Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves

The long story, the acting, the dialogue, the costumes, the lighting and some of the camera work make this feel more like a mid-level budget TV show than a summer blockbuster.  The whole thing feels very fake and kind of uncool.

But first I gotta get something off my chest.  I can’t stand the costume design in this picture.  A lot of people are dressed in these rags that look cumbersome and they’re like someone’s idea of what old English folks would wear without doing any actual research.  They look too much like what they actually are: cheap Hollywood costumes that were all designed by one person which makes everyone look the same.  These are outfits that you would find in a theme park stunt show (which would be appropriate), not a major film production.  And Reynolds uses this same exact look in Waterworld.  I swear they’re recycled, they just modified the getups slightly. 

And this is part of that uncool thing I brought up.  Out of the four Kevin Reynolds movies I’ve seen I only like one of them (The Count of Monte Cristo (2002)) and another is just ok (187).  But this and Waterworld are sister films.  They both have the same feel and look.  Between the two I’m not sure which is better.  Robin Hood is more competently made so it makes me want to pick that one.  But I have to admit that Waterworld is a unique idea and it’s just a weird flick.  So it actually might be a little more interesting in that regard.  But you wouldn’t be seen with either fucking movie.  It’s not cool to own these films, especially Robin Hood.

Just like how I’m sure no one did research on the costumes, I’m sure no one did research on anything else.  This production of the old tales comes off as such a Hollywood douchebag vision.  I could see this guy in the initial meeting saying, “we got to have a big explosion at the end, we have to include a black side kick so it’s like those really popular buddy cop movies like Lethal Weapon and Another 48 Hrs., we need to cast someone in the lead part who’s smokin’ hot right now (who gives a shit if they’re right for the role, they’ll bring in a ton of people to see it), Robin needs a long lost brother character too, for the love interest have it be a childhood friend so there’s already a connection, the bad guy needs to be flat out evil with no redeeming qualities, Robin will encounter and bond with his band of merry men over a misunderstanding of some kind, oh and we need a big brief cameo ‘cause the audience will love that shit, etc.”  I think you get the idea.  This is a pure Hollywood birth. 

But it’s not that this movie isn’t watchable because it certainly is.  You definitely get the feeling though that every decision made about the film was money driven and that any artistic choices were either quashed altogether or subdued as much as possible.       

Case in point is who they cast in the title role.  Kevin Costner had a string of hit pictures leading up to this one including Bull Durham, Field of Dreams and Dances with fucking Wolves.  He was huge.  The problem is Costner isn’t a very versatile actor and can’t play just any role.  Robin Hood proves that.  Costner gives maybe his worst performance ever and definitely does the worst job in this (along with Christian Slater who is probably equally as bad).  Every single word out of his mouth sounds like he’s reading it for the first time.  Not only that but he doesn’t look the part either.  Aside from the very beginning when Robin is in the Jerusalem prison Costner looks like some fuckin’ American dude.  Big surprise: that’s because he is.  He should’ve had a beard or different hair or something to make him look like he actually gave a shit about this thing.  It comes off like Costner couldn’t be bothered to prepare for the role in any way.  Although he apparently tried to do an English accent but it was so horrible they had to nix the idea.  I do agree with that.  If the actor can’t do the accent then they shouldn’t force it.

Morgan Freeman?  I’m not for or against him in general.  He’s just kinda there and takes on the elder wise man part fine.  He also serves partially as comic relief (this task was divided up between many characters) by pointing out differences between his culture (Moorish) and Robin’s (English).  You know, hilarious classic Yakov Smirnoff type shit.

Marian is played by Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio (The Abyss, The Color of Money) and she probably gives the best performance along with Freeman.  I mean she’s not as good as she usually is but she works with what she’s got.  She goes through a range of emotions like anger, happiness, sadness, nervousness, sacredness (?) and she even goes halfway with the English accent which makes her sound more like a snotty American but whatever.

The saving grace of the cast should’ve been Alan Rickman but he’s not that good in this.  He plays one of those pathetic villains.  He’s a pussy and a whiner, not macho at all.  And no matter how hard he tries shit never goes his way, not even once.  It’s a little sad because we never see him score a real victory so he’s just some asshole that keeps getting screwed over.  My heart doesn’t really go out to him though because he doesn’t let up on his jackass personality.  Like at the end of the movie he tries to rape Marian and I’m not gonna get behind someone that does that shit.  Supposedly Rickman had total freedom to do what he wanted with the role and that does seem to make sense.  I could see the studio wanting a much less prissy and much more traditionally bad ass masculine motherfucker, the kind that had been dominating action films for a long while.  But Rickman already played one of those in Die Hard just a few years earlier so I’m sure he wanted to change things up.  I can respect that.

Unfortunately Michael Wincott (The Crow, Strange Days, Metro) is wasted in his role as Rickman’s number two.  He’s not in it very much and whenever he is he’s getting his ass handed to him.  I don’t believe him as someone so weak.  Wincott should pretty much always be the one kicking the ass. 

Speaking of action, there’s a fair amount here.  In that Hollywood douchebag meeting for this film he must’ve strongly insisted that this not be rated R.  Widen the net and rake in as much money as possible.  This makes for some awkward sequences.  Like Robin Hood shoots an arrow into a guy’s forehead at least twice (one of those is a flaming arrow too) but they had to find angles to shoot that stuff from so it wouldn’t look like the fucking horrific thing that it is.  Blood is kept to a minimum as well.  But at least they weren’t afraid to kill people.  A lot of henchmen get murdered and that’s a blessing from the era that this movie was made in.  It looks like most or all of the action scenes weren’t shot with a set choreography in mind but rather they just tried a bunch of stuff and pieced it together later.  The sorta messy editing during those parts seems to point to that.

So overall this is not a great film.  There’s a lot to dislike here.  It’s lame and contrived.  I never got caught up in the story or cared very much for any of the characters.  But despite all the shit I said I don’t think it’s completely terrible.  We’re given some adventure, some swordplay, some arrow…play and it’s a fairly big story so there is some scope to it.  The sets and scenes that were shot on location look great.  The lighting at times can be very moody and wonderful but at others it makes absolutely no sense (there’s one scene where it’s completely overcast outside but when Robin steps inside the building the sun is gleaming through a stained glass window).  So there are some fun little moments.

In the end though, this is no one’s favorite version of Robin Hood.  I remember the ’38 one starring Errol Flynn being fucking awesome but it’s been a long time.  Also, Robin Hood: Men in Tights is a direct response to this Costner one and I think it’s really funny so you might want to check that out too.