Sat 14 Jan 2012
Reviewed by Dan Stumpf: ROBIN HOOD, PRINCE OF THIEVES (1991).
Posted by Steve under Action Adventure movies , Reviews[6] Comments
ROBIN HOOD, PRINCE OF THIEVES. Warner Brothers, 1991. Kevin Costner, Morgan Freeman, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, Christian Slater, Alan Rickman, Geraldine McEwan, Michael McShane. Director: Kevin Reynolds.
A lot of critics reviewed this film by dumping on Costner’s ego, just as they did with Brando twenty years ago, Welles twenty years before that, and D.W. Griffith twenty years before that. The few who paid any attention to the film itself carped about Costner’s accent — like, we go to Swashbuckler Movies for the Acting? — and delighted in making invidious comparisons with the Erroll Flynn version.
Now I like the Flynn/Curtiz/DeHavilland/Keighly /Rathbone/Warner’s-Stock-Company Robin Hood a lot. It’s great fun and very pretty to look at, but I have to say
that it lacks any sense of dramatic development, due largely to the fact that the Basil Rathbone never gets to do anything very interesting, so Robin Hood doesn’t encounter any really substantial peril until the last few minutes, when Rathbone proves a worthy but out-classed opponent.
The result is that Erroll Flynn, sexy as he is, comes off like a Hero in a Plastic Bubble and the film itself fails to generate much tension.
The Costner Robin Hood, by contrast, offers some very substantial Heavies indeed, including a delightful Alan Rickman as the Sheriff, a slimy Guy of Gisbourne, a bona-fide Witch, and a pack of berserker Celts swarming atmospherically through the woods, jumping, screaming and generally having a hell of a time.
The baddies in this one have so much fun, in fact, that what with Robin Hood having to be in it too, the whole thing gets to be just a trifle too long [143 minutes; 155 minutes, extended version]. Still, it’s a very nicely-done bit of film, and I recommend it.
January 14th, 2012 at 6:32 pm
My fault for listening to the critics. I’ve never seen this one, not in the theater, on cable, video tape or DVD. I know Kevin Costner took a beating for some of the movies he made, but as far as I’ve been able to tell, he never deserved it.
January 14th, 2012 at 7:29 pm
I’ve seen this film…and I’m speechless over this review.
I will say irrespective of the merits of this specific film; that defending attacks based on Costner’s overweening egotism by saying Welles, Brando, and D.W. Griffith were accused of the same elevates Costner to their level(s). Uhhhh, no.
January 14th, 2012 at 7:49 pm
I didn’t read that first paragraph in quite the same way you did, Rick, only that in dumping on this movie, the critics decided to weigh in on Costner as much as — if not more — than the film itself, which is the way I remember what happened.
As much as I enjoy Costner’s movies, and maybe I’m the only one, I wouldn’t elevate him to the ranks of the other three either, even on his best of days. (Though, as an afterthought, maybe on some of their worst.)
January 14th, 2012 at 11:59 pm
Remember this film was just after Costner had won the Oscar for directing DANCES WITH WOLVES. The critics were expecting more from this film.
January 15th, 2012 at 12:02 am
Let me add that I know Costner didn’t direct it, but he was closely associated with Reynolds and the production problems.
January 15th, 2012 at 6:14 pm
I like Costner (THE UNTOUCHABLES is one of my favourite films), but the Flynn movie is the best version of Robin Hood by a country mile. The script was really the first to bring all of the aspects of the legend together in a satisfying way (the Fairbanks version is a mess), but it also works as a story in its own right. Like you say, it’s beautiful to look at, but it’s also exciting, funny and very comforting. The Costner has the sublimely gorgeous Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, but I’ve never quite forgiven the script for having Robin tell Morgan Freeman’s character that, upon arrival in Dover, they will be in Nottingham by NIGHTFALL!!!!!!!!!