Rating: 
Summary: one of the best
Review: This is simply put one of the greatest movies ever made, as far as I'm concerned. I do not really care who made it and where it comes from. Ok, I'm really fed up with hollywood with all the crap they're putting out but this one shines through. It is wonderfully filmed in UK with all the castle scenes and landscapes. There's really nothing to complain about, everything fits nicely from beginning to an end and there could be a sequel to this, it would be wonderful. This movie is awesome and deserves nothing less than 5 stars. I've seen it hundred times and it never gets boring. A masterpiece that it is.
Rating: 
Summary: Not a Fan of This Movie!
Review: We rented Robin Hood - Prince of Thieves and I know this movie has it's fans but I'm just not one of them. I didn't like this movie for many reasons and not just because Kevin Costner (who I normally think is a good actor) didn't bother to use an English accent but I just found the whole movie unappealing and have seen better Robin Hood movies including the Mel Brooks spoof, Robin Hood - Men In Tights. Bottom line for me is that just because a movie like Prince of Thieves is a big budget production filled with many popular Hollywood actors doesn't always mean that you will like it but that is my own personal opinion!
Rating:
Summary: Bad script, terrible casting, and a laughable Costner.
Review: I don't care if this is a special edition DVD disk or not, the movie was one of the biggest jokes ever made. Erol Flynn did it much better. Stay away from this garbage,.
Rating: 
Summary: Depressing
Review: This entire movie is simply in bad taste. The worst - - a vicious rape attempt is treated as a comedy skit. When I saw this movie in the theater, the audience laughed through the whole scene. I've worked as a rape counselor, and, believe me, there is nothing funny about it. And the cheap cameo ending seemed more suitable for a TV sitcom. Very poorly directed - - no one seems to have a clear idea what this movie is about as far as tone or intent; the actors seem to have rehearsed for different movies and only come together accidentally. I did give it two stars instead of one because there are a few good scenes, and some of the characters are amusing for a while (and Costner has an undeniable charm). And, I realize this may put me in the minority, but I really appreciate that Kevin Costner did not try to sound English. I'm tired of phony accents in movies. I have an imagination and have no problem accepting that I am supposed to believe he is a 12th Century Englishman. And none of the accents were authentic -- 12th C. English would be unintelligible to us. All the actors were using the "wrong" accents and the wrong words. So forget that silly criticism about Costner's lack of accent. It's irrelevant.
Rating: 
Summary: Classic tragedy!
Review: The protagonist of this movie is the Sherriff of Nottingham. Saddled with the task of watching over his kingdom while the King is at war, he defends the land from impetulant son of a Satan-worshiper. This thief is named Robin and slimes his way into forming alliances with several peasants and a noblewoman.A few spoilers follow Unless you were really, really concentrating on the movie or had no foreknowledge of the tale of Robin Hood, this could pass as a servicable summary. Let me get something straight, right off the bat: I love Robin Hood. I've probably read every version from the Great Illustrated Classics to the original. So, I'm probably being more biased than necessary. So, first, what's wrong? I'll give you a hint. It begins with a "K" and ends with "evin Costner". Don't get me wrong I like-- okay, "Dances with Wolves" was good. Everything else of his was rot (except maybe "Field of Dreams", which I keep meaning to see). Like Tom Cruise, he plays the same character in every movie. Some scenes -- like the ones with Will Scarlett -- he handles adequately. Other, he botches. And let's not discuss his "accent". Morgan Freeman is one of my favorite actors. Sadly, while he gives his character a great presence, the writers don't give him much to do except make a point of not fighting and drinking. Plot-wise, this film is lacking. Some parts make little sense (Robin's conversation with the evil priest, etc.). Others are too drawn out (the attack on the Nottingham fort). Some parts don't segue. As for the ending... ah, I'll get to that after I review: What's GOOD Alan. Rickman. Seething malice, practically spitting every word, maniacal and deliciously unpredictable, Rickman is the perfect villain (as proved in many of his other films). His character is (insanely) more likable than Robin! Robin is portrayed as being a whining little rich bully who has an awakening and tries to set things right. In the process, he upsets most fo the villagers' lives. The Sherriff is witty ("Locksley! I'll cut your heart out with a spoon!!), smart, and dangerous. I was rooting for him! The biggest injustice in the film happens at the climax of the film, where Robin and the Sherriff face off. I will warn you, this is a spoiler, but not really if you have any sense of drama. *SPOILER BEGINS* ROBIN CHEATS! In no way would Locksley have won, were it not for Marion's interference. He was an incapable swordsman who got thoroughly owned and would've died twice if Marion hadn't kicked Nottingham and thrown the couch at him. And he used a hidden weapon, something no hero would do. *SPOILER ENDS* Now, I enjoyed the cameos. Everyone knows Sean Connery plays Richard the Lionhearted in a small scene and yes, it's nice to see, but my favorite was Robin's father, played by Brian Blessed. Who's Brian Blessed? Why, he played Richard the IV (this movie's Richard's successor) in Rowan Atkinson's "Black Adder". A very nice surprise, even if he only had a short scene. Overall, this movie is average, typical Hoolywood fare. Rickman's performance is worth sitting through Costner's tepid acting five times over. A few decent action scenes, some humor, some tripe. If you're looking for a decent Robin Hood, try any of the other ones. The 1938 version is great, the Disney version ais more than acceptable ... I even prefered Mel Brooks's "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" to this. You have Cary Elwes who, despite being in a parody, is the perfect choice for Robin, and Dave Chapelle who is always hilarious. And heck, even the TV Movie "Princess of Thieves" has the succulent Keira Knightley (Rrrrreeaaaaagle! *a la Wayne Campbell*).
Rating:
Summary: Prince of Action Heros
Review: Kevin Costner got a lot of... for his English accent, and while it wasn't great, it wasn't that distracting. "Robin Hood: Prince of Theives" slightly brakes from traditional myth in that Robin Hood is a returning knight from the Crusades. In the absense of King Richard, Sherriff of Nottingham attempted to take power. When Robin returns he swears vengence against the sherriff who killed his father and defamed his name. Then it's basicly "Die Hard" in the forest. The greatest change is Morgan Freeman's Moorish warrior traveling with Robin. Freeman is good, as usual. Christan Slater is full of fire and wind (putting it nicely) as Will Scarlet. Costner dose well as Robin, I really thought he did excellent. Mary Elizabeth Mastrentonio is pretty good as more or less independent Maid Marion (she has a lot of 1990s style "Thelma and Louise" attitude than was not realistic in the Dark Ages). But it's Alan Rickman's Sherriff who steals the show. He is wild, over the top, very funny to watch. This movie is dark, violent, and kind of scary with it's witch and occultic themes. This is pure action from start to finish. Just excellent.
Rating:
Summary: Poor movie with few redeeming points
Review: Let's start with the positive- Alan Rickman does a terrific job as the sheriff. The low points of the movie are too numerous to mention, but I'll start with Kevin Costner, hopelessly miscast as Robin Hood. Even local dinner theatre actors can summon up a decent English accent- Costner doesn't even attempt one. Instead, he deadpans his way throughout the movie, a sad omen of the rapid decline of his once promising career. Morgan Freeman does a credible job of breathing life into a multicultural stereotype- the urbane, civilized, enlightened Moor, lightyears ahead of ignorant, hypocritical Christians. This stab at political correctness fails- the myth of enlightened Islam, in Spain or elsewhere, is only a myth. In reality, the Moor would have tried to kill the infidels.
Avoid this movie at all costs- poor acting, political correctness, and other flaws too numerous to mention ruin the movie.
Rating:
Summary: More realistic and fantastic than previous Robin Hoods
Review: Granted this movie wasn't the best keystone in the Robin Hood mythos, but it has style and class. For those people out there who have a problem with the costumes... are y'all forgetting the movie is set back in MEDIEVAL times? The costumes reflect the depravity of that era and are pretty realistic in my opinion, would you rather a modern medieval tale with cross-dressing weirdos in tights and elf shoes? How homoerotic.
As for the acting, I find it pretty accurate for the roles portrayed --poor, ignorent farmers-- they aren't supposed to sound like they've just graduated magna cum laude from Oxford. Costner does wonderfully as the hero as does the rest of the cast, and Alan Rickman is marvelous as the Sheriff of Nottingham.
And the stuff about Costner's accent (or lack thereof), come on, if that detracted too much from the movie, you watch movies too seriously! The lack of any good authentic accents doesn't add to the continuity or the mythos as a whole, but for this movie, accents don't detract horribly from it.
For those who compare this to the Earl Flynn version (think coloful Peter Pan) reffer to the paragraph about "homoeroticism."
Overall, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves isn't the most Oscar Worthy movie of the 90's but it certainly isn't the worst either, and in fact is more fun than most; it definitely is worth your attention and ffits well in the modern day too. I personally love this movie, however, it deservers 4.5 stars instead of the full 5 just based on the fact that Kevin Costner appears naked briefly.
Rating:
Summary: Typical action flick placed in medieval times
Review: But, it's not a bad movie. Formulamatic... but as long as you aren't expecting an Oscar worthy film, you'll be all right.
Rating:
Summary: Dull Swashbuckler hasn't aged well
Review: I recently saw this on DVD for the first time since in the theatre in '91. I thought it was mostly OK then, and that the brouhaha about Costner's accent was dumb -- it's not that important (the rest of the cast has varying degrees of English, fake English and American accents). However, seeing again confirms that it hasn't aged very well. It's a pretty lame effort by the standards of other action/adventure type films based on classics (Three Musketeers '73 or '93, Conan the Barbarian, Scarlett Pimpernel, Count of Monte Crisco etc.). Kevin Costner is a capable enough actor in contemporary roles but he's really weak at this kind of period part. It's not his accent, it's that he behaves in too modern a way. The script, which is not respectful of either the 12th century OR the classic story, adds insult to injury. The character of Azeem seems to have been added purely for urban audiences -- he's woefully out of place and time and has no real function in the Robin Hood tale. Morgan Freeman is a fine actor and one can easily imagine a good original film built around the appealing character of Azeem, but it was very poor writing to put him in this movie. It muddles things more than they already are. A lot of people seem to like Alan Rickman's performance as the Sheriff of Nottingham, but to me this was classic overacting and scene chewing. Mr. Rickman is capable of vastly better work than this, so I guess I have to blame the script and director for making the "bad guy" so cartoony. If there is no good villain, a story with a hero becomes unbalanced -- how can you fight evil, when evil is jokey and non-threatening? Michael Wincott does better as Sir Guy of Gisbourne, treating the part more seriously and with real menace, but he exists in the plotline here only to be repeatedly humiliated by Robin Hood and is killed off so early his character never is full developed. Mary Ellen Mastrantonio wasn't a very good choice for Maid Marian -- beauty is in the eye of the beholder of course, but I found her gaunt and plain looking, and she had no chemistry with Kevin Costner at all. (Neither was the concept of her as a plucky swordswoman developed.) She actually seems to have more chemistry with Rickman, (even if it is the "I hate you" kind) so you don't have any kind of romantic flow at the end when Robin Hood and Maid Marian finally marry. Costumes and sets seem both drab and inaccurate, a remarkable (under) achievement. Since Robin Hood is more a myth and fantasy/parable, rather than a history lesson, I think it would have been more enjoyable if the costumes were colorful and romantic, rather than drab and ragged. At any rate, it's not a movie that one gets a lot of visceral enjoyment just from watching the sets and costumes. Since almost 15 years have gone by, I think someone could seriously think about remaking another version of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, with better actors, script, etc. There have been lots of versions over the years -- good, bad and indifferent -- but this is DEFINITELY not the definitive version.
|
