Robin Hood: Príncipe de los ladrones

I don't really like Keven Costner but I like him a far sight better than I do Russel Crowe, and while his movies do tend towards the "revisionist" style, there is something to be said for this version of Robin Hood. I will freely admit the Errol Flynn version is superior in story but this movie has style where it may lack substance.

Apparently, Kevin Costner does not know how to pull off a character with such depth and range as Robin Hood. Whether he lacks the ability to interpret the character or just lacks as an actor I have never cared enough to determine but his failings are upheld widely by the team of Alan Rickman and Michael Wincott who absolutely steal the show.

This is not to say that this version of the story is without merit. It is worth seeing if only for Morgan Freeman, Wincott, and Rickman. And I'll guarantee you that this version will absolutely SHINE in comparison to Crowe's Nottingham (due out 2010). Honestly, the only actor MORE wrong for Robin Hood than Kevin Costner is Russell Crowe. Oy.

All in all? This is dark and sweeping. It is fun and entertaining and I LIKE IT!

It rates a 6.8/10 from...

the Fiend :.

Although i turned my nose up at this film when first watched fifteen years ago, a second appraisal and a few grey hairs later forces me to see it for what it truly is; a great swashbuckling comedy romp.

As the pace built, my unease at the somewhat incongruous accents dissipated and i was left to enjoy a great film with some fine performances. Notably from Michael McShane as Friar Tuck and Alan Rickman as the evilly comic Sheriff of Nottingham.

The pace of the film rarely slackens, building up to a rip roaring finish.

Enjoy.

Wow, this film seems to have annoyed some people. What a fuss about it being historically inaccurate, or that Azeem found the Chinease invention of gunpowder etc etc. WHO CARES! Don't nit pick at a film like this and you'll enjoy it. As for Kevin Costner not having an English accent, I don't really care, since it's a lot better then the other Robin Hood movie that was made in England, and was unlucky enough to be released at the same time. (I think it was simply called 'Robin Hood') OK,so Robin Hood IS supposed to be English, and yeah, Kev Costner could at least have tried an English accent, but if we're going to go that far, then they may as well have got an English actor instead of an American one, but somehow, I don't think Costner could have been bettered. He makes an excellent Robin Hood. Alan Rickman is brilliant as the hilarious Sherrif of Nottingham ('Shut up you TWIT!')It's great fun, and one of those film to watch with your feet up and a big bar of chocolate.....

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves was one of the best films of 1991, a triumph even over the special effects hype of Terminator 2: Judgement Day.

Despite the critics' complete and utter distaste for the film, I found it fun, well-acted, and fast-paced. Great performances abound including Morgan Freeman as the Moorish warrior Azeem, Alan Rickman as the hysterical Sheriff of Nottingham, and Kevin Costner as our stalwart Robin of Locksley.

There are great action sequences including the battle against the hired Celts and Nottingham's soldiers and the final confrontation at the climax of the film.

Finally, don't be put off by Costner's lack of an English dialect. It doesn't hurt the film at all, and is just something critics were instantly attracted to, as it is their job to find faults.

Highly recommended.

Escaping death in Jerusalem, Robin of Locksley returns to his England home with Moor companion Azeem in tow. However he finds his home burnt to the ground, his father slandered and murdered and the poor marginalised to within an inch of their lives. Branded an outlaw by the evil Sheriff of Nottingham, Robin flees into Sherwood Forrest where he brings together a group of ragtag rebels "led" by a man called John Little. As his popularity grows, Robin becomes a massive thorn in the side of the Sheriff, forcing him to take harsher action.

Younger viewers coming to this film on television may not appreciate that this film was made at a time when the presence of Kevin Costner was a bonus and indeed almost a selling point. Yes, I know this sounds like crazy talk from an older man who has seen too many movies to be good for him but it is true and Robin Hood is a fine example of a so-so film that was built partly on his star power. Of course the downside of this is that the film itself is not that good because it has his and others' names to let it carry it. The plot is well known but rather annoyingly touched with modernisms and Americanisms to the detriment of the telling (whether this be the accents, the errors or just the attitude). This also contributes to the lack of depth in the film and generally, although it looks slick, it doesn't provide anything in the way of emotional engagement – despite the fact that it spawned the manipulative and saccharine Bryan Adams hit that seemed to taint everyone's wedding back in 1992.

The direction is glossy but it cannot get to the heart of anything and Reynolds also fails to get that much out of his cast. As a result Costner simply trades on his rather stiff charm, occasionally enjoying himself but generally taking the whole thing too seriously. Rickman effortlessly dominates the film by chewing the scenery in each and every scene – his colourful performance makes Costner (who can be good) look as stiff as a board. I've never seen the appeal of Mastrantonio at the best of times and this is not the best of times. She is dull and pretty poor all round. Freeman is a good face but is a modernisation too far. Slater is pointless although support from Wincott, Blessed, Brimble and a few others is good if not that great.

Overall then this is a rather joyless spectacle but one that is glossy enough to perhaps do the job for undemanding viewers. It isn't that much fun and the attempts at emotional engagement are mostly cloying and sentimental. The cast are mixed but the only one able to inject life into the rather stiff material is Rickman, who easily livens his scenes but cannot carry the film. Worth a look if you are in a undemanding mood but just don't expect anything more than the blockbuster basics.