It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

This movie was the theme to my nineties. I watched it over and over and over until the tape got stuck in the VCR one day. Then I forgot about it until recently. I didn't appreciate the humor in this movie and really get what it was going for. It's a bit 30's swashbuckling pirate movie mixed with some pretty funny 90's type humor and a pretty decent love story. I have seen all the Robin hood's (except for one coming out this year 2018) and think it's still the best.

Alright, I'll come right out and say it: You need to watch Robin Hood: Men in Tights before you watch Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. It's the only way you'll enjoy it. If you watch Prince of Thieves first, you will hate it. As Cary Elwes mimics in his Mel Brooks spoof, Kevin Costner doesn't even try for a British accent as Robin Hood. Come on, it's Robin Hood! I guess Costner figured he was too cool for school and his All-American charm would convincingly coast him through a famously English character. It didn't work.Maid Marian is utterly unappealing in this version, and during the entire two and a half hour running time, I found myself rooting for Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham rather than the actual "good guy". You will, too, trust me. Robin Hood is boring and far too lengthy, and the only good thing that came out of it was Mel Brooks's spoof. Well, that's not fair. There are two very good-looking men in the two leading roles, so at least the girls out there get some eye candy while they're being bored to tears.You will absolutely howl when you watch Men in Tights; it's obvious that while it spoofs other Robin Hood portrayals, this 1991 version was the main inspiration. Literally, there's a hilarious connection during every scene. If you take my advice and watch this movie after its spoof, you won't just howl—you'll snort and guffaw, and probably wet your trousers. And that's the only way to go.

Oh dear.Of all the many reviews I have done for IMDb, this is the one I most dreaded having to pen.Because to do this review, I knew I would have to re-watch the film, a film I had spent some 25 years, a quarter century, trying to erase from my memory.But a job is a job. I not only intend to review the film but also, as a public service, to warn future generations, and children of those future generations, to avoid this production at all costs.And, should you ever actually see it, possibly due to a streaming malfunction, or a sticky key on your Personal Device, please do not judge those of us from that era (the 1990s) too harshly.We meant no harm. If you ever get a chance, have a peek at the definitive work on the "MADNESS OF CROWDS" written by Charles Mackay in 1841. It is no specific justification for this film, clearly, but it serves well as an apology for the circumstances that spawned it.Sometimes, you see, Hollywood and the viewing public get caught up in a collective fantasy about what entertainment is ... or, in this case, is not. During these periods of madness, certain stars, good though they may be, become insanely overexposed.In the current generation, for example, it is Sam Jackson. (The man is everywhere. I swear I bought a flat screen TV from him at a mall last week.) In the 90s it was Costner. He was a yeoman actor, yes, but to think he had the chops, or the athleticism, or the grace, or the youth, or even the accent .... to play Robin Hood? PA-LEEZE! And then, sweet Mercy, there is the script. A script that should have been destroyed before anyone blessed its lines with the immortality of celluloid. A film that cannot decide if it is a comedy or an action yarn. (The "Maid Marion Rape Scene" at the end, replete with jokes and a musical score, could be lowest point Hollywood ever touched since the silent film era.) Great yawning periods in the script ... where nothing happens. A "mass hanging" scene where the laws of physics are temporarily suspended and men who have effectively been hanged have to use their arms to support their own weight while Robin figures out a plan.Frankly I could go on but this review is painful enough.As for those IMDb members, contemporaries of the original release, who indicated this was "the best Robin Hood" they had ever seen, all I can do is apologize on their behalf. Disco was ending. Computers were coming into modern life. Pop Tarts were considered a complete breakfast. They really were not in full control of their faculties.Have you seen the Errol Flynn version? If not, please go to the Amazon page and order it.As for this version, we must never speak of it again. Ever.

"Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" was a blockbuster success in 1991, a time when Kevin Costner's popularity was at its apex. Even at the time, though, his casting as the quintessentially British folk hero raised eyebrows. Twenty-five years later, has the movie stood the test of time or is just another disposable Hollywood romp? The answer lies somewhere in between.Everyone knows the gist of the Robin Hood legend: a dashing thief who steals from the rich and gives to the poor, in love with the beautiful Maid Marion and pursued by the wicked Sheriff of Nottingham, the story has all of the ingredients for an old-fashioned swashbuckling adventure. Pen Denham's screenplay plays fast and loose with the legend, which is probably a good thing given all of the earlier versions of Robin Hood on film & television. While certain elements of the screenplay may be somewhat anachronistic or otherwise questionable, on its own merits the story is an entertaining one that captures the spirit of the character.Kevin Costner's portrayal of the title character is a sore spot for many viewers but I must admit that he does have a certain rogue-ish charm, even if he doesn't bother to attempt an English accent. In any case, he was fortunate to have some fine support from the likes of Morgan Freeman, Alan Rickman & Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio. In smaller roles, Michael McShane (Friar Tuck) & Michael Wincott (Guy of Gisbourne) make a particular impression.When it comes to Kevin Reynolds' direction, though, I'd have to say that I wasn't particularly impressed by it. Competent but with rarely anything of particular visual interest, the movie pales in comparison to the Technicolor splendour of the gold standard of Robin Hood movies, "The Adventures of Robin Hood". The Michael Kamen score is similarly undistinguished, though the theme song (performed & co-written by Bryan Adams) is admittedly rather good as far as rock ballads go.All in all, "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" is a pretty good popcorn movie but not an enduring classic on the level of "The Adventures of Robin Hood". Costner's performance may be problematic but it doesn't derail the entire movie. A standout performance from Alan Rickman (along with some other good work in supporting roles) propels the movie more than adequately.(By the way, I recommend the extended cut over the theatrical version of the film. It may add 12 minutes onto an already fairly long movie but it includes some material that fleshes out the characters a bit more.)