I 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.
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.