Robin Hood - will Crowe pull it off?

There is a serious argument to be made that Robin Hood is one of the greatest characters in all literature. The concept of this one character has endured since roughly 1350, and he continues to be as popular if not moreso today. Obviously, Hollywood loves to make movies about Robin Hood as often as they can get away with it.

The very first Robin Hood movie was back in 1908, a silent film. Since that time there have been no less than 49 movies or television shows based on this one character. That does not include cartoons and anime versions, or of course porn versions. It also does not include the numerous references to the character in plays, books, and homages in television series and movies.

There is no question that everyone, anywhere in the world, loves Robin Hood. There is a major question on what is the best Robin Hood portrayal though.

I believe that the ultimate portrayal of Robin Hood was done in 1938 by Errol Flynn in The Adventures of Robin Hood - with Olivia de Havilland and Basil Rathbone. For me this one film is the standard by which all other versions of Robin Hood must be judged. In fact this film is so universal in it's appeal, that most every version made since has a point of trying to incorporate at least parts of that film into their versions.





Of course there are those that won't watch a film older than themselves. And there are those that think the Errol Flynn version can be outdone. Thus we have far lesser versions of Robin Hood like:



and the incredibly awful Costner version


but also a few more enjoyable versions like


and yes even an Japanese anime version in German


There even have been parrodies of varying quality


But as I said, all of these movies and versions pale in comparison. Errol Flynn did it right and it has yet to be done better.

Does that mean the Russell Crowe film will be the disaster that was Kevin Costner's version? We can pray not. But I for one need far more to be convinced than what the trailer so far seems to present.



But we will find out soon.

Taylor Lautner to become a plaything

Ok, I really must be getting older. It's the only answer to why I do know what Strech Armstong is, and don't have a clue who Taylor Lautner is. But for anyone else that is out there and unsure of either, never fear Hollywood is hard at work bringing the 2 together.

Lautner will be starring in a new movie titled and based on the toy Stretch Armstrong. The toy is very old, around 30 years or so, and is simply a doll (think He-Man style) with rubbery arms that can be stretched to extreme lengths. You might think that Hollywood is stretching the proposed plot of the upcoming film, but that would assume a plot exists.

Lautner for his part is a "teen heartthrob", which would explain why I have no idea who he is. His claim to fame is being part of the excessively hyped Twillight films. Somehow I expect this film, due out in 2012, to bring many of his fans back to reality.

Why is this film going to be made? Because of all the money Hasbro (which owns the toy) has made off of it's other toys, Transformers and GI Joe. Note that I did not say because of the entertainment Harbro gave to movie audiences (they didn't). This is merely another grab at whatever money is left in your pocket after taxes, if you still have a job these days.

I suppose that Hasbro thinks this is a great time for a movie based on this toy. The "hero" is kind of like Plastic Man, who is sort of a comic book superhero. And comic book conversion films are all the rage in Hollywood. Adding the hype of the kid from Twillight is sure to drive female fans to the film, and hopefully spark new sales of a toyline (sure to be remodeled after Lautner's image) that I doubt anyone under 35 recalls.

Seriously, things are getting desperate in Hollywood. They are making movies based on anything they can find these days. A video game, a comic book, an old television show, now toys. What's next? Board games? Wait, actually A deal was made to turn Monopoly and Chutes & Ladders (Candy Land too if I recall correctly) into movies.

The only thing left is to make a movie based on candy bars, and remakes of revisioned films. And once they start making movies about a Snickers bar you know that it's the end of the civilization.

Super Bowl Commercials of 2010

Well the Super Bowl is over and the Saints have their first win in team history. Great news if you are a Saints fan, but since I and most are not, no big deal. Which is what can be said of almost the entire game and oddly the commercials as well.

Normally every Super Bowl is accompanied by some of the most innovative and high-end commercials of the entire year. Considering the price tag of a 30-second spot, those companies that get a placement make the most of their time. Companies have had vast reversals of fortune based on just one Super Bowl ad. But the commercials of 2010 were about as compelling or interesting as the game itself. That's not a compliment.

Bud Light was probably the product with the best commercials. Of all the commercials the scientists celebrating the impending end of the world was the most upbeat and funny.



The Boost Moble ad may have been the worst of the bunch. The Bud Lite T-pain video was just dumb and an obvious rehash of "Whazzup".


Coca Cola had the decent Simpsons commercial, which was countered by the boring and dumb sleepwalking man in Africa commercial.

Denny's had 3 seperate commercials declaring that Tuesday a free meal can be had from 6AM until 2PM that seemed popular among those around me at the time. Of course the high emphasis on screaming chickens might have added to that opinion.

Perhaps the most perplexing commercial was the Dove for Men commercial. Who wrote that? Not one guy liked the commercial or found any reason to ever consider the product. It was rushed confused and completely missed the target audience. Someone is sure to have lost a job over that waste of $2.5 million.



I really liked the use of Ain't No Sunshine for the upcoming Dante's Inferno video game. A real good mix of music to the visual theme. And no doubt it caught the attention of all the games out there.



Taco Bell with Charles Barkley was just embarrassing.


The Vizio commercial with Beyonce just fell flat. There wasn't a single person that figured out what was going on. And several, once it was revealed what the commercial was about booed. Sales will not be up for them if that's a nationwide reaction.

The Sketchers ad, shown 2 times, was the most boring waste of $5 million I could imagine. I know the economy is bad, but seriously. Wrong target market, boring ad, for an overpriced product. Who greenlighted that idea?

But to end on another positive note, Snickers had the likely second best commercial of the whole Super Bowl. Watching Betty White and Abe Vigoda (who a friend remarked thought was dead) get tackled just looked wrong, and incredibly funny.



Given that 2009 was a horrendous economic year, and 2010 looks to be about the same. Even so, the performance of almost all the commercials was like JV leagues compared to the pro quality we have become accoustomed to. The Super Bowl may have been less than inspiring, but the commercials were far more disappointing than the interception of Manning in the 4th quarter.