Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)

Alright, I'll come right out and say it: You need to watch Robin Hood: Men in Tights before you watch Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. It's the only way you'll enjoy it. If you watch Prince of Thieves first, you will hate it. As Cary Elwes mimics in his Mel Brooks spoof, Kevin Costner doesn't even try for a British accent as Robin Hood. Come on, it's Robin Hood! I guess Costner figured he was too cool for school and his All-American charm would convincingly coast him through a famously English character. It didn't work.Maid Marian is utterly unappealing in this version, and during the entire two and a half hour running time, I found myself rooting for Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham rather than the actual "good guy". You will, too, trust me. Robin Hood is boring and far too lengthy, and the only good thing that came out of it was Mel Brooks's spoof. Well, that's not fair. There are two very good-looking men in the two leading roles, so at least the girls out there get some eye candy while they're being bored to tears.You will absolutely howl when you watch Men in Tights; it's obvious that while it spoofs other Robin Hood portrayals, this 1991 version was the main inspiration. Literally, there's a hilarious connection during every scene. If you take my advice and watch this movie after its spoof, you won't just howl—you'll snort and guffaw, and probably wet your trousers. And that's the only way to go.

No Robin Hood movie can dream of even coming close to the perfection that is 1938's The Adventures of Robin Hood, but Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves ranks as my 2nd favourite movie about the famed English outlaw. If the 1938 Robin Hood is one extreme of a bright, colourful, tight wearing, saccharine induced fantasy and the Ridley Scott Robin Hood is the opposite extreme of an unnecessarily dark, gritty and overly mature version of the tale, then Prince of Thieves is the middle ground.Is the all American Kevin Costner miscast as Robin Hood? Yes. But do I care? No, not really. Costner's enthusiasm does come through in his performance and shows he has what it takes to be an action hero. Most people won't think of Costner as a screen presence, but to me he is. Likewise, realism is besides the point with a movie like this.The movie opens unexpectedly in Jerusalem showing that this is a Robin Hood movie which does thing a bit different, largely with the character of Azeem (Morgan Freeman), a black man in medieval England. Azeem represents positive representation of an Arab as well as the Arab world. He holds more progressive views on women and in one of the movie's pivotal scenes in which he hands Robin a rudimentary telescope (very similar to a paralleling scene in Dances with Wolves) which isn't recorded to have been invented until the 17th century. However the notion that an individual or individuals from the Arab world might have known about such technology isn't a too "out there" idea due to the Middle East being far more advanced society during the middle ages. I assume it's unlikely we'll see a character like Azeem in the post 911 world in which the Middle East is no longer portrayed in media as an exotic fantasy land rather than a haven for terrorists. Costner and Morgan Freeman make for a fun duo; who wouldn't want to have Morgan Freeman always by your side giving you winsomely knowledge? After all what other actor embodies dignity more than Freeman? Yes there is a big gaping plot hole when Azeem saves Robin's life as soon as they arrive in England. But do I care? No, not really.The film's message of equality between race and gender isn't shoved down your throat and doesn't come off as overt political correctness. Likewise Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio's (try saying that name three times) Lady Marian is a woman in medieval England who has a sense of self and is not subservient to anyone; not historically accurate but progressive. Plus I do love a girl in armour.However it's Alan Rickman who steals the show as the twitchy, scenery chewing mad man that is the Sheriff of Nottingham. His performance is full of little things which feel like they were improvised and his many outbursts are music to my ears. Is it just me or do classically trained actors often make the most memorable villains? Sean Connery's appearance on the other hand is one of the better uses of a celebrity cameo in a film. Just like how the characters are surprised to see Richard the Lionheart we as the audience are surprised to see Sean Connery; plus he's perfect in these kinds of roles.How can that score by Michael Kamen not evoke the adventurer in you? The music is so good that it appears Disney have been using it on their own logo. Likewise I guess I'm also the only person in the world who isn't sick to death of Bryan Adams' (Everything I Do) I Do It For You; I still jam to it now and then. Ah the days when the pop song tie in was as big, if not bigger than the movie itself.Prince of Thieves is good old fashioned swashbuckling action. The action on display has a sense of weight and physicality with the impressive large scale action sequences with even the out there moment with Robin and Azeem being fired over a wall with a catapult still feeling believable, and not a computer generated effect in sight; all practical glory.The movie does the English landscape justice; even in the drab winter weather there is still a beauty to it. Prince of Thieves features some breathtaking money shots, such as that of Robin firing an arrow with an explosion behind him filmed at 300 frames per second; or perhaps my favourite shot in the film, the romantic elevator with the sun in the background splitting the trees. Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is film with its faults but I'm so engaged with the world and its aesthetic that I can look past them, a world in which everything feels used and lived in, one beaming with personality.

For some reason I've never watched this film. I guess I wasn't really a Kevin Costner fan as a kid, who is?, and I even think back then I found an American Robin Hood stupid. Alas however with an interest in Historical Adventure I decided to get round to this. What the actual hell 1991? This was your second highest grossing film?I was expecting a Hollywood movie, no doubt. I know that entails a certain amount of Americanization and commercialization. It happens in Braveheart for example but they still have a foot in some kind of reality even if they paint characters with broad strokes.But this? Everyone who isn't good is a sniveling pantomime villain, Alan Rickman is like a cinematic version of Blackadder. He is raised by a devil worshiping witch... WHAT THE FLUFF? Complete with a children's TV dungeon set that has dry ice and green lights. Why stop there guys why not just give him a dragon too?The main problem aside from the casting of Robin Hood is this is neither fish nor fowl. If they had intended to make a swash buckling adventure movie, something like Zorro, maybe some of this cheese would be over looked but every so often they try and make this some profound historical epic with Kevin spewing out some half assed noble words. Honestly the one with the cartoon fox was more believable.

I know Kevin Costner took some acting classes in college but what I wonder is...did he fail?! In my opinion, and i realize it's just my opinion, he is one of the worst actors in Hollywood! He always sounds like he's rehearsing a script. I read a lot of reviews and, quite frankly,I can not understand all the good reviews this movie received. Perhaps those reviewers allowed Costner's good looks and charm sway their opinions! I suffered through 32 minutes of the movie and that was all I could take. Robin Hood is a classic...books, TV shows and movies...but something went sadly wrong with this one. Even Robin Hood:Men in Tights was far more entertaining. And dare I say, even the great Morgan Freeman was a bit off his mark in this one. The scenery was good, the direction suffered little, but the script and the acting wasn't worth 2 hrs and 23 minutes!