ROTTEN TOMATOES: Ridley Scott Will Direct "Nottingham" Comments

Ridley Scott Will Direct "Nottingham"

by Scott Weinberg | May 01, 2007

Summary

Celebrated director Ridley Scott will reunite with actor Russell Crowe for the fourth time on the revisionist take on "Robin Hood" called "Nottingham." (Can you name the other three movies?) Back to Article

(1-24 of 24 posts) | Reply

alsanali writes:
on May 01 2007 01:14 AM

The title character? Nottingham is a place, not a person...

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on May 01 2007 04:18 AM

In reply to this comment (#863316)
He's almost universally referred to as the Sheriff of Nottingham. Don't think I've ever heard or seen a movie with his actual name. In England they often referred to nobles titles as their name. Like when a normal person who for exampt might have been named Oliver Robinson is made for example Earl of Stranrear. People would no longer refer to him as Lord Robinson, but as Lord Stranrear. So technically the title character bit is accurate.

(Reply to this)

Canuck666 writes:
on May 01 2007 05:13 AM

Finally, a more realistic version of Robin Hood. I'm sorry but a thief is a thief even if he gives a tiny part of his ill-gotten wealth to charity.

(Reply to this)

needles writes:
on May 01 2007 05:57 AM

Maybe the movie's title is simply referring to the county of Nottingham and the people who live there such as the sherriff and Robin Hood and this is their story.

(Reply to this)

frogleg writes:
on May 01 2007 06:33 AM

I've thought this sounded really interesting from the moment I heard the synopsis.
Having Ridley Scott & Russell Crowe can't hurt!

(Reply to this)

lonechicken writes:
on May 01 2007 06:53 AM

Maybe it a revisionist take, this time with Hugh Grant as the movie star and Julia Roberts as the book shop owner who falls in love with him... Yeah.

(Reply to this)

FILMCZY writes:
on May 01 2007 07:25 AM

"Tales from the Crypt Presents: Demon Knight." Now THERE'S something to be proud about. AND "solid" TV work too? How did Michael Bay let these guys get away? You go, Ridley! I guess this means no "Blade Runner 2."

(Reply to this)

SpikesInMySkull writes:
on May 01 2007 09:02 AM

In reply to this comment (#863318)
Personally I never understood why people feel compelled to present more realistic version of fictional stories (which Robin Hood is BTW), though this story like most most legends has many versions already, in fact in the oldest versions, the Sheriff is not a bad guy and Robin Hood is pitted against him only because right or wrong, Robin Hood is criminal and it is the Sheriff's job to stop him, and portraying the Sheriff as a sympathetic character whos only doing his job makes for an interesting story.

So yes this could be an interesting story, but here's the problem: Robin Hood is a fictional character or legend, and like most legends he exist to personify something. In the case of Robin Hood, he is the arch-typal champion of the downtroden, he represents the common folks' means of standing up to oppressor, and more importantly that common folk will always have the means to fight oppression regardless of how bad the circumstances get, you could say Robin Hood embodies "Stickin' it to tha Man."

Now, if you say, "I'm sorry but a thief is a thief even if he gives a tiny part of his ill-gotten wealth to charity." and apply that to the Robin Legend thereby effective inverting the message, you end up with a nice piece of socialist propaganda ie. "You should never stand up to the system. Those in power are in power because they know what best for you. Obey. Conform. Big Brother is watching you."

So if they do it that way: Robin Hood is evil don't believe the hype, Support Our Troops, don't mess with Texas! it will be stupid and pointless. (that was a joke, laugh or don't. I've done two combat deployments to the Middle East and I support myself just fine, end of discussion.)

On the other hand, if take the general idea into a grey area, that could be very interesting ie:

Prince John: "My brother left to go lay the foundation for what will in several hundred years lead to 9/11, I'm in charge now, and for my first order of business I'm gonna break into people houses and wreck up the place!"

R. Hood: "The new guy in chrage is a facist jerk! And besides, Gore won the popular vote, he cheated!! I'm being oppressed, so I'm gonna run around and break stuff and hit people!"

Nottingham: "I am the Sheriff, it is my job to keep the piece and protect people, you Mr. Hood are an idiot. I'm not a big fan of the idiot in charge. In fact just the other day he broke into my house and wrecked up the place, but there are ways we can express our contempt for the government legally and appropriately. All you are doing is making more trouble for everyone while changing nothing. Furthermore, your breaking the law, so it my job to clap you in irons and laugh while smelly people throw rotten fruit at you, because medieval punishment is cool like that."

Note: Once again, the politcal jabs in this post are simply meant to be funny attempts to spice my post up with topical humor. Again, laugh or don't.

(Reply to this)

unbreakable_samurai writes:
on May 01 2007 09:29 AM

Ridley Scott's great, so I'm happy that he's doing this, his other two sound interestingly good also.

(Reply to this)

Ash84 writes:
on May 01 2007 09:30 AM

In reply to this comment (#863323)
I agree with you totally that if you invert the antagonists and protagonists, it takes away the very reason RH was created. But I think RS can at least make it interesting. I'm 50/50 on RS, I like a lot of his stuff, but there's a couple movies I just can't sit through. Hannible was bad and I think I'm the only person in the world who thought Blade Runner was boring.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on May 01 2007 09:36 AM

In reply to this comment (#863323)
I'm gonna ignore the political bits of your post since as you say you were joking and lets face it that argument is getting pretty tired regardless of which side you're on and only comment on one historical inaccuracy, well possibly.

When you say Richard the Lionheart, Prince Johns brother, layed the foundations for 9/11. He didn't really. I'm guessing you meant the Crusades. Richard was actually a late joiner to the Crusades and didn't arrive in the Holy Land until the Arabs had already retaken Jerusalem. Richard arrived and drove back Salah al Din and in essence created a buffer zone. Many historians claim he could have conquered Jerusalem, but had the military sense to know that he couldn't hold it with the Army he had. He instead made peace with Salah al Din and the whole thing ended in stalemate. Although I suppose an argument could be made that Richards actions after the initial defeat of the Muslims (He slaughtered several hundred of them because he assumed, probably correctly, that Salah al Din was using negotiations to get them back to stall for time and regroup) could have been a contributing factor...I prefer to think a bunch of pissed off fundamentalists were responsible for 9/11, what are you retarded? (Southpark paraphrasing for those that didn't catch that)

(Reply to this)

SpikesInMySkull writes:
on May 01 2007 10:26 AM

In reply to this comment (#863326)
Yes I know, again it was a joke

You are of course correct, and I am well aware of this, Richard was a late comer to the Crusades, and even then to say the Crusades lead to 9/11 is gross over-simplification. Your South Park quote is exactly right: 9/11 was the act of pissed off fundementalists, my comment was merely a humorous observation of three things:

A) Horrible violence by pissed off fundementalists is not new
B) Not all violent fundementists are Arab
C) The historical context in which violent fundementalism occurs is complicated, and should be explored.

In case I haven't made this clear enough my purpose in using topical humor in my post was in no way to promote a political agenda, my purpose was to provide a humorous example of how the legend trancends the story, which is to say how you can change the context of the story, but the philosophical truth remains the same.

Do I believe that King Richard caused 9/11? No
Do I believe that George Bush doesn't want us to believe in Robin Hood because he's an evil facist dictator who doesn't want us getting any ideas? No

Do I believe that the principle behind the legend of Robin Hood, the fact that no matter how down-trodden the common man no oppressor will ever be able to take away his ability to stand up and defend his rights, can be applied to today's modern society? Absolutely, and that's my point. We create Legends to personify our values, and that message trancends the Legend itself, such that the roles Robin Hood and The Sheriff of Nottingham serve in the telling are ultimately irrelevant. The legend trancends even one's individual political views, it's not the point that a I drew a humorous comparison bewteen Prince John and G.W. (my first though incidentally was to also include a stab at Michael Moore into my "Bad Robin-Hood" and that character is meant to be a punch at the fanatical left, if somewhat more subtle). But ultimately, that's just a humorous example of, again, how the legend trancends the story and how to disregard the purpose behinde Legend in order to tell a diffrent story would be silly.

(Reply to this)

stanman writes:
on May 01 2007 03:31 PM

[b]EXCELLENT SCRIPT[/b]
This is a very strong script. Every director in town wanted it. It's going to be a strong movie, and does indeed feel fresh.

(Reply to this)

vader_of_vjun writes:
on May 01 2007 04:28 PM

Bah! All Hood adaptations pale next to Curtiz' '38 film.

(Reply to this)

GreenBastard writes:
on May 01 2007 08:09 PM

Russel Crow's to fat to go swinging from tree's. Nottingham's a bit easier on him.

(Reply to this)

needles writes:
on May 02 2007 04:50 AM

In reply to this comment (#863325)
"I think I'm the only person in the world who thought Blade Runner was boring."
Glad I'm not alone, I've thought that since I saw it on the day it was released. .

(Reply to this)

medicineman writes:
on May 02 2007 05:05 AM

In reply to this comment (#863329)
Yes, it is still the ultimate Robin Hood and will probably remain so because of the pre WWII era it came from. However, the world has changed so much since then and the Robin Hood story needs to be updated to reflect today's values (whether these values are good or bad is another thing) so today's generation can relate to the story.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on May 02 2007 06:12 AM

In reply to this comment (#863332)
Is Robbing from the rich to give to the poor that hard to relate to nowadays?

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on May 02 2007 06:53 AM

In reply to this comment (#863325)
No, you're not. While visually arresting, Blade Runner (to me) was cold, emotionless, and rather dull.

(Reply to this)

FILMCZY writes:
on May 02 2007 07:41 AM

In reply to this comment (#863334)
So, what? Ya think the future is going to look like a "Strawberry Shortcake" birthday party?

(Reply to this)

medicineman writes:
on May 02 2007 07:55 AM

In reply to this comment (#863333)
No, just doing it while hopping around in brightly coloured leotards, feather hats and acting like something out of a gay parody is. Wait a minute ... That's not hard to relate to today either... I retract my earlier statement.

(Reply to this)

Cindy_Lou_Who writes:
on May 02 2007 08:05 AM

In reply to this comment (#863336)
True and if the Erroll Flynn's Robin Hood was released today, Hollywood would pat itself on it's back for making a great gay movie.

(Reply to this)

needles writes:
on May 02 2007 08:20 AM

In reply to this comment (#863337)
Yeah, especially with that Will Scarlett character ... Creepy!!!

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on May 02 2007 02:05 PM

Just because a guy is in tights, tight tights, doesn't mean he's not all man, a manly man who runs around the forest looking for fights...We're butch!!! :)

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Ridley Scott

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links