Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1920x1080 | 13438.1 MiB | 1080p | |
|
1280x720 | 6714.88 MiB | 720p | |
|
720x392 | 1951.41 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x322 | 1257.23 MiB | divx | |
|
320x172 | 399.42 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
For the good of all men, and the love of one woman, he fought to uphold justice by breaking the law
After being captured by Turks during the Crusades, Robin of Locksley and a Moor, Azeem, escape back to England where Azeem vows to remain until he repays Robin for saving his life. Meanwhile, Robin's father has been murdered by the Sheriff of Nottingham and when Robin returns home he vows to avenge his father's death. Even though Marian, his childhood friend, cannot help him, he escapes to the Forest of Sherwood where he joins a band of exiled villagers and becomes their leader. With their help he attempts to cleanse the land of the evil that the Sheriff has spread.
| Morgan Freeman | Azeem |
| Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio | Marian Dubois |
| Christian Slater | Will Scarlett |
| Alan Rickman | Sheriff of Nottingham |
| Michael McShane | Friar Tuck |
| Brian Blessed | Lord Locksley |
| Michael Wincott | Guy of Gisborne |
| Nick Brimble | Little John |
| Soo Drouet | Fanny |
| Daniel Newman | Wulf |
| Daniel Peacock | David of Doncaster |
| Walter Sparrow | Duncan |
| Harold Innocent | Bishop of Hereford |
| Jack Wild | Much the Miller's Son |
| Kevin Costner | Robin of Locksley |
| Kevin Reynolds |
6.60 out of 10 (35077 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Anachronistic and enjoyable to the bone.
posted on 06 Aug 2009The historic setting of this movie is completely wrong (I should know, I study history), Costner isn't the best actor you will ever see, but I still love this movie. If only for Alan Rickman who seems to know perfectly well what kind of nonsense he is selling. He is brilliant in his funny sarcasm. I'm a fan of all Robin Hood movies (The Disney-version rules too,(hey, I didn't forget my childhood dreams)), so I'm probably not the best critic for this job, but I really like the camera-work and the speed of the movie. Over-dramatic? Sure, but not the annoying kind. You should laugh about the anachronisms, not let them annoy you. After all, it says nowhere that this movie is based on true historic facts. (9 out of 10)
Magical...
posted on 06 Aug 2009This movie has it: The Magic! Robin Hood is - of course - more or less a fairy tale. As a filmed version of a fairy tale this version is very successful. It has beautiful scenes, good jokes, excitement and - most important of all - clear moral values. I just wonder how come the age limits for this film seem to be so high? Doesn't make sense for me! How about having a "PG" for Snow White? In any case, Michael Wincott represents in this film a man I would not like to face, so convincingly evil his Guy of Gisborne is - his face and expressions radiate evilness! The same is true about Alan Rickman's Sheriff! Even Harold Innocent manages to play his part very, very convincinly! Kevin Costner may not be the perfect Robin of Locksley, but hey, this is a fairy tale! In fact K.C. does a very good job, too! It doesn't matter too much that in the movie Robin has a Moorish companion, this just adds a bit of color and quite a few good laughs to the film. Morgan Freeman plays his part with perfect professionalism. At the end of the film there is an intelligent cameo performance, too! This film is perfect entertainment.
Crapola
posted on 04 Jul 2009The great legend reduced to a Disneyesque cartoon except without the humor or charm. Plenty of politically correctness, examples: the addition of the wise `Moor' character, Kevin showing off his butt again, the barbaric Celt army (in the 13th century?). Costner's bad acting was only matched by the lame dialogue. See `Robin Hood: Men in tights' instead for a more serious and entertaining rendition of the story. As the Moor said `Allah be merciful!'
This movie is junk.
posted on 01 Jul 2009Really, what a waste of time. Enough has been made of Costner's atrocious English accent (was he even trying?) but not enough made about the yawn-inducing boredom present in this film. The "action" scenes are weak, the plot is ludicrous, and somehow the direction managed to make even Alan Rickman uninteresting. (Love those uniform, white cloaks the bad guys are wearing, though! Chic!)On top of the technical flaws, the historical ones are worse. Morgan Freeman's black African "Moor" in the holy land is suspect...but not as suspect as his tattoos. He would have carried a "cross hilt" sword at that point in history (scimitars having not yet taken over Islamic armies) and, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD--a lecture from a Moslem about the treatment of women?!Note to one of the previous reviewers about Americans doing English accents:
Keanu Reeves is Canadian, so please don't blame us.
" i'm gonna cut your heart out with a spoon!"
posted on 22 Jun 2009I had heard very mixed reviews about this movie. And they are all true, there are some parts that are out of place, stupid, and lets not bring up Kevin Costner's accent. But looking past all that, this movie had a great amount of potential and I believe it delivers beautifully.Kevin Costner gives a good performance, not by any means along the lines with Dances with Wolves, but he is very entertaining as the dashing, rogue Robin of Locksley (Robin Hood) And all this drama about his accent. I would most definitely like to hear him speak his normal accent that have to hear him fail miserably at a British one, it didn't take away from the part at all.Morgan Freeman is great. He is VERY convincing as the North African Moor, Azeem, I enjoyed his character a lot, especially how he prays when everything is going wrong, very funny! He is one of the only characters that remind you about the troubles outside of Nottingham and Sherwood forest. Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves takes place during the Crusades and it seems that after the short while in the beginning in Jerusalem, the idea of war ended, but the racism towards him from Friar Tuck and some of the men in the beginning reminds you of it.Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio is very very beautiful and plays a feisty, ballsy Marian. She is a terrific actress, but her character seems very two dimensional. None the less, you still root for her and Robin to get together and its a nice happy ending. And I can tell you, she screams excruciatingly loud, "ROOOBBBIIINNNN" I had a headache for a week, ;)But the best character of all, is Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham. I have much to say about him. Probably one of the greatest villains to come along in a while. Maybe it's just me, but I grew up with the animated Disney version of Robin Hood where the Sheriff of Nottingham had that really annoying voice, humming along and picking up taxes. Rickman adds a whole new dimension to the character. Had he not been in the role, it would have been a disaster and I can't think of anyone as good as him to play this character. If you are looking for a reason to see this movie, this is it. He completely steals the show. But don't expect a Hans Gruber. The Sheriff is neurotic, sly, completely merciless ( He kills his own cousin!), and almost childish, especially in the scene where Robin cuts his face, he falls back and after at least 2 seconds starts screaming bloody murder, reminds me of my three year old cousin. Rickman steals the movie, no doubt about it. But, don't think that he just a running around yelling at people, conjuring revenge plots. He is extremely kick ass. Especially in the climatic fight scene at the end. Robin Hood: Prince of Theievs is rounded out with a great supporting cast, including Christian Slater as Will Scarlett, the outsider and hateful woodsman who has a personal problem with Robin. Nick Brimble, as the brave, jolly Little John. He reminded me of Santa Claus, before the white beard.All in all, this movie is very entertaining. Don't expect the Godfather when you see it, but I promise it's definitely worth the rental.
Provides Good Entertainment
posted on 22 Jun 2009I am one of those movie-watchers who is pretty picky about what he wants to spend his time viewing--I almost solely enjoy only Top Quality movies.There are occasions when the craftsmanship behind a movie is not excellent by any means, but it's not "B" quality, either. If you read my other reviews, you'll see that I do sometimes heartily recommend other movies that, like this one, are very good but not excellent. Such is the case here. I just purchased the DVD of this movie. I had rented it about three times in the past decade, and have always found it to provide what many of us hope for in a movie: Solid Entertainment! 6.5/10BTW, the soundtrack is well-worth purchasing. (10/10) It's great for background music b/c the loud instrumentation is never too loud, nor are the quiet portions too quiet. And then there are the two great vocal tracks at the -end- of the disc (where they should almost Always be on soundtracks with this much instrumental music)--one of them "Everything I Do" performed by Bryan Adams! A perennial radio favorite. And that track has an extra tag to the song that is never played on the radio: If you like the song, you'll find it to be sonically gorgeous.
Unfortunate
posted on 16 Jun 2009I might have gotten something out of this film if I had never been exposed to Richard Carpenter's "Robin of Sherwood" first. The 80's television series was original, moving and unforgettable. Still a very well known and loved classic. "Prince of Thieves", with its excruciatingly thin and derivative characters and story, just doesn't compare. It depressed me.The people responsible for making this film should have reviewed what was already out there, and then made a real effort meet the standard already set by earlier productions. Ignorance is not an excuse.
Robin Hood Oh So Good
posted on 13 Jun 2009This movie is my sentimental Kevin Costner favorite. It was the very first one of his I ever saw at the theater. I returned three more times to enjoy it and savor each moment with my new favorite actor. So much is critiqued and criticized about the accents or lack of them in this portrayal of the man who robbed the rich to give to the poor. That is so trivial really. You sit back for a couple of hours, are transported back to the century it took place in, and you have a great time. You cheer the hero, boo the villain just as you're supposed to. Everyone who partakes in this film is great. Some wish to constantly banter that one is better than the rest. Excuse me, that's simply your opinion. You have a right to you thoughts about it, but do not pretend to tell me how I should feel. The cinematography is outstanding. The story is fresh for a Robin Hood tale. It veers a little bit off the old standby version, but I like the way the writers took it. Kevin Costner is so handsome and dashing in this and Maid Marion beautiful. It is romantic and adventurous to the hilt. Sit and enjoy it on a rainy afternoon. Great film that has endured for all these years and for many more to come.
Flawed but fun...
posted on 01 Jun 2009I remember watching this film when I was about 7 and loved every moment of it.Robin Hood: Prince of thieves is not a great film, but it is a very good one. From the beautiful scenery and the costumes, to the riveting action sequences and fights. Alan Rickman is very funny as the Sheriff of Nottingham (he's an awesome actor), Kevin Costner is suitably handsome and charming enough to make any girl want to be a damsel in distress, Morgan Freeman brings much-needed warmth to his character and makes him believable.If you can look past the early 90s hairstyles, dodgy accents and the occasional cheesy dialogue then this is just the perfect film to watch with all the family and recall (if you are my age)the nostaglia of childhood. 8 and a half/10 All together now... "Look in to my eyes, and you will see what you mean to me..."
One of the worst pieces of acting to grace the screen.
posted on 20 May 2009Why anyone would want to subject themselves to the painful spectacle of Kevin Costner's acting in this movie is beyond me. Likewise for Christian Slater. I had to see it twice to convince myself that indeed, I was not hallucinating the first time I saw this dud. Someone, please, please tell Kevin Costner that there is NOTHING more painful than a terrible accent. The story had potential, too bad it was ruined by the casting and alleged acting of all involved.
Rockin' Robin
posted on 26 Apr 2009This was the very first Kevin Costner movie I went to see at the theater.
I'd watched the Oscars that March in 1991 and saw all the Oscars that beautiful Dances With Wolves won, and I had always loved the story of Robin Hood as a kid. I had the best time with this movie. It was adventurous, funny, sad in places, and just a good time to escape for an afternoon.
That's what this movie is, a great way to escape from everyday drudgery.
Kevin was a great Robin Hood. Not too many people realize that the dialect coach was fired by the stupid director Reynolds. There wasn't time to go in and redub the accent. Plus, Kevin was still promoting Dances With Wolves.
The guy was tired, so he should be given some slack. He did his own stunts and everything. It's a sensational picture and he's rockin' Robin!
Big expectations, meager results...what a turkey!
posted on 08 Apr 2009I remember when ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THIEVES came out, I had extremely high hopes for it. The promotional stills and interviews looked promising, and I was expecting a high-spirited romp on par with Errol Flynn's celebrated film. Boy, was I in for a letdown.The movie starts off thrillingly, with Michael Kamen's spectacular score playing over medieval illustrations. But as soon as the opening credits end, the film shows its true colors…a dark, dank, gore-laden bore. Seriously, what Robin Hood movie worth its salt starts with a dismemberment scene? I couldn't even look at the screen for this sequence. Alas, it was only the beginning. We're later treated to a close-up of Robin slitting his hand open (and blood seeping thru his fingers) to swear revenge for his father, we see Will Scarlett take an arrow thru the hand, we see the Sheriff of Nottingham's witch slice her arm open and spit into her blood to make a prediction, we see a blood-filled egg cracked open in another scene, we see the Sheriff's face getting stitched up…really, how's a guy supposed to keep his popcorn down? How did this movie get away with a PG-13 rating? This is R-level stuff all the way. Of course, the movie's lack of color and light doesn't help much. I don't mind them foregoing the tights for this go-round, but why isn't Robin Hood wearing his signature Lincoln green? Why isn't Will Scarlett at least wearing SOMETHING red? Everybody's wearing browns and blacks, which makes the film monochromatic and dull. Sherwood Forest looks dirty and gloomy instead of inviting and exciting. The sets are so dark and shadowy that it's a miracle anyone can see where they're going. I'm sure John Graysmark and John Bloomfield did their best with the sets and costumes, but they would have been better served had they been colorful and well-lit. And the plot takes too much of the spirit out of the legend. Robin's such a sullen gloomy Gus that it's impossible to imagine the Merry Men taking him in, much less letting him lead them. Friar Tuck's reduced to a potbellied wimp (what happened to the swordsman who was more lethal than he looked?). Azeem, while a good character in his own right, really doesn't belong in the Robin Hood mythos. (He would have made a fine stand-alone character, though.) The witch has no business being in this film at all. And what purpose does it serve to make Will Scarlett Robin's traitorous half-brother? Director Kevin Reynolds tries to guide the movie with a swift and steady hand, but the film is such a dismal mess that he ultimately can't hold it together. It's so ponderous and serious that there's no sense of fun to be had. And hearing Kamen's glorious score accompanying the film makes the experience even worse. That music deserved to be in a much better movie, and it possesses the fun, exciting spirit that the movie itself utterly lacks.And then there's the acting. You couldn't find a better Sheriff of Nottingham than Alan Rickman, and he literally steals the show. But that's not too hard when everyone else stinks. Morgan Freeman does his best with Azeem, but again, this character doesn't belong in the saga. Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio doesn't have any spark as Marian, nor is she really beautiful enough to play the part (Olivia DeHavilland she ain't). Christian Slater can't make heads or tails of the tarnished Will. Brian Blessed is wasted as Robin's doomed dad, as is Michael Wincott as Guy of Gisbourne. Sean Connery's cameo as King Richard is fun, but pointless. The supporting players are so dull they aren't even worth mentioning. And Kevin Costner…great actor, but a LOUSY Robin Hood. He has neither the presence or the attitude this character requires, and he's always talking in a droning monotone. In no way does he come off as an inspiring leader; he's more apt to put you to sleep. Nor does he have the physicality the role demands. I haven't seen a Robin Hood this inept since Barrie Ingham in A CHALLENGE FOR ROBIN HOOD. Yeah, Costner gets in a few good shots with an arrow, but when Robin thoroughly sucks at swordplay and can't even take the Sheriff without help from Azeem, you know the filmmakers have screwed up. Robin Hood's supposed to be the last dude on the planet you want to mess with, not a graceless klutz. Errol Flynn would have trashed the Sheriff and his witch with both hands tied behind his back. Heck, even Cary Elwes' MEN IN TIGHTS incarnation and Disney's cartoon fox Robin would have made short work of them. This Robin…well, had he been killed at the end of the movie, I doubt anyone would have really cared. He's hardly the sort of guy you want to root for.Call me old-fashioned, but I don't like my swashbuckler epics to be gory, dark, and dismal exercises in tedium. I like them bright, colorful, exuberant, and fun…with a minimum of bloodletting. THE MASK OF ZORRO is a case in point, as are THE PRINCESS BRIDE, LORD OF THE RINGS and PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN. Compared to those films, PRINCE OF THIEVES falls horribly short. Compared to the Errol Flynn classic it so wants to topple, it's an even bigger failure. Maybe some day there'll be a good, modern Robin Hood movie that measures up to the Flynn version and truly revives the legend for a new generation. But for now, this film ain't it. Stick with the Flynn version.
Crap
posted on 02 Apr 2009Actually I like Robin Hood movies, but this one was a big disappointment because of two things:1. The story is pure cliché. I didn't expect it to be very sophisticated - we're talking about Robin Hood, aren't we? - but this is so without any charme and finesse, it almost bored me to tears.2. Kevin Costner. I don't know much of him in other movies and after this one I don't think I want to watch much more of him. In "Robin Hood" I saw a few trees who did better acting as Mr Costner - and why didn't the director ask him to take out this chewing gum he was mumbling on all the time?The only thing worth watching in this movie was Alan Rickman - and even his performance didn't convince me entirely because his character, the Sheriff of Nottingham, is written so poorly Rickman didn't get much of a chance to do more out of him as some silly comic.
A Beautiful Film
posted on 30 Mar 2009This film is anything but boring. It's a great film about the battle between good and evil, and the desire to overcome hardship and emerge victorious.There has been so much grumbling about the film's historical inaccuracy, but the whole story of Robin Hood is a legend. It is not a documentary. It is like a fairy tale, where the time period does not matter as much as the outcome of the story.Morgan Freeman, playing Robin's Moorish companion Azeem, was fantastic. The film could have easily been called "Azeem the Moor", because his role was so significant. He and Kevin Costner make a terrific on-screen duo. Alan Rickman was great as the wicked Sheriff of Nottingham, and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio was perfect for the role of the noble, yet feminine Maid Marian.Perhaps the only weak point of this film is Kevin Costner himself. His accent does not matter at all, because it is his portrayal of the character that leaves much to be desired. He appears depressed, when the legend of Robin Hood describes the character as one with an enthusiastic love for life. However, this does not dramatically affect the overall outcome of the movie - it's still a great film.With the beautiful scenery, excellent costumes, and witty dialogue, this film provides two hours of great entertainment.
Dont Take it so seriously
posted on 16 Feb 2009I'm astonised to see some of the comments regarding this film. Do people not realise that its not supposed to be a serious piece of cinema. Its a mindless adventure/Comedy with huge holes in the plot that nobody bothered to sort out because they really don't matter in this type of film. Kevin Costner is fine as the lead (The fact he kept the American accent should have made people realise the lighthearted nature of the film)and Alan Rickman is excellant as the villian.
For a evening of TV that you dont have to think too hard about, this is just about the perfect film.
Don't Stress Over The Shortcomings - Just Enjoy
posted on 07 Feb 2009The modern day interpretation of ye olde tale of those fearless folk of the forest going about robbing the rich, and giving to the poor is basically a very enjoyable romp. The story holds up well, jauntering along at a steady speed, with plenty of laughs a la Rickman along the way. The much argued over 'American Robin Hood' provides a decent performance - almost award winning if compared to the one Mr Costner recently produced. Of course, it pushes the bounds of reality more than ever so slightly to try and get the audience to believe this man with his disgustingly visible tan lines, as he steps out from a swim in the waterfall, really got so brown in the English countryside. His American drawl remains but possibly to the benefit of the film, as his strange attempt at what can only be described as Mockney, whilst shrouded in his poop covered sheet before the attempted rescue scenes, truly is the worst since Dick-Van-Dyke in Mary Poppins. In addition, it's difficult to see which English actor could really have been cast for the part way back in 1991. The need for a well-established star to lead the film would have been crucial and the lack of known English talent at the time was pitiful. Morgan Freeman does well in a role that doesn't really test him very much. The viewer gets the feeling that this is just a film he's doing to bide the time with until something juicy and actually worthy of his abilities comes along. The star of the show, undoubtedly, is Alan Rickman. Pantomime baddies rarely come any better, and his enthusiasm as the Sheriff of Nottingham exudes from every sharp one-liner sprinkled throughout the film. That, and his wonderfully over zealous running around the shop as things gradually deteriorate are reason alone to watch the film. The love interest is played adequately by Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, whilst Christian Slater isn't needed at all. Anyone else - possibly even an 'unknown' English actor - could have carried his part with their hands tied behind their back. However, Hollywood execs rule so another 'established' American star gets in and makes things that bit more unbelievable. Nevertheless, the rarely mentioned supporting cast does a fantastic job of convincing the audience that these people really are part of the legend of Sherwood Forest. It really is a 'Who's-Who' of cheap British television actors thrown together, mixed over a steady heat, with quite a good result at the end of it. Trying to remember the shows they were in proves a game in itself, when the endless character-building claptrap our Robin keeps coming out with gets a bit much. Kevin Reynolds redeems himself with this effort, a few years before the 'less-said-about-the-better' Waterworld. His direction makes the most of the forest backdrop, and the English countryside, whilst the castle scenes are suitably dimly lit without making the whole thing seem too serious. If you've never seen it, get it out or catch it on telly next time. Don't stress too much over the inconsistencies and shortcomings - that'll just spoil what is, in essence, a nice little Sunday evening flick. Rollicking fight scenes, a nice splattering of comedy and a few Hollywood heavyweights thrown in for the hell of it. Robin Hood's certainly come a long way. And all without a single pair of green, leg-hugging tights in sight.
A Clinic on How Not to Adapt Robin Hood
posted on 08 Jan 2009I never thought I would say that a parody is more accurate to the spirit of the legend than the adaptation. "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" is fairly well-made, but is also morbid and morose. I am not expecting Prince John to suck his thumb at the mention of his mother, or men wearing tights to defeat an inept Sheriff of Rottingham. Still, the legend of Robin Hood originated in ballads and needs to be treated with more lightness and fun than we see here.Lead actor Kevin Costner is the movies biggest hindrance. His Robin Hood has no panache. Despite the amount of time skillfully invested in the character, Robin comes across as a boring, introverted man. He has one inspiring speech, but it seems out of character for the uncharismatic and brooding leader. I give Costner credit for doing a reasonable job within the demands of the story. The people who decided to send the character Robin Hood in the direction the movie takes him deserve the blame.I have not yet seen "The Adventures of Robin Hood, the 1938 Errol Flynn movie. By all accounts, it is pleasurable and uplifting. In contrast, "Prince of Thieves" is a joyless, dreary affair. That tone is fine for other, more pensive stories set in the dark ages, but improper for the inspiring story of Robin Hood standing up for the defenseless. "Dragonheart" without the camp is closer to the proper tone.Speaking of "Dragonheart," it contains torture and enough violence for a PG-13 rating; the torture seen during "Prince of Thieves" is far more graphic and distressing. The movie misses with its first arrow by opening with a hand being chopped off and a close friend of Hood's being fatally arrowed in the chest. It proceeds to portray far too much cruelty, graphic violence and gore. Too many people die and we see evil men burn villages while displaying no regard for human life. The audience can hear characters report these developments instead of seeing it in such detail. The raids can also be shown more generally and with less emphasis on the people being harmed. Homeowners insurance did not exist in the 12th Century.The writers omit Prince John as the villain and focus entirely on the Sheriff of Nottingham (Alan Rickman). Rickman had total control over his portrayal of the Sheriff. His performance implies that he was stuck between hamming it up for laughs and being evil beyond the boundaries of a Robin Hood story. There is too much diluted Hans Gruber in Rickman's overacting. Most of the jokes are about Nottingham being a sexaholic, and several of them come at the end as he is attempting something tremendously unfunny. His order to cancel Christmas amused me.Guy of Gisborne (Michael Wincott) is the far more effective villain. Wincott gives a cool, straightforward performance. Seeing him converse with Rickman reveals how effective the Sheriff of Nottingham could have been without the excesses of Rickman's acting. Wincott does not project an overly wicked personality; he shows an understated ruthlessness without needing to raise his voice. Sadly, Wincott is not granted the screen time he deserves.Morgan Freeman plays a moor named Azeem who owes Robin a life-debt. My respect for Freeman knows no bounds. His presence helps the movie's head stay above water. Azeem's jokes are funny mostly because of Freeman. Azeem is a more natural and rousing leader than Robin. He stands out amongst the other characters not because he is black, not because he creates a telescope and other such helpful inventions, but because Freeman does not subscribe to the grim nature of the film. Michael McShane is the movie's third diamond in the rough with his jolly spin on Friar Tuck. That mind-set evaporates when Tuck encounters a less honorable clergyman in the movie's best scene.The action is competently devised and choreographed, although some of the fights contain repetitive redundancies. A different method of shooting it would be welcome. Director Kevin Reynolds zooms the camera too far in and frequently shows one combatant from behind. Especially during Robin's first meeting with Little John (Nick Brimble), one fighter blocks most of the action. Although the cuts tend to be too close together, "Prince of Thieves" includes several good shots. The final assault on Nottingham stands above the rest in all categories.The filmmakers' uncalled-for treatment of the material is most unpleasant right before Robin swings through a window to save Marion. The movie is PG-13, but no 13 year-old should be seeing what occurs there. Considering the talent involved and the skill of the screenplay, "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" could have been special. Even with its problems, there is not a boring moment in the 143 of them. Even with a tighter focus on the people and the plot, no strength can overcome the disjointed format of the story. After all, the legend is titled Robin Hood and His Merry Men.
Pale imitation of a recognized classic
posted on 15 Dec 2008You know what I'm talking about; "The Adventures of Robin Hood" starring Errol Flynn. Comparing that classic film with this Costner drek is like comparing "Road Warrior" with......"Water World"? The Flynn version is fun and light hearted. Costner's version is only pandering to modern sensibilities.C'mon, the movie reeks of political correctness Maid Marion fighting in black armor? Great a strong female character, Morgan Freeman as Robin's sidekick? Hey, the wise token ethnic character.(Sorry Morgan,you were good, but unnecessary)Christian Slater? Stick him in for more youth appeal. If you must watch it, fast forward through any parts that don't feature Morgan Freeman or Alan Rickman.
Costner as Robin Hood? Oh dear.
posted on 12 Dec 2008Getting past one of the worst examples of hero casting imaginable, this is enjoyable enough tosh to pass some time. It's all good melodramatic stuff with plenty of action, swordfights and nifty camera tricks with arrows. If it seems a bit tired towards the end, maybe it's just that the running time was a little excessive.Wisely, the Yank-heavy cast don't try to do the accents, and that's just as well. Rickman and Freeman easily steal the show, but that's not hard to do when the star is so listless.
One of the last great camp epics
posted on 09 Aug 2009Somewhat unfairly criticized take on this familiar tale. Well, okay, actually it's probably rightly criticized, for its anachronisms and factual inaccuracies, its bad accents, its violence, its overblown score and dreadful centerpiece song, its dramatic implausibility and inconsistent tone, and all the other things posters have noted here. But as has also been pointed out, it still manages to be surprisingly fun throughout. Even in the early nineties, they weren't really making overblown camp epics like 'The Ten Commandments' or 'Clash of the Titans' anymore, and if you look at it in those terms, 'Prince of Thieves' is actually one of the last of a very proud cinematic line. Recommended for ironists particularly, of course. 7.5 out of 10.