Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves

Robin Hood is among one of the most recognizable figures in stories and folklore in western culture, garnering a stardom among pop culture to the point that various books, fables, parodies, and a countless amount of film rendition have been created throughout history. It makes sense that the character would become so popular through his ”rob from the rich to feed the poor” allowing for general people to praise and cheer for someone whose does criminal action but is always against corrupt officials who exploit those belong them and showcasing one of the early examples of ”fight the power” presented in an ethical manner. While most of his portrayals early in cinema are still seen as classic, mainly the 1922 silent film portrayed by Douglas Fairbanks and the 1938 film portrayed by Errol Flynn, they haven’t been as successful in more recent times, with the one of discussion today, the 1991 film, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, being one on the chopping block. in 1194, English nobleman Robin of Locksley (played by Kevin Costner) escapes a Turkish prison with a Moorish companion named Azeem (played by Morgan Freeman), with whom he returns to England with to discover that his father has been killed and deemed a traitor by the evil Sheriff of Nottingham (played by Alan Rickman) for remaining loyal to the now absent King of England. Now an outlaw, he escapes the sheriff’s forces and finds refuge in the forest, coming across a band of outlaws, led by Little John (played by Nick Brimble). Gaining their trust and support, he plans to disrupt the sheriff’s rule by robbing the rich and giving to the poor and training this bad of outlaws into a formidable force against the Sheriff. Things become array when Robin’s love, Maid Marian (played by Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio) who came to provide aid for those within the forest, is kidnapped and forced to wed the sheriff in a bid to infuriate and lure out Robin, who the Sheriff is itching to kill off once and for all. The race is to save his love, free the people from under the sheriff’s abusive rule and earn the heroic title of Robin Hood that will be echoed throughout the ages. Even though the film did very well at the box office, grossing more than $390 million worldwide against a $48 million budget, making it the second highest-grossing film of 1991, the critical consensus for the film was pretty mixed with many having problems with the screenplay and Costner’s performance as the titular character. While the film does contain its fair share of flaws, Robin Hood has a lot of likeable characters, a fun kinetic energy, a good sense of humor and does a good job keeping you entertained for a good chunk of its running time.

The story seems to follow the traditional Robin Hood folktale, from its set-up, location, characters, and even realistic components like the inclusion of the Third Crusade, but the film never falls under the pretense that it’s based on any sense of fact. There is a swashbuckling flair to this film that is synonymous with the figure but could easily clash with the sparks of dramatic elements that are included in this story. For the most part, it doesn’t impact much because it sticks to the core of the folktale and by extension Robin Hood and makes it clear why he’s an important figure in pop culture. It has the light upbeat sense of adventure that the character naturally fits into, but it also contains a slight darkness that comes through in some of their uncomfortable moments that highlight discussions of race and abuse of power. It’s in an exaggerated reality that doesn’t feel gritty and real, but it isn’t mindless either and doesn’t feel like incredibly jarring when they are brought up. With that said, the tone of oddly goofy and slightly childish in nature, almost coming across like out of a British comedy sketch (Monty Python and the Holy Grail doesn’t feel too far off from this), but with this film is characterized and presented, it actually does work in some sections. Since the film portrays itself as larger-than-life and a little hoaky by design, this light-hearted comedic spin fits well in this environment and it leads to some decent moment of verbal comedy that can be a little out-there and extreme but have the ability to suck you in to the point where you buy it (though the physical comedy is only done averagely by comparison). A lot of criticism was directed at the screenplay for this film, and the two who wrote the film (Pen Densham and John Watson) don’t have a lot of credits to their names from a writing perspective, so it didn’t help their cases (a project they both share was a 1990 buddy film called, A Gnome Named Gnorm). In many ways, you can feel where they struggled as many important character motivations aren’t established at the right time, either coming out of nowhere and appearing too late to gain any sort of investment or lasting too long to the point of annoyance (Will Scarlet’s rivalry with Robin isn’t particularity engaging). The film does drag for a long period of time during the middle where the plot seems to take a sideline and instead focuses a good amount of time just hanging around in the forest which doesn’t add a lot to the overall picture, but once the film returns to its main objective and continues in its portrayal of the Robin Hood energy, it is handled well. The movie isn’t held together by the films twists or surprises, but rather the characters and how they interact.

The characters in this movie are very wholesome, distinct, and authentic. Most of them do a good job of emulating the attitude and energy of how people during the time period the film is set in would talk, even if the actors’ natural voices can sometimes clash with how they’re supposed to act and sound. The acting does have a slightly over-the-top feel that could be distracting if poorly handled, but the tone and environment match it to a point where it doesn’t feel distracting. Ironically, the one who doesn’t get this courtesy is the lead himself, as Kevin Costner is very bland, emotionless, and boring throughout, which does sour a chunk of the enjoyment for this film as he’s supposed to be the lively and dashing hero. The character of Robin isn’t written to be interesting in any unique way outside of just the basics that the folktale provides, and Costner doesn’t make the character stand out as anything distinct or lively in a world of lively energetic eccentric personalities, he just feels like the exact wrong choice for this kind of character with poor line deliveries, a shaky accent that seems to change randomly between scenes, and fails to have chemistry with anyone, and you’d figure that the director of the film, Kevin Reynolds, who is a frequent collaborator with Costner would know how to direct him in a believable manner (although he did go on to direct Waterworld, so that might reveal so holes in the armour). Christian Slater is also pretty annoying and feels completely out of place in a film filled with actors that match the world they set up whereas he feels like was ripped right out of a teen heartthrob romance. Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio as Marian has some good comedic moments and acts quite well, but her sole purpose of being the damsel to be saved leaves her feeling pretty wasted (not helped out by the fact that she is forced to have a romance with someone with an emotional range of a plank of wood). Morgan Freeman is very good but has little involvement in most of the film and is held back by a distractingly bad accent. Nick Brimble as Little John is lovably cocky, the crazy witch played by Geraldine McEwan is enjoyably dramatic, the sheriff’s cousin played by Michael Wincott sounds ridiculous in the best way possible, and the group of thieves all have a likeably idiotic feel to all of them. Easily the best part of this movie is Alan Rickman as the Sheriff of Nottingham. While everybody else is performing at a level that is kind of ridiculous, he holds nothing back and gives a performance that is so over-the-top, yet so entertaining that it’s impossible not to enjoy it. He’s extremely funny and entertaining, but also captures a slight intimidation and insanity in his voice, it’s a portrayal that’s going so hard into being a cartoonish villain that it’s simply a delight from the facial expressions to the various degrees of shouting, to the ridiculous lines, and Rickman never misses a beat throughout the entire film.

For a Robin Hood film, you want the action to be something that sticks with you, and sadly the action in this film is sloppily put together with fasted-paced editing and rushed chaotic shots. Once and a while there’s a cool-looking stunt that would almost being embarrassing to not include as films from several decades prior were pulling off groundbreaking stunts for the same purpose, but it’s quickly forgotten with how quick and sporadic the scenes are put together. It doesn’t have any interesting creative set pieces in the film and despite how hard the actors are putting in effort to make it look authentic, it doesn’t quite hit the mark. It has a feeling of energy and passion, but it doesn’t present anything real grand or remarkable, rather just standard especially for the character. The climax itself does have a decent amount of suspense and build-up surrounding it as it features the typical ”save-the-maiden, defeat the villain, escape the area” lay out to it that is formulaic but can work if done right, but the pay-off is very mundane and generic. The sets looks pretty cool and rustic, giving off a nice medieval vibe along with a good feeling of authenticity. All the places have such personality from how they are shot and the colors and lighting that accompany them. The music by Michael Kamen is a pleasant piece, providing a score that carries with it a nice sense of old-fashion heroism and a jovial nature that fits with the environment, time period and atmosphere quite nicely.

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves has a lot of fun elements that make it an entertaining film to watch. It has good characters, a great villain, it has nice sceneries, it has passion in the right places, it has a lot of fun actors, and it has a great comedic edge without losing the sense of realism and authenticity so the audience can still take the film seriously. It’s a shame the film forgot to make Robin Hood an interesting character even though he is the focus, especially since the other characters are so much more interesting. If the film was better paced, the action was better, and Robin was made more interesting, it could have been an even better film. The original films featuring Fairbank and Flynn are much more iconic and considering how divisive this film still is to many people, it clearly had some things it needed to improve upon, but there are certainly far worse portrayals of the story out there (Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe made sure of that).