RSS
 

News about Last of Robin Hood

24 Jun

from Robert

trailers.apple.com…

Enjoy! And don’t forget to go to the cinema!

(And pledge for a German version…)

In case the above link does not work:

www.youtube.com…

— Inga

 
 

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  1. zacal

    June 24, 2014 at 6:30 pm

    THANK YOU, INGA!!!! Kline is so perfect for this. The cinematography looks above average but I wish they had a more cinematic look as it all looks very “clean”. The music in the trailer is entirely forgettable. But Kevin Kline as Errol Flynn. Finally.

    Report this comment

     
    • Inga

      June 24, 2014 at 7:18 pm

      Maybe it is meant to “recreate” the spirit of the fifties, both in music and design?

      Report this comment

       
    • Inga

      June 25, 2014 at 11:00 am

      Agreed, zacal, after watching the trailer, I look forward to watching the film even more. Volker, I don’t think it will be on DVD before being in cinemas? It would be unusual? So I guess we just have to wait…

      Report this comment

       
      • Tina

        June 26, 2014 at 12:32 am

        I wonder what we could come up with if … just fantasizing… we the people of this blog would asked of producing a movie about Errol’s last two years of life?
        The stipulation would be that the movie has to be first class! What would we come up with? Given that there also would be only a limited budget, which would elevate going on locations and forgo all fancy things usually shown in great movies. Our task would be having to direct, write the script, finding the actors, the studio, location, settings and all the other hundreds things, which go hand in hand of making a first class movie.
        What would we do? Anybody game for a great fantasy?

        Report this comment

         
        • Gentleman Tim

          June 26, 2014 at 3:27 am

          Personally, I’d say eliminating “locations [and] fancy things” from any Errol Flynn movie would be a very serious mistake. One way to almost guarantee an inferior Errol Flynn movie is to work on a low budget. Focusing exclusively on the last two years of his life is also inadvisable … UNLESS perhaps one focuses on Errol telling his life stories to Earl Conrad in Jamaica. In this manner – using an inexpensive tropical setting – Errol’s fascinating stories (from throughout his entire life) and legendarily engaging storytelling ways are at the center of the movie. A few flashback scenes could go a long way in giving the movie a fuller perspective of Errol’s remarkable travels, adventures & achievements.

          Earl Conrad could be the second most important character, providing viewers both objectivty & amazement, as well as admiration, and even some disdain. With this storyline, Bev can be in there (in much more limited fashion), as well as references to all his contemporaneous concerns & troubles. Having a writer in the plot – especially one who seemed to have found the voice & spirit of Flynn so well – would allow a wonderful approach to enhancing the story.

          How about Klein as Flynn – Robert Downey Jr. or John Cusack as Conrad. (Hackman would have been great years back.) Dakota could still play Bev, but this storyline would surely require Bev in her very controvercial (“string”) bikini(s). I don’t know if Fanning has Bev’s figure and sensuality.

          Jamaica itself might artistically AND financially the best place to film.

          How about that, Tina?

          Report this comment

           
        • Gentleman Tim

          June 26, 2014 at 11:01 pm

          So, you give us that challenging task, and then know response, Tina?

          Report this comment

           
          • Tina

            June 27, 2014 at 11:20 am

            Very sorry, that I missed this post of yours, which was a reply to mine.
            You have a good point of an Earl Conrad storyline, the time when writing MWWW. Only it couldn’t be based all on his book as there are parts which I believe are not true.
            The thought is good!

            Report this comment

             
            • Gentleman Tim

              June 28, 2014 at 12:49 am

              Thanks, Tina. I’ve read Memoirs a couple of times, but can’t recall any untruthful parts, but I’m sure there must be some errors. Mostly I recall that Earl Conrad had unique access to Errol and an exceptionally gifted way of capturing his spirit & “voice”.

              Report this comment

               
  2. Volker

    June 24, 2014 at 7:43 pm

    Yes, I hope it makes it to german cinema’s as well. Does anybody know, if it’s out as DVD at least?

    Report this comment

     
  3. Gentleman Tim

    June 24, 2014 at 9:07 pm

    Well, what can one say? I sure hope the movie is better than the trailer. Kline looks good, but I have to listen more to see if he really captured Flynn’s voice. From this, I’m not sure he did. Susan Sarandon looks to have some very good moments. Dakota a couple.

    Cinematography looks largely mediocre to me. Music is horrendous. I don’t feel it has any connection to Errol’s life or spirit.

    Of the three reviews quoted, two are by Rex Reed. The film evidently hasn’t garnered much critical acclaim.

    Doesn’t look like there will be much if anything happening at the Academy Awards for this film. And definitely nothing at the Grammys! What a shame.

    Report this comment

     
  4. errolsfan1130

    June 25, 2014 at 6:47 pm

    As a fan, one always wishes anything related to Errol successful, including this new movie. Especially I read somewhere before Beverly died, she was involved with the film.

    But one also harbors mixed feeling, worrying the movie simply perpetuates a false public image of Errol, as many venues before it.

    Since Errol’s death, his image has been freely exploited in many venues or freely associated with by many creative outlets. Some respectful and some not.

    For example, I resent how The Aviator portrays Errol. It makes Errol appear shallow (which he definitely was not). I resent many of the bios (I read) on the Internet. They don’t do justice to the real Errol, simply repeat the same cliché all over again.

    Since I have not seen this film, I should refrain from making judgment. But as a fan, at least I will give it a try.

    But I do want to point out I saw a small clip on youtube.com…, in which Kline is interviewed. He sounds like he is subtly dismissing Errol as merely a movie star.

    If he really means what he says, I disagree with his remark and think he misses the point.

    In 1930s and 1940s Hollywood, it was all about stars. Movies were all about star qualities. That’s the era Errol was in. And that’s the era how movies were made. No one can deny Errol had a great deal of star qualities, thus he became a star–the brightest one. This seemingly good fortune was a double-edged sword. It made him one of the most valuable star vehicles for the studio. It also made him frustrated as an actor who craved for being taken seriously.

    Even Errol in his lifetime didn’t have the chance to develop into a full-fledged actor, no one can deny Errol was a bright, intelligent and insightful man, with the wide-ranging life experience not many men on earth could and can beat. So no one should deny Errol had the potentials to become a versatile actor if opportunities had allowed him or if he was born into another era like the era Kline is in now.

    If the movie is focused on the love between Errol and Beverly, there indeed exists a compelling love story. Hopefully the movie captures it and gives it its dignity.

    There are so many metaphors in store in the last two years of Errol’s life or in Errol’s entire life. It could go far beyond Hollywood standard fare. Errol is still an open book. After this film, there will be more to come. As a fan, we crave for that definite film truly capturing the essence of Errol and his life.
    h13719F07

    Report this comment

     
    • Gentleman Tim

      June 25, 2014 at 7:36 pm

      So very well said, May. … I believe I too saw the Klein clip you’re referring to, indeed all the online clips involving this movie, as I’m sure you have. I too remember being underwhelmed by Kline’s lack of visible enthusiasm and recognition of Errol’s astonishing life, accomplishments, or preeminent place in history. Because it was Klein, however, I I figured maybe he was just ACTING jaded, and thus gave (and am still giving) him the benefit of a doubt. Observing everything publicly available pertaining to this movie, including this weak trailer, I’m starting to consider that, somewhere along the line, Klein lost the Flynnspiration necessary to play Errol Flynn. Or, maybe his ability to play Flynn properly was sabotaged beyond his control by a mediocre script/screenplay, an insufficient budget, and the wrong production/direction team.

      If this turns out to be just another “May-December” love story (no pun intended, May!), then they all missed the point. This movie should be about ERROL FLYNN. Frankly, Beverly Aadland was just a very minor (again, no pun intended!) and rather insignificant part of his AMAZING life story.

      And, if as I’ve read, this more intended to be about old, glamorus Hollywood, then they should have put A LOT more money into the production. The settings that I’ve seen
      for example, don’t appear to capture the glamor of old Hollywood, or the life of Flynn. Not even close.

      I hope I’m wrong on every point above, the films poor critical reception and lack of popular appeal at festivals, indicate that the movie is largely a flop. … And that music!

      Report this comment

       
      • errolsfan1130

        June 25, 2014 at 8:43 pm

        Tim

        Since I have not seen the film, I will not pre-judge it, but be open-minded.

        As Errol’s fan, I will see it and hope it do well.

        Also, I read somewhere the producer and director have invested many years for this to happen. Thus I believe they were sincere and hope they have the good luck. (We must give people credit when credit is due.)

        Only some master pieces, most of the films in the market are not perfect. As long as they have some merits, they are worthy of watching.

        My main point on my above comment is mainly to defend Errol. Errol was not merely a movie star but the Movie Star of that era. And that era is defined as the era of movie stars. So I think to dismiss Errol merely a movie star misses the point.

        Report this comment

         
        • errolsfan1130

          June 25, 2014 at 9:05 pm

          Also, history is a done deal that cannot be revised. Errol was the quintessential movie star of his era. That’s an achievement–not a reason for dismissal–no one can deny. If Kline just happened to be in the same era, could he achieve Errol’s status? Probably not. Thus, no one in this era should dismiss someone in another era when the circumstance and norm of acting and movie-making were so different.

          Above is strictly to defend Errol for specific argument.

          Generally speaking, I am still rooting for the success of an Errol-related film.

          (C’mon, Tim you are a fan of Errol too. Why not give the film a chance especially you have not seen it yet?)

          Report this comment

           
          • Gentleman Tim

            June 26, 2014 at 2:12 am

            As I’ve said over and over, I am rooting or the film, both artistically, and as far as its appeal with the public. Being new to the blog, you may not be aware of that, May, but’s that’s the case. The evidence is very sustantial, however, that it will not be regarded either artistically or commercially successful. Practically everything I’ve seen – including this trailer – makes that pretty clear. The only exceptions I can think of to the contrary are Robert’s account, Tina’s account, and one (other) glowing review by a Toronto writer who attended the TIFF. So, it might be great, but overwhelming evidence indicares otherwise.

            Despite what credit one might want to give the writers/directors, they really don’t have much if any big production experience. Their experience is primarily in (gay) pornography. Additionally, the production had signicant problems with putting a sufficient budget together to produce this film. Th Errol, a picture that is supposed reflect glamorous old Hollywood. So, they may not have been the best people to head a project on Errol Flynn. I hope they prove me wrong. I’d MUCH rather be wrong in my suspicions than not get a great movie about Errol.

            Report this comment

             
            • Gentleman Tim

              June 26, 2014 at 2:24 am

              The low-budget look of the film is a big concern, May. Here’s some evidence of why many people have not been favorably impressed:

              prezi.com…

              Toronto Film Review: ‘The Last of Robin Hood’

              Report this comment

               
            • errolsfan1130

              June 26, 2014 at 3:56 am

              Tim,

              You just state above you are rooting for the film, but based on what you have posted here so far it seems that you have hardly one good word to say about the film even though you have not seen it yet.

              Why not wait until we all saw it then we can have a honest debate?

              Report this comment

               
              • Gentleman Tim

                June 26, 2014 at 4:17 am

                I evaluate evidence as I see it, May, not as I wish it was. Objectively, the evidence is overwhelming that this movie will not be an artistic or popular success. You’ve surely seen the bad reviews and signs, too. Why do you think they’re not accurate? I

                In life, as we surely all know. one must objectively judge as best one can with what info is available. One doesn’t marry someone on spec, especially when their are signs. One doesn’t wait till after Germany invades Poland & France, before one concludes Adolf is an adolf. And one shouldn’t ignore the bad reviews and signs regarding this movie, which very objectively appears to inferior in many ways.

                Why do you not trust the bad reviews and very poor popluar reception? Heck, even Kline looks like he doesn’t think much of the film. Even you suggested Kline was not properly respecting Errol, did you not?

                BTW, May, I am already debating honestly. That’s how I debate – honestly & objectively.

                Report this comment

                 
    • Tina

      June 26, 2014 at 1:05 am

      Very well said errolsfan!

      Report this comment

       
  5. rswilltell

    June 25, 2014 at 7:51 pm

    I just saw the trailer and I was bowled over! Frankly it looks damned good and I actually want to see it. The sets, costumes, music and cast were right on the money.

    This film looks promising and seems to back up Tina’s review of it on IMDb.com….

    Report this comment

     
    • Gentleman Tim

      June 25, 2014 at 8:37 pm

      Just shows to go ya’ how people can see and hear things so differently. I hope your hopes are accurate, Ralph, but I can’t see this thing making much of a splash – unless it’s a belly flop. Thank Goodness they got Kline & Sarandon. And Dakota will widen it’s audience some. Otherwise, it doesn’t appear very important or enticing (at least to me).

      TimeWillTell RSWillTell.

      P.S. You like the music, too!?! Anyone know where it came from?? (Not that the musicianship is bad. It’s not. The “score” just doesn’t score any points with me.

      Report this comment

       
  6. rswilltell

    June 26, 2014 at 3:58 pm

    Last Of Robin Hood will not be a box office smash. This is strictly an independent film that will appeal only to a small segment of today’s movie audiences. The industry caters to the adolescents and the only thing here for them here is Dakota Fanning. And she’s not yet a big star, just rising at the moment.

    Kline and Saradon will draw in an older, more suburban audience at theatres and DVD rentals.

    Report this comment

     
  7. Maria

    June 26, 2014 at 5:11 pm

    Well now lots of comments! I personally don’t like movies of this type (I know I should see it first!) because I don’t think that you ever capture the personality – I certainly don’t think you could ever capture Errol! On a different note, I was watching the video of the Royal Command Performance for The Forsyte Saga (I believe posted on this blog already) and was fascinated by the expression on Errol’s face – when His Majesty stopped and spoke to him – Errol smiled a bit and said something
    back- I like to think it was perhaps “Bung Ho old boy”. Just kidding. It was most likely “Thank you Your Majesty” said in that lovely low voice.

    Report this comment

     
    • Gentleman Tim

      June 26, 2014 at 7:48 pm

      Thanks for that info on the meeting of Errol and the (other) King. I recall reading somehere that the King – or possibly another male British Royal – saw Errol at an event and asked him “How’s Burma doing?” – to which the Flynnman immediately and quite wittingly replied “I think she’s pregnant” … a reply the King evidently visibly found humorous. I thought this happened in France, but maybe it was at the Royal Command (TFS) Performance you mention.

      Report this comment

       
  8. Inga

    June 26, 2014 at 5:24 pm

    Here is another review:

    www.soundonsight.org…

    Thanks to all those who will go to the film with an unbiased opinion and give it a chance.

    Report this comment

     
    • Gentleman Tim

      June 26, 2014 at 6:59 pm

      Yes, that’s the glowing review I referenced above, Inga. Let’s hope it’s accurate. Being objective &realistic, however, we must face the fact that it is not in agreemebt with the overwhelmingly majority if reviewers who did not find the film anywhere near great, as did Ms. Drumm.

      Report this comment

       
    • Tina

      June 26, 2014 at 9:17 pm

      Hi Inga;
      I read this review at the time when I saw the movie and this part of the review is really the essence of it all.

      While presenting a faded Old Hollywood story to a new audience, writing-directing team Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland tapped into a deeper core of the story: three people in search of happiness, which, as the Beverly Aadland song goes, “is hard to find.” It is this bittersweet poignancy that stays with the audience long after the credits have stopped rolling. You still feel for each of the leads, however flawed or jaded or mistrusting. Simply, it’s a story of love; an old man’s last and a young woman’s first met by a mother’s only. This combination makes The Last of Robin Hood all the more heartbreaking. Rather than ending on a teary note, here are Flynn’s supposed last words, “I’ve had a hell of a lot of fun and I’ve enjoyed every minute of it.”

      Joining Peter Debruge in his very biased critic toward the film makers, plus other biased remarks is in my opinion very prejudiced. He just didn’t see the essence of the movie, it went right over his head, which is so well portrayed. He missed the point totally as so often critics do.
      More importantly Peter Debruge is telling the people, so advertised on his site:
      “Cinemasochist extraordinaire. Watches bad movies so you don’t have to, and good ones so you can, too.”
      This little dictator wants to tell the public what to watch and what not! Plus he calls himself “Cinemasochist extraordinaire”, sounds to me like somebody with a superiority complex, which goes hand in hand with an inferiority complex. The Urban Dictionary has the following explanation for “Cinemasochist” – A person who insists on seeing boring arty films in order to look cultured and intelligent. That really says it all for his opinion about anything.
      Anybody, in my humble opinion, who makes up their mind about what a critic has to say is rather missing out on being a judge him/ herself.
      Shouldn’t we judge for ourselves what we like and what we don’t?

      Report this comment

       
      • Gentleman Tim

        June 26, 2014 at 10:58 pm

        Aside from your extremely low opnion of the man, Tina, what exactly did Peter Debruge’s Variety review say about Last of Robin Hood that isn’t true?

        What do you think of Rex Reed’s credibility, who is the primary reviewer (one of the only) praising the film. Two of the three blurbs shown in the LORH trailer are by him. Often, it is Rex Reed’s credibility that’s challenged. And talk about egos & self-promotion!! That’s Rex Reed’s real specialty!!

        I could be wrong, but I think Peter Debruge is rather highly regarded for his insight & accuracy. He’s also an expert in movie trailers.

        Report this comment

         
  9. rswilltell

    June 26, 2014 at 5:38 pm

    Inga;

    I predict (famous last words) that Kevin Kline will receive an Oscar nomination for ‘Last Of Robin Hood’. I am not certain he will win the Oscar but he will definitely be nominated.
    Ralph Schiller

    Report this comment

     
    • Inga

      June 26, 2014 at 5:40 pm

      That would be good promo for the film! I hope your prediction comes true!!!

      Report this comment

       
    • Gentleman Tim

      June 26, 2014 at 6:48 pm

      What makes you think that, Ralph?

      Report this comment

       
      • rswilltell

        June 27, 2014 at 1:52 pm

        Tim;

        Kline will be Oscar-nominated for playing Errol Flynn. One reason is Kline’s tremendous talent but even more important is politics.

        Hollywood loves to pat itself on the back and what better way to honor old Hollywood than by giving an Oscar to someone from new Hollywood. I’m being cynical!

        Report this comment

         
        • Gentleman Tim

          June 27, 2014 at 3:17 pm

          I see you point, Ralph. You might be right. They are always slapping themselves on the back and playing favorites out there in Tinsel Town. No doubt the Academy doesn’t always give the nominations and Oscar to the actors who most deserves it! If they did, Errol would have one fore, aft, port & starboard – and one atop each mast!

          Report this comment

           
    • Tina

      June 26, 2014 at 11:48 pm

      Hi Ralph;
      I love your prediction and I wish you are right! It all depend on what movies are made that year, I would say, don’t know too much about it.
      As I said in my review it is not an epic or a Gone with the Wind movie just a nice, excellent B movie.
      But what isn’t still could be. I sincerely hope you are right. For me, I settle for a nomination!
      Lets cross our fingers and hold the thumb! (-:

      Report this comment

       
  10. daringthorpe

    June 26, 2014 at 7:08 pm

    It isvery seldom this type of movie is a runaway successs.
    The character of Flynn was quite mercurial and by that very nature it would be extremely difficult for any actor to capture
    From the small trailer I have seen Kevin Kline didn’t seem to quite get Flynn and I felt it lacked something which I cannot quite put my finger on. That said I would still like to see the movie and make a call on it then. As much as I personally don’t like the way Flynn is portrayed in popular media this was the public Image of the guy and as he said himself “A gentleman never dissappoints his public”. Also the may september romance is old and not the scandal now it would have been over fifty years ago.

    Report this comment

     
  11. errolsfan1130

    June 26, 2014 at 7:41 pm

    Objectivity may be an over-rated term, when film criticism is concerned.

    Many film critics have stated that their review/criticism is a subjective endeavor, even though a cultivated one. There is no way one (critic or layperson alike) can give a purely objective critique of a film. Who has?

    Roger Ebert once stated that film criticism “has to be first person subjective. Itʼs not a science, itʼs an art,” thus not objective.
    As Marlon Brando states in his autobiography, audience’s liking or disliking of a film is often affected by their life experience, personal taste and preference. Thus, there are no objective criteria to determine a film’s merits. Everyone has to see and decide for oneself.

    Certainly, there are numerous reasons for a critic or a layperson to sing highly or condemn forcefully of a film. The reasons can be artistic or personal.

    A critic may appreciate a film because he has an eye for film noir. A critic may hesitate to condemn a film simply because he values his friendship with its director.

    Likewise, a layperson may be moved by a film because the protagonist’s life resonates with his. A layperson may dislike a film simply because the actor is not his liking or the people involved. One can never know.

    So when one reads a review (especially not one from a tried and true source), it may be wise to take the critic’s view tentatively until one has seen the film with one’s own eyes.

    Even then, one may still not agree with the critic. For example, I disliked The Great Gatsby (2013), even though the highly respected New York Times critic A. O. Scott likes it. But sorry Scott, it was I who saw the film and it was I who didn’t like it. Scott could give me his take but he could not see the film for me. And I saw it and didn’t like it.

    Likewise, Tim may try to persuade that the film discussed is an inferior one in his eyes. And he may even try to appear OBJECTIVE by quoting and linking few minor opinions. But, sorry Tim, we have to see and decide. What you said is only your take and you have not even seen the film yet.

    Also, the views of few minor critics, as posted or linked here, are negligible. Majority of the highly-respected critics have not weighed in yet, because they often review an independent film much later–until it has the luck to go mainstream.

    So not only film criticism is subjective (as Ebert stated); film appreciation is subjective too.

    Roger-Ebert-at-the-movies.jpg

    Report this comment

     
    • Gentleman Tim

      June 26, 2014 at 8:33 pm

      Well, I see we can agree on at least one thing, May. I believe in and value objectivity, and you, by your very words, do not. My take on all I’ve seen and read is that the movie is likely not great.

      You may consider hard evidence of budgetary problems and reviews from leaders in the industry luke Variety as totally insignificant, but I do not. I also respect and factor in reviews from Tina, realizing, of course, that they come from fans avidly hoping for something great. I consider, too, that Rex Reed’s review could be bought for a couple of Mel Torment cds.

      You certainly have a right to believe that determining a movie’s quality, value, accuracy, and success, is a purely subjective endeavor. I do not. I believe much about a movie can be evaluated objectively – and much before the film is actually in the theater. In fact, movie professionals do this on a daily basis, assessing potential films from their earlest concepts, screenplays, and scripts, through daily “rushes”, and editing right up to the day of release. Indeed, Errol’s greatest films were very stringently and objectively evaluated by Warner Brothers every step of the way. Brando probably made his comment after one of his stinkers, not after one of his good ones.

      So, May, I’ll continue to objectively consider all the evidence as it becomes available, and adjust my assessments of the flm as warranted. As of this date, however, my belief is that the film is suffering substantiallt from a low-budget look, which is a really bad thing for a movie attempting to portray Errol Flynn and the glamour of Old Hollywod. Based upon what I’ve seen thus far, I also predict there will be no Academy Awards for the film.

      Report this comment

       
  12. shangheinz

    June 26, 2014 at 8:44 pm

    My dear fellow Flynn fans,

    I truely must say I like what I see. From an Ad man`s point of view, the package is solid. Even the music is acceptable considering the timeframe. Remember when weeks back a blog was posted here with Beverly Aadland singing an Elvis tune at the Groucho Marx Show and Grouch contributing a jittery bug. Times were a-changing and R´n`R was there to stay. Susan Sarandon will be the scene stealer, while Kevin Kline will be just fine. His slightly distant demeanor in promo interviews can be seen as an accomplished actor`s statement that he didn`t try to emulate Errol, but simply wanting to play his role to a T. No need for a perfect Aussie accent, for it would only come acoss as mimickry or even mockery. After all swashbuckling is not the art of trying too hard…On a personal note, I think he doesn`t want to come across as a “mark” for our Hollywood hero. Considering his career there are some references to Flynn, but like I said, Errol is a tough act to follow. I remember when Kline was asked once, if he was the new Flynn because of the obvious lookalikeness. He answered that he considered himself more of an actor, while Flynn was more of a movie star. Wasn`t that a line in Peter O`Toole`s EF hommage movie? Anyways, I think Kline did his homework and it will show in “The last days of Robin Hood”. If this project was announced today, with that Kind of cast and in two years due, we would all drink to that and counting down the days eagerly awaiting its release. Now that the release is imminent, let`s rejoice that Errol has not been forgotten. If this film does well, maybe an Aviator style epic about Errol will be coming our way in the future. Baz Luhrmann are you listening!?

    Report this comment

     
    • Gentleman Tim

      June 26, 2014 at 9:17 pm

      Excellent insight, shangheinz. Very objectively & tactfully put. I hope it proves terrific and does lead to an epic production. And why not Ausse Baz Luhrmann. Errol’s so much more interesting than Howard Hughes.

      I would prefer better sets and soundtrack, and Kline getting much closer to the sound & feel of Errol’s unique voice, but maybe it will all work out okay. The biggest achievement of the film I see, is that it doesn’t salaciously destroy Flynn. To me, that’s the most notable thing to celebrate about the film. I suspect, too, that’s why some avid Flynn fans are praising the film as they are. Beverly’s heavy involvement in its development surely kept the film kind to Errol. Thank you, Beverly. Errol’s envious enemies would have loved to destroy him.

      Report this comment

       
      • errolsfan1130

        June 26, 2014 at 9:40 pm

        Good, Tim, you finally became a little bit more objective.

        Report this comment

         
        • Gentleman Tim

          June 26, 2014 at 10:26 pm

          I’ve always been objective, May. Please don’t insult me so inaccurately like that.

          Report this comment

           
          • errolsfan1130

            June 26, 2014 at 11:39 pm

            Tim,

            If it sounds insulting to you, I must apologize even though it is not meant to be.

            But that’s the problem with words-only communication. Above is really meant to be a little bit sarcastic and a little bit funny—a rather causal expression. Words-only communication misses all of those. (If above had been said in person, you could have picked up my causal tone and my causal personality, thus not offended.)

            We both have used “objective” several times in different contexts. In this context, when I said “you finally became a little bit more objective” I meant you finally have few good words to say about the film, while before what you sounded, at least to my ears, was adamantly anti this film. Thus, I felt it was a little bit too subjective, since you have not seen the film yet.

            I am open-minded now. But, after watching the film, I may dislike it as well; especially I am an ardent fan who can easily be disappointed by a film if it in my view does not do justice to Errol. Certainly you are entitled to your position. Here, I just tried to reason to you where my words come from. Hopefully, you will understand.

            Isn’t this blog supposed to be for fun?

            Report this comment

             
            • Gentleman Tim

              June 27, 2014 at 4:33 am

              In the context of other things you said above May, such as where you capitalize OBJECTIVE, I failed to see any well-intended humor. However, I agree with you and understand how difficult it is to communicate properly over the blog, so, of course, I accept and thank you for your apology.

              My (objective!) interpretation of what’s happening here regarding this film is that some of Errol’s fans are over-rating the film. and attacking anyone or anything that suggests the film is just not that good. If we Flynn fans saw the very same evidence, and these same reviews. in connection to a movie about, let’s say, Robert Mitchum or Glenn Ford or Randolph Scott, we’d ALL most likely accept that the evivence portended an inferior film.

              As an engineer – with very extensive additional work as both a legal and historical researcher -I am trained and compelled to view things (on a daily basis) from a factual & evidentiary point of view. I make no apology for that. I think it’s essential to getting at the truth. At the same time, I also fully recognize the need for and existence of subjective interpretation. I also understand individual artistc & emotional interpretation, as well as the “reality” of the Hollywood truth, as opposed to historical (aka factual) truth. The two can both have an oppositional AND symbionic relationship. Errol’s masterpieces (e.g. RB, Hawk, GJ, Boots) employed the two quite wonderfully & effectively. So, I admire both. as long as they are arrived at honestly & intelligently.

              When I predict from what I’ve seen the film looks like it will not be that good or successful, I’m not speaking about its reception with diehard fans (who like even Errol’s worst films). I’m talking about how it will look and be received by the movie-watching world at large. And I think, objectively, the evidence is already pretty clear & convincing that it will not be a great artistic success, nor a financial success. A snall niche of fans may like and treasure it, and that’s good for them. Personally, I would have much preferred a whole different approach – one better communicating the full glory & majesty of Errol’s amazing life. With that approach, we would have a nuch greater movie and people would better understand Errol’s “last days”.

              Report this comment

               
              • errolsfan1130

                June 27, 2014 at 2:14 pm

                Tim,

                Anything I posted–if someone read the entire thread will know—doesn’t require an act of apology, but I believe as members of the blog, we are all responsible for a harmonious atmosphere. Thus, I acknowledged your feeling and acted gentlemanly. In short, I didn’t need to apologize for what I said; I only apologized for acknowledging your feelings. Hopefully, you understand the difference.

                You must be aware that I don’t agree with some of your comments above and have said so rightfully and politely. Still, I don’t agree with some of your comments here. But, there is no point to start a debate. Let’s just end here.

                (I think we are all entitled to disagreement–that’s the healthy state of any open blog. Also, there is no need to take it personally or as being unfriendly. Next time for something else we may agree. We actually agreed a lot about Errol already. That’s why we are here.)

                Report this comment

                 
                • Gentleman Tim

                  June 27, 2014 at 3:22 pm

                  I apologize for believing your “apology” was actually an apology, May. As an objective person, I interpreted “apology” to mean apology. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

                  Report this comment

                   
                  • errolsfan1130

                    June 27, 2014 at 3:34 pm

                    C’mon, Tim

                    I apologized for your subjective feeling being affected by my objective wording. But I didn’t apologize for my objective wording that caused your subjective feeling. (laughing)

                    Thus this causes any confusion? (laughing)

                    (Shouldn’t Gentleman Tim know what a gentlemanly act means?)

                    (laughing)

                    Report this comment

                     
                    • errolsfan1130

                      June 27, 2014 at 5:20 pm

                      Please note I had a laughing face while writing above. Please not to read it envisioning someone with a straight face, which is not the case. (I do not take myself seriously while being on the blog hopefully you too.)

                      Speaking of laughing face. I must let our eternal charmer to represent me.

                      Report this comment

                       
                  • Gentleman Tim

                    June 28, 2014 at 6:32 am

                    Very interesting, May. Very interesting.

                    Report this comment

                     
  13. Hugh Davis

    June 26, 2014 at 10:49 pm

    At this point, I doubt there will be any Oscar-nominations, and that is not meant as anything against the film (which I am excited to see eventually). But movies with this sort of limited release do not normally get many nominations, and films released in the summer are seldom nominated (at least for the “big” awards). I do hope it gets good acclaim, and I look forward to seeing Kline’s portrayal. Besides the fact he also played Douglas Fairbanks (and thus it makes for an interesting lineage), I think Kline playing Flynn recalls Flynn playing John Barrymore Too Much Too Soon, and that performance to me (a great one on Errol Flynn’s part is a good example of an actor evoking the spirit without simply putting on an imitation.

    Report this comment

     
    • Tina

      June 27, 2014 at 12:04 am

      Hi Hugh;
      I am sure you will like the movie; I have seen it at its premier in Toronto Tiff last year. Kevin Kline was great, it seems he lived in Errol’s shoes to be able to act him. There are some actors who tried to portray Errol in the past with very poor success. I think Kevin Klein had a lot of courage to play Errol. It was often said that Errol would be most difficult to copy and mostly due to the unique charming mannerism he had. Even Kevin Klein, although excellent falls a little short to portray this superb charm Errol had. It is said that nobody could be cross with Errol at least not for long due to his charm.
      Enjoy the movie when it comes out!

      Report this comment

       
  14. David DeWitt

    June 27, 2014 at 1:39 pm

    There has been some back and forth comments here that are dangerously close to abusing the blog rule about not fighting on the blog with other members. We just had a patch of that, and I’m sensitive about enforcing this rule. There are report comment links under every comment so that if you feel insulted, for example, you are supposed to contact the person you feel has insulted you OFF THE BLOG and settle the issue in a civil manner. If you have no success with that, report the comment, and an admin will try to help. In an adult conversation where there is an obvious different point of view, nobody has to turn up the heat on someone else too far by making a personal attack of any kind, and nobody should have to ask, Aren’t we supposed to be having fun?

    Not that everything is a Disney movie, and bubbles and rainbows. But be careful, civil and kind to each other on deck. The results of slipping into a disregard if this rule have gotten harsher.

    Report this comment

     
    • timerider

      June 27, 2014 at 3:58 pm

      HAHAHAHA! Critics are always at odds with each other and themselves,LOL! As for the idea of an older actor like Kline reminiscing about all the young adventures of himself as Errol, I am in complete agreement. A younger actor playing Errol in many scenarios of the adventures along the timeline of his life would be fascinating! When I think about Errol’s voice I think smooth as his face in younger years. I’m glad that the cast is quality and I’m looking forward to seeing this no matter what!

      Report this comment