Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves

Warner Bros. | Release Date: June 14, 1991

7.0	USER SCORE Generally favorable reviews based on 52 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Watch Now

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

popdodMar 22, 2020

Kevin Costner seems to not even be trying, his acting is monotone and dull, doesn't even attempt an English accent. The other characters were interesting and casted well. The movie itself feels small, like without the film look, bombasticKevin Costner seems to not even be trying, his acting is monotone and dull, doesn't even attempt an English accent. The other characters were interesting and casted well. The movie itself feels small, like without the film look, bombastic classical music soundtrack, and celebrity cast, it would seem like a TV movie or syndicated fantasy drama series. It would have benefitted from more sets, using more locations, hiring more extras to make everything seem more real and alive. It's not a complete dud though, I recommend it if you're into films set in that general era (middle ages / medieval) and are looking for another one.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

Compi24Jul 17, 2019

Oh, man.

Anyone who looks to this film as the bar for which all other Robin Hood adaptations have to measure up to should take a lap. Or maybe a few laps. What an unmitigated mess. "Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves" incorporates every badOh, man.

Anyone who looks to this film as the bar for which all other Robin Hood adaptations have to measure up to should take a lap. Or maybe a few laps. What an unmitigated mess. "Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves" incorporates every bad trope, gimmick, and studio miscue that defined the issues with what would become 1990's filmmaking. It's a tonal mish-mash of bad, half-attempts at accents, uninspired sub-plotting, all-over-the-place character work, random-ass fish-eyed close-ups, and Bryan Adams music. What's more, it's long, sitting pretty at an unforgivable two and half hours in length. Boy, oh, boy. Why didn't I hate this? Did it have something to do with Alan Rickman's desperate attempts at injecting life into this otherwise lifeless cash grab? It might've. Are the action scenes watchable, for the most part? Yeah, they are. But other than these two aspects, I cannot believe what we -- the moviegoing public -- fell for back in 1991. $390 million. My God. We were practically asking for "Waterworld" to happen four years later from the same director/actor pairing.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

gzayas91Jul 31, 2018

this is not the worst, but not very good. Costner is miscast, the rest of them were okay. I don't get why they didn't have King John and have the distaste scene when the Sheriff was trying to rape Marian in the church.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

Voodoo123Dec 3, 2022

90's nostalgia, terrible accents, quirky camera work, questionable costumes and dialogue aside - it's clear this was a labour of love for the cast and crew which still shines through the messy choreography, plot, direction and editing.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

FilipeNetoJan 29, 2021

Medieval-themed films are lovely, but rarely meet the minimum requirements of historical rigor, preferring to create a false idea of what the Middle Ages were like and how people behaved. This film is no exception, so if you want a film moreMedieval-themed films are lovely, but rarely meet the minimum requirements of historical rigor, preferring to create a false idea of what the Middle Ages were like and how people behaved. This film is no exception, so if you want a film more historically respectful please look for another option. If your intention is just to have some fun, go ahead.

In fact, this film is a typical medieval blockbuster of entertainment, full of sword fights, epic rescues and a lady waiting to be saved. Inspired by the classic legends of Robin Hood, they tell a story invented around the characters we already know.

According to the script, Robin is the son of an English nobleman who traveled with his king on the Third Crusade, becoming a prisoner of Muslims. After escaping, with the help of a companion in arms, he is saved by that companion, who dies next. From there, accompanied by a Moor who becomes his bodyguard, he returns to England to find his home burned down, his father murdered and his lands taken by the violent, unjust and diabolical Sheriff of Nottingham. From there, marked as an outcast, he will join the bandits of the forest and devote his life to avenging his father by fighting the Sheriff, and also to protecting Lady Marion, the sister of the man who died to save him.

This film was made during the golden age of Kevin Costner's career. He had just been successful in "Dances With Wolves" the previous year, and will reach the top of his career the following year, with "Bodyguard". And in this film he does everything he has to do: to shine, be the hero, save the day and fight against evil, embodied by Allan Rickman, another great actor who excels in his task of being worthy of our hatred, playing his character in a sinisterly funny way. I'm sure he was having fun with it. In addition to them, we have an excellent interpretation of Morgan Freeman, with touches of humor. Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio is very boring and would never be my choice to play such a character, as she is unable to create any emotional depth or to have some chemistry with Costner. Christian Slater is annoying and serves almost nothing. Geraldine McEwan, Michael McShane and Nick Brimble are good at supporting roles, having little to do.

As I have already mentioned, the film has nothing to do with the Middle Ages. It's just a modern film, with characters with very modern attitudes, but who dress like people from the Middle Ages. After all, this was already predictable in a film of this kind, where creative freedom weighs more than historical rigor. So, we have elements, some weapons, clothing and props from the 14th century in a film that is supposedly set at the time of the Third Crusade, in the 12th century. Incredible, they had time machines?! Nah, just a screenwriter deaf to the warnings of a good historical advisor. For this reason, I give a median note to the props, scenery and wardrobe: they may be beautiful, but they are out of place and out of season. The cinematography, however, is quite good and the soundtrack is memorable.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

DawdlingPoetNov 28, 2021

This seemed unnecessarily cheesy and over the top in a way that just didn't work for me. It's certainly entertaining and features some top names in the cast but I couldn't take it especially seriously. I found it interesting that MorganThis seemed unnecessarily cheesy and over the top in a way that just didn't work for me. It's certainly entertaining and features some top names in the cast but I couldn't take it especially seriously. I found it interesting that Morgan Freeman's character, Azeem, is apparently a Muslim, or certainly someone who talks about Allah in any case. This is an ok, watchable film, it just isn't quite good as such, hence my middling rating. Oh and Kevin Costner in the titular role doesn't seem very obviously English as all, although Alan Rickman as the token bad guy is certainly amusing, even though it does come across as very much a panto type performance (but then perhaps that's to be expected?). I wouldn't specifically recommend this film as such, no but if you like somewhat old fashioned films of old folk tales then you may enjoy this.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews