself on a job well done whilst slagging down Costner's efforts, in particular and perhaps ironically, his lack of British accent. Ultimately, this version is for the generation that came after Generation X. For those of you who were approaching puberty, or older, at the time 'Prince of Thieves', forget about it.

      Alert a moderator

    • KerrAvon

      May 18th 2010, 19:28

      3

      Starts very well but the final third felt a little rushed and choppy as if there was quite a bit missing. Trailer for inception was good

      Alert a moderator

    • sheroo19

      May 20th 2010, 11:14

      1

      my boyfriend fell asleep four times... i think that says it all really!

      Alert a moderator

    • truefilmcritic

      May 20th 2010, 14:19

      4

      This film is by no means perfect, however it was entertaining and enthralling. People who liked Gladiator are going to see similarities and enjoy another film by the same director. The actual tale of Robin Hood is lighthearted and comes across well in this depiction, with innuendos and comical characters. I feel Total Films review is harsh and perhaps the reviewer has lost his love for films and therefore his judgment.

      Alert a moderator

    • britishlad1981

      May 25th 2010, 11:19

      2

      Totally agree with this review 100%. In my Flixster review, I even mentioned most of the films that are listed at the start of this one. A few things to add: the Willow meets Mary Poppins ending juxtapposed to the final 'battle' scene a la Saving Private Ryan. I was half expecting Marian to start singing 'A Spoonful of Sugar'. The hideous attempts at comedy that fell flat - Sheriff of Nottingham "I'm half French" or the seed transporters bound up, and exclaiming "only one mile to go" as they ambled down the track. The lack of chemistry between Blanchett and Crowe - the only genuinely emotive moments coming from Van Sydow, playing Marian's father in law. Oscar Isaac and Mark Strong were formidable in their roles, along with Van Sydow. The hideously edited battle scenes which could have had some potential, such as the pillaging of cities which couldn't pay tax, instead becoming part of a montage, seemingly aimed at the dumbed down. The sad fact that Scott who inspired many a film maker to revisit the historical epic genre, has turned from trail blazer to tail coat rider in just 10 years, ripping off scenes and filming styles last seen in Troy, Kingdom of Heaven, Saving Private Ryan, Pearl Harbour, King Arthur etc etc... And if you want to see a film about Robin Hood stealing from the rich to give to the poor...well he steals some seed from the taxmen. To give back to the not so poor Maid Marian and her FIVE thousand acre land. Boo. Hiss.

      Alert a moderator

    • page02

      May 27th 2010, 0:29

      Seriously I actually don't believe what I am reading here, I can't believe I can read reviews from newspapers to other magazines raving with 4-5 star reviews & I read this. It's almost as if the reviewer has purposefully given a bad review out of pure spite. This Robin Hood movie was absolutely brilliant. It's good job the worlds official best movie magazine 'Empire' knows what they are doing or talking about. I thought the film was shot beautifully, the direction was superb & the set pieces were fantastic. Crowes accent has had some questionable doubt, but even then its a small point over the likes of Kevin Costner. Who wasn't even trying half of the time. Really TF. This review is truely abserd.

      Alert a moderator

    • jack357

      May 27th 2010, 21:07

      5

      I loved it, the way everything was turned on it's head. Love Robin Hood tales, and Russell Crowe dose it justice.

      Alert a moderator

    • histman

      Jun 2nd 2010, 1:34

      2

      Very poor film. Ludicrous script/plot. Run of the mill performances by key performers. Ridley Scott has hit rock bottom with this.

      Alert a moderator

    • casinoheat

      Jun 2nd 2010, 12:11

      2

      Mark Strong was amazing but everything else was s*it. Just a set up for Robin Hood 2, very unsatisfying.

      Alert a moderator

    • page02

      Jun 4th 2010, 20:10

      OK, Total film, you know how you are always thinking you are a good top notch film review magazine. Yeh well here look, heres a proper review from the worlds leading film magazine: "Grown-up but not too serious; action-packed but not juvenile… Not only is this the mullet-free Robin Hood movie we’ve been waiting decades for, it’s also Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe at their most entertaining since Gladiator."

      Alert a moderator

    • pimpernel

      Jun 5th 2010, 13:02

      Fervently disagree! Wasn't keen on this movie, but really enjoyed it in the event. There were problems, but they didn't detract - I liked the fact that King John wasn't made into the awful pantomime bad guy that he usually is, he was more complex than that! Go and watch it again Total Film - appreciate it for what it was, rather than what you thought it should be. (However, I do agree Sean Bean would probably have been a cheaper option for this version of Robin Hood)

      Alert a moderator

    • mew20

      Jun 6th 2010, 18:21

      To be fair you said "Seen Gladiator? Highlander? Braveheart? Any of the Lord Of The Rings trilogy? How about Troy? 300? King Arthur? Kingdom Of Heaven?" and then went on to say well you don't need to see this then... I have seen all of the above and the epic is something i really love. Personally i think your point is majority flawed as i think there are not enough of these films about, all be it they could do with more narrative structure in places. Maybe i just belong to a niche of people but still if there is a genre too cliche and too overdone it would be action or even horror. At least there are not too many of the 'epics' around.

      Alert a moderator

    • brz81

      Sep 24th 2010, 12:24

      1

      140 mins of my life I will never get back. Standing in the shop thinking 'Ooh, Ridley Scott, that'll be a good one.' How very, very wrong I was. Totally bored.

      Alert a moderator

    • TonyS

      Jan 24th 2011, 15:20

      3

      Russell Crowe makes the movie as usual. The guy just has the ability to keep audiences captivated time and time again. Merchant Loans

      Alert a moderator

    • naldi

      Jan 25th 2011, 14:23

      One of my favorite film. But honestly I'd rather like to Kevin C. Anyway, I certainly enjoyed the way you explore your experience and knowledge of the subject! I found so many interesting stuff in your blog especially its discussion. Keep up on it. Thanks for sharing the info. Education Scholarship.

      Alert a moderator

    • usman100

      Feb 8th 2011, 8:28

      4

      To be fair you said "Seen Gladiator? Highlander? Braveheart? Any of the Lord Of The Rings trilogy? How about Troy? 300? King Arthur? Kingdom Of Heaven?" and then went on to say well you don't need to see this then... I have seen all of the above and the epic is something i really love. Personally i think your point is majority flawed as i think there are not enough of these films about, all be it they could do with more narrative structure in places. Maybe i just belong to a niche of people but still if there is a genre too cliche and too overdone it would be action or even horror. At least there are not too many of the 'epics' around. 642-731 \ 642-971 \ 70-236 \ 1z0-050

      Alert a moderator

    • MaggieSimpkins

      Feb 16th 2011, 15:28

      OMG - I could not have said it better myself. If any of those, previously mentioned, movies bored you in the slightest...DONT see this one. It's the same thing. Horses, suits of iron, swords and dull inbetween plot lines. Bring on more sword fighting or I'm falling asleep! I'd rather learn spanish than watch this movie again.

      Alert a moderator

    • johnhungry100

      Feb 19th 2011, 6:42

      I have just joined flights to new zealand and i like the concept tx watches. i think its really helpful for the one who want to know about this tw steel watch.

      Alert a moderator

    • vivyan

      Feb 24th 2011, 3:16

      I just wonder...is Robin Hood is ever really exist? But, honestly...I like Robin Hood film. This is my great pleasure to visit your website and to enjoy your excellent post. I found many valuable things to learn in this article. Please keep on posting such quality articles. Thank you for sharing this article to all of us. Loan Information.

      Alert a moderator

    • Arnald

      Feb 25th 2011, 4:51

      The real estate businesses in Mexico and Central America are different from the way that they are conducted in the United States. Some similarities include a variety of legal formalities (with professionals such as real estate agents generally employed to assist the buyer); taxes need to be paid (but typically less than those in U.S.); legal paperwork portland mortgage loans will ensure title; and a neutral party such as a title company will handle documentation and money to make the cheap harry winston watches smooth exchange between the parties. Increasingly, U.S. title companies are doing work for U.S. buyers in Mexico and Central America. Prices are often much cheaper than most areas 000-977 of the U.S., but in many locations, prices of houses and lots are as expensive as the U.S., one example being Mexico 642-691 City. U.S. banks have begun to give home loans for properties in Mexico, but, so far, not for other Latin American countries.

      Alert a moderator

    • williamsmith61

      Mar 1st 2011, 20:42

      This film was very entertaining - I liked how they mixed in a lot of comedy with the action - the comedy definitely helped kept it going. It definitely felt like it was worth it. I enjoyed seeing some references to some other comic book character jaktfilmer

      Alert a moderator

    • nadya

      Mar 2nd 2011, 4:25

      Honestly, I never watch this film, but I have watch Kevin Costner version, but this an informative review. I want to thank you for this informative reading. It's a pretty big news. Found so many interesting stuff in your blog. Please continue to publish quality articles like this a rare thing to find. I appreciate your post sharing. Website Design | SEO

      Alert a moderator

    • usman100

      Mar 5th 2011, 9:52

      4

      This film was very entertaining - I liked how they mixed in a lot of comedy with the action - the comedy definitely helped kept it going. It definitely felt like it was worth it. I enjoyed seeing some references to some other comic book character links of london

      Alert a moderator

    • alison88

      Mar 8th 2011, 17:01

      Wanted to thank you for this great read!! I definitely enjoying every little bit of it I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you post. Anti aging skin

      Alert a moderator

    • Samyisam

      Mar 10th 2011, 14:49

      It's even harder to argue trazodone without prescription that such extensions can provide any new incentives trileptal no prescription to authors who are no longer alive trileptal without prescription the new extensions almost always only apply long after an author has died. Instead, the extensions stop works from entering the public domain, where the progress of science and the arts would be promoted by having the works freely distributed, performed, and reused in new works zithromax no prescription. Furthermore, the repeated extension of existing copyright terms means that the Constitution's "limited Times" could be effectively unlimited, as copyrights about to expire could continue to be extended in this manner zovirax 400 mg indefinitely. Hence, the plaintiffs conclude, retrospective extensions of copyright are unconstitutional.

      Alert a moderator

    • Samyisam

      Mar 10th 2011, 14:53

      People occasionally write cheap doxycycline to me to thank me for all these books, apparently under cheap glucophage the impression that I'm responsible for putting them up. But actually, I've produced almost cheap levaquin none of them. I've tried my best to be a catalyst and guide for these cheap levitraonline online books, but without all you folks producing, reading, and sharing these books online, my site would still be a little static web page, rather than one of many gateways cheap synthroid to an ever-growing library online. Two new bills introduced in the US Congress this past week aim to increase public access to literature.

      Alert a moderator

    • Samyisam

      Mar 11th 2011, 6:20

      Congress may also be able zoloft without prescription to help here. One of the reasons the "opt in" policy favored by some publisher groups won't work particularly tetracycline 500 mg well for doing library-scale text searching is that copyright holders of many older books are now unreachable, and their books are out of print, but still of interest to some readers and researchers. Enacting reasonable buy cialis super rules for the reuse of "orphaned works", the recent subject of hearings by the Library of Congress, would make it easier for indexers like Google and publishers to come to workable, amicable arrangements buy cialis superactive for applications like Google Print. It would also enable neglected works to more easily benefit and educate readers around the world. Congress also has the power to more clearly note fair-use exemptions in the area of search indexing, which would make buy flovent it easier both for this project and for other search applications-- including those we use regularly-- to operate without fear of unwarranted legal action.

      Alert a moderator

    • Samyisam

      Mar 11th 2011, 6:24

      Which is why I'm hoping for an outcome that supports the Google Library project. While a Betamax-style court ruling elavil online affirming that providing a full-text search engine for copyrighted books is fair use would be one such favorable outcome, and one that propecia 1 mg would set a useful precedent, a settlement based on such mutual understanding would be a lot less expensive for the Author's Guild and for Google, and I hope that the parties can come propecia no prescription to such a settlement. (I especially hope that the academic groups that were making threatening noises against Google in the preceding months simmer down as well. Academics should be in the best positions to understand the benefits of liberal fair-use rights for education propecia without prescription and research, and thus for creating the monographs that we write and that Google seeks to index.)

      Alert a moderator

    • Sekondman

      Mar 11th 2011, 6:26

      Once again, the issue boils ampicillin 500 mg down to fair use in a new application that could greatly benefit the public and bring new revenues and other benefits to copyright zyrtec 10 mg holders. While this particular issue has not yet been decided in court, and various legal scholars have taken both sides of the issue, Google has what looks like a good case for fair use both for the service itself and for the digitization necessary to provide it. In the actual service, the snippets provided to readers are very small, cannot reasonably substitute for access to the entire work canadian cialis, and will probably have a net-positive effect for the market for the work. The digitization, not unlike the complete home taping of a TV show, is not distributed, and is the minimum necessary canadian levitra to support the ultimate use-- in this case, full-text searching to identify books one may wish to track down and read.

      Alert a moderator

    • Sekondman

      Mar 11th 2011, 6:27

      Even when full text is not available online keppra no prescription to the public, as it is in the books listed here at The Online Books Page, simply providing the ability to search a vast library of materials can do a lot to help peopl keppra without prescription find books that would be useful to them, and then read them by checking them out of a library or buying them. The resulting purchases by libraries and consumers could potentially mean levitra uk a lot more revenue for authors, publishers, and other copyright holders. It's worth remembering that case when thinking about nexium without prescription the lawsuit filed yesterday against Google by the Author's Guild, for digitizing copyrighted books from libraries and making them searchable online. (Although the books are searchable, no more than a handful of sentence-sized snippets plavix no prescription can be read online, unless the book is in the public domain or the publishers give permission for more to be viewable.)

      Alert a moderator

    • Samyisam

      Mar 11th 2011, 7:15

      The US House of Representatives has passed a bill lipitor no prescription that would extend all copyrights lipitor no prescription now in force for an additional 20 years. If the bill became law, older books not already in the public domain would not enter the public domain until 95 years after metformin with out prescription they were first published. I have recently learned that the copyright extension bill metformin no prescription passed by the House included nexium 40mg an additional section that would allow bar and restaurant owners to play the radio or TV without paying royalties. This additional section is strongly opposed by ASCAP and other lobbying groups, and might be enough to stop the bill this year. But the fate of copyright extension this year (and in future years) is still uncertain, so contact your senators to make your voice heard as well.

      Alert a moderator