|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 14, 2021 14:22:03 GMT
Man, a lot of my favorite movies seemed to come out in June. Jurassic Park, Raiders of the Lost Ark and now Prince of Thieves?  Admittedly the movie is massively uneven in terms of tone but remains enormously entertaining. I love Alan Rickman as the Sheriff of Nottingham (one of cinema's most underrated heavies) plus the supporting cast such as Morgan Freeman; Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, Mike McShane; Nick Brimble; and even Christian Slater. Whoops forgot Sean Connery cameo! The soundtrack is amazing and there's lot of action. I think Kevin Costner got a little too much flack for not having an accent. |
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Jun 14, 2021 14:39:34 GMT
I've always enjoyed it. It's a hell of a lot more fun than Ridley Scott's version.
I love how they were clearly going for a Jack Nicholson Joker sort of thing with Rickman's sheriff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jun 14, 2021 15:27:30 GMT
Not to bad, as far as i remember.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 14, 2021 15:34:42 GMT
I'm a fan. It is a very flawed, but also very entertaining take on the Robin Hood legend.
Costner and Freeman have great chemistry, Alan Rickman hams it up perfectly and it is also a very quotable movie with some iconic moments and a memorable score.
"I'm going to cut your heart out with a spoon" - Sheriff of Nottingham
|
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Jun 14, 2021 15:40:33 GMT
Great film, I remember being really surprised at the theater when Connery shows up at the end. I thought that was amazing. Mom too, he was her favorite Bond.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 14, 2021 15:44:11 GMT
I've always enjoyed it. It's a hell of a lot more fun than Ridley Scott's version.
I love how they were clearly going for a Jack Nicholson Joker sort of thing with Rickman's sheriff. Yes it is. Ridley Scott's version is a depressing bore and it doesn't even have the visual flair and style that his movies normally do. Russell Crowe makes for a dull Robin Hood.
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Jun 14, 2021 15:48:09 GMT
I've always enjoyed it. It's a hell of a lot more fun than Ridley Scott's version.
I love how they were clearly going for a Jack Nicholson Joker sort of thing with Rickman's sheriff. Yes it is. Ridley Scott's version is a depressing bore and it doesn't even have the visual flair and style that his movies normally do. Russell Crowe makes for a dull Robin Hood. Yeah, you know it's really a damn shame too, because in theory you'd think someone as talented as Scott would make a great Robin Hood film, which I do believe he could have done under different circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jun 14, 2021 15:57:33 GMT
Yes it is. Ridley Scott's version is a depressing bore and it doesn't even have the visual flair and style that his movies normally do. Russell Crowe makes for a dull Robin Hood. Yeah, you know it's really a damn shame too, because in theory you'd think someone as talented as Scott would make a great Robin Hood film, which I do believe he could have done under different circumstances. The script originally turned the story on its head, making Robin Hood a true villain with the Sheriff just trying to bring law to the land. It's a brilliant idea that would've been fun to see. For whatever reason, Scott sat on it for a while and after discussing it with Crowe, just ended up making a generic Robin Hood movie. The Costner flick is a ton of fun from start to finish. The grumbles about his lack of accent are fair (wouldn't it bother you if they made Billy the Kid a brit or something?), but I can look past it and enjoy the film regardless. After all these years, it's still a fantastic summer adventure film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mulder and Scully on Jun 14, 2021 16:11:44 GMT
Haven't seen it ages but I remember enjoying this a lot. Rickman was great as the Sherriff of Nottingham and Costner is terrific in the lead role.
A great old school action adventure movie and easily the best Robin Hood movie ever made, IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jun 14, 2021 16:25:15 GMT
Infinitely better than the Ridley Scott version. They really blew an opportunity with that one. The Connery cameo was ruined if you read Premiere magazine. They published a picture of him and people wrote in mad at them for it.
I think the 1938 and 1952 versions are the best I have seen although I like the Sword of Sherwood Forest as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 14, 2021 16:28:57 GMT
Yeah, you know it's really a damn shame too, because in theory you'd think someone as talented as Scott would make a great Robin Hood film, which I do believe he could have done under different circumstances. The script originally turned the story on its head, making Robin Hood a true villain with the Sheriff just trying to bring law to the land. It's a brilliant idea that would've been fun to see. For whatever reason, Scott sat on it for a while and after discussing it with Crowe, just ended up making a generic Robin Hood movie. The Costner flick is a ton of fun from start to finish. The grumbles about his lack of accent are fair (wouldn't it bother you if they made Billy the Kid a brit or something?), but I can look past it and enjoy the film regardless. After all these years, it's still a fantastic summer adventure film. The grumbles I have heard is that his accent is inconsistent and not good even when he remembers to do it. That is also my recollection of his performance. I have heard that the director and him just decided at some point to not bother with the accent at all and that is why there are many scenes where he has no accent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jun 14, 2021 16:36:22 GMT
He's the least interesting character--Costner's Robin Hood. That's not the case with the 1938 version. His accent is the focus but he's not as heroic as earlier versions--same with the FOX tv one with Patrick Bergen. I watched that recently and I recall at the end he gets his ass kicked until Marian saves him or something.
The Scott one is just a big dreary bore.
A light-hearted version would have been better than what they did.
They don't give audiences what they expect--an adventure with some kind of optimistic spirit.
Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the 2010 film two stars out of four, writing that "little by little, title by title, innocence and joy is being drained out of the movies."
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jun 14, 2021 16:38:15 GMT
Leonard Maltin Movie Guide Review:
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) - 3 out of 4 stars
"A Robin Hood for the '90s, light years removed from the romantic version of Errol Flynn...but this gritty, pumped-up version can stand on its own, if you're willing to stick with it through a lumpy first hour, and can accept a very American Costner in the lead. Rough, tough, and rousing at times, with Rickman's off-the-wall approach to the Sheriff of Nottingham a real surprise. Extended edition runs 150m."
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 14, 2021 16:42:06 GMT
He's the least interesting character--Costner's Robin Hood. That's not the case with the 1938 version. His accent is the focus but he's not as heroic as earlier versions--same with the FOX tv one with Patrick Bergen. I watched that recently and I recall at the end he gets his ass kicked until Marian saves him or something. The Scott one is just a big dreary bore. A light-hearted version would have been better than what they did. They don't give audiences what they expect--an adventure with some kind of optimistic spirit. Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the 2010 film two stars out of four, writing that "little by little, title by title, innocence and joy is being drained out of the movies." The 1938 version is the best Robin Hood movie and anyone who is a fan of Robin Hood movies should watch it. It is fun, well-written, well-acted (especially De Havilland) and has the exact right amount of humor.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 14, 2021 17:24:53 GMT
He's the least interesting character--Costner's Robin Hood. That's not the case with the 1938 version. His accent is the focus but he's not as heroic as earlier versions--same with the FOX tv one with Patrick Bergen. I watched that recently and I recall at the end he gets his ass kicked until Marian saves him or something. The Scott one is just a big dreary bore. A light-hearted version would have been better than what they did. They don't give audiences what they expect--an adventure with some kind of optimistic spirit. Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the 2010 film two stars out of four, writing that "little by little, title by title, innocence and joy is being drained out of the movies." The 1938 version is the best Robin Hood movie and anyone who is a fan of Robin Hood movies should watch it. It is fun, well-written, well-acted (especially De Havilland) and has the exact right amount of humor. Both the Flynn and the Costner versions rank as my favorite Robin Hood films.
|
|
|
|
Post by claudius on Jun 15, 2021 0:14:52 GMT
Ugh, I remember that summer. I argued with my brothers and sisters over the 1938 film and this one (I was Team Errol; they were Team Kevin). Using Jerry Vermyle's THE FILMS OF THE THIRTIES as a source, my older brother threw the book to the floor and stepped on it. He even made a big deal with a continuity flub during the Sherwood Banquet scene, where Errol's leg of mutton changed to a bone, while showing the Costner film (via the Bryan Ferry Music Video) as perfection like the window crashing scene (neither of us noted the paper mache stained glass).
Ove the the decades, I've grown to appreciate the film. It was my intro to the likes of Kevin Costner, Morgan Freeman, Alan Rickman, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, Christian Slater, Michael Wincott, Geraldine McEwan, Michael McShane. The only name I knew at the time was Sean Connery much publicized cameo as Richard (thus joining the INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE quartet of Lionheart players John Rhys-Davies, Michael Byrne, and Julian Glover).
I would say the highlights are Michael Kamen's score, Rickman's Sheriff, and the (TV Tropes) "Lancer vs Dragon" scenes: of Azeem vs Mortianna (science enlightenment vs archaic superstition) and Friar Tuck vs the corrupt Bishop.
I don't like how they make a big deal of how badarse Marian is, and then has her spend the climax as a damsel in distress, getting pulled around and almost raped by the Sheriff.
I wondered why they omitted Prince John. I suppose it's because John would be one massive speed-bump for the Sheriff's plan to take over England despite his lowly position (and get a child from the King's ward).
The use of Bayeux Tapestry at the beginning- showing the Norman Conquest- would have been more suitable to IVANHOE or the 1938 film and 1991 Patrick Bergin film, which used Scott's Norman VS Saxon conflict.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spitfire926f on Jun 15, 2021 1:15:51 GMT
Love it, own it, watch it a couple times a year. This is my favorite role for Kevin Costner, despite the lack of accent. Thr mullet just works on him. He and Morgan Freeman had great chemistry. Alan Rickman was gold, and I didn't mind The Sheriff Of Nottingham with 80's hair, it just worked. Just an awesome film that still holds up, and remains the one to be beat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jun 15, 2021 3:13:56 GMT
I always liked it a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by janntosh on Sept 5, 2021 4:46:57 GMT
What’s up with these sudden extreme close ups of people’s faces? Did Sam Raimi guest direct some parts? Fucking weird
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Sept 5, 2021 4:59:27 GMT
|
|
