Review of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) by Adam W — 11 May 2010

1: I'm amazed films like this get made. How could these otherwise quality actors/actresses, for the most part, think it was a good idea? Didn't the extremely low quality of the script and ineptness of seemingly everyone involved in the film tip them off that it was not a worthwhile endeavor? The performances and script are absolutely atrocious.

This longer version on Blu-Ray looks okay, but it's prolonged nature simply makes it that much more painful. I'll gladly take The Adventures of Robin Hood, Robin and Marian, Robin Hood: Men in Tights, Disney's Robin Hood, or the new unseen Robin Hood any day of the week.

Freeman, Costner, Mastrantinio, Slater, Rickman, McEwan, etc are all awful. Especially Rickman. For years I assumed he was an awful actor after seeing this. He is actually anything but, but this performance does make one wonder.

One also wonders how Kevin Reynolds can also direct reasonably quality pictures like The Count of Monte Cristo and Tristan + Isolde (he does seem to have a thing for period costume pieces). I think it's permissible to place a large degree of the blame for the picture on the main writer, who doesn't seem to have done anything worthwhile in his career.

The film would be alright if it took itself a little less seriously, because then we could forgive it some of the awfulness, but it purports to be a reasonably serious film. It's as if the director didn't sit down with the actors and explain to them which tone they were going for.

Additionally, he was unable to decide in the editing room either. Thus, it is an inconsistent mess. Another issue with the film is that it creates no sense of place. It seems to have been made exclusively on artificial sets with no notion of how to expand the film into the world around it.

It could even be described as claustrophobic, which is necessary for some films, but certainly not for this one.