Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves

Deal Score0
Deal Score0

  • Kevin Costner triumphs as the legendary Sherwood Forest outlaw leader in this epic adventure bringing a 12th-century medieval world to spectacular screen life. Enhancing the fun are 12 added minutes of footage not seen in theatres, especially more juicy malevolence of Robin Hoods archenemy, the Sheriff of Nottingham (Alan Rickman). Morgan Freeman, Christian Slater and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio a

Product Description
Studio: Warner Home Video Release Date: 05/26/2009 Run time: 155 minutes Rating: NrAmazon.com
Kevin Costner’s lousy English accent is a small obstacle in this often exciting version of the Robin Hood fable. That aside, it’s refreshing to have a preface to the old story in which we meet the robber hero of Sherwood Forest as a soldier in King Richard’s Crusades, coming home to find his people under siege from the cruelties of the Sheriff of Nottingham (Al… More >>

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves

This site uses affiliate links and if you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a commission payment.

5 Comments
  1. I can’t reccommend Robin Hood because my NEW movie has scratches in it, and will only play to a certain point, and then just stops.

    Be careful when you buy DVD’s from Amazon. I bought “new”, so how could it be scratched?
    Rating: 1 / 5

  2. I got this movie for my special needs son – it is one of his favorites that he loves to watch when we go to a friends home. I was not aware that it was in another format that is not typically used in this country. He could not watch it and now I’m stuck with it – disappointment all around! Anyone in the market for it??????
    Rating: 1 / 5

  3. Well, where to start? On a positive note, Kevin Costner is a good actor and doesn’t do too bad a job at portraying Robin Hood (ALMOST making this film deserve two stars). That’s it, as far as good points: THE MOVIE [stinks]! What has made me angry is that there are people (IDIOTS!) who consider this abortion to be equal or better than the version with Flyn! After recently seeing the 1938 movie which yes is campy but still wonderful like THE WIZARD OF OZ, I felt committed to writing a review of this horrible picture which I sat through on HBO.

    Morgan Freeman as a moor- why a moor character? Why him? Marion was not alluring like traditonally portrayed, okay but why make her such a [witch]? Was England even worth fighting for in this film? It looked as depressing as the set of WATERWORLD, which may be a realistic picture of the Middle Ages, but sad nonetheless; I will take romanticism anyday. Finally, maybe it isn’t fair to compare this to the 1938 version. I saw a silent version with Douglas Fairbanks which wasn’t so hot but comeon people- giving this such high a rating- DUMMIES!
    Rating: 1 / 5

  4. If you want to see a great rousing Robin Hood film, get the Errol Flynn version.

    If you want to see a wickedly funny Sheriff of Nottingham, get this version and fast forward to any scene with Alan Rickman.

    You don’t have to be a great actor to be a great Robin Hood – see Errol Flynn above – but you have to bring some panache and some style and some fun to the role, none of which Kevin Costner seems capable of doing. His accent (or lack thereof) is the least of his problems. Rickman out-panaches and out-talks this bland bugger to such a degree that you’d almost feel sorry for Costner if he weren’t so mind-numbingly smug. Was there ever a more clueless Robin Hood wandering around Sherwood Forest? The only reason Costner, and not Rickman, is left standing at the end of the movie is that hundreds of years of Robin Hood mythology (and the producers) demand it. But in acting muscle and sheer charisma, Rickman just flattens the other guy.
    Costner should stick to baseball; he’s out of his league here.

    Although there are some other talented folk here (Morgan Freeman and Mastrantonio), Alan Rickman and Geraldine McEwan (who plays the old hag) seem to be the only actors who recognized this ‘epic’ potboiler for what it was and decided to give it some gusto.

    This is Rickman having some fun at the expense of a mega-ego Hollywood bore, and what the hell is wrong with that?
    Rating: 3 / 5

  5. First off, I wanna address this whole thing about Kevin Costner’s accent. What difference does it make at all??? If you think it makes the movie more historically accurate, well, I hate to break it to you but, you’re wrong. English people in 1194 weren’t speaking in modern British accents, they were speaking in Old English, which is basically a dialect of German. So, with that thought, the British actors were as from the historical truth as Costner with their accents. Costner I think plays a very realistic Robin Hood, who is a lot more human than the other Robin Hoods. He shows emotion, and in the beginning, really plays well his role of a spoiled, rich boy. A lot of people commend Allan Rickman on his performance here, but I think he was one of the worst characters. When talking about him, people spoke so frightenedly about him, but in every single one of his on screen moments, he was acting like a goofy weirdo. I couldn’t ever tell if what he was saying was supposed to be serious or a joke. I think his character took away from the more serious, adventurous tone of the rest of the movie, and made Prince of Thieves seem like a parody in itself. Not to say that he was a bad actor, I think that s a fault of the writers. There were a few inaccuracies, like the way that the Scots dressed. My exact first thoughts of that scene are expressed by other reviewers. They looked more like people who would have been ravaging the Roman establishments in Britain in the 4th and 5th centuries, not like Scots of the 12th. A lot of people have complained about the witch, and although I m not sure what her purpose was in the movie, she was entertaining, and kind of scary at the same time. On the whole, this was a good movie that s entertaining to watch, not too far away from Braveheart. (Although Robin’s rhetoric skills are definitely much worse than William Wallace’s. I could not comprehend at all what he is trying to say while he s lecturing the people from the fallen tree. He started off with something about being freedmen, and then ended with making weapons from the forest, I don’t understand that connection. If they are free men then while in the hell are they living in the forest? I think that if you re free you can live wherever you want, not be forced into a “haunted” forest in the middle of nowhere. And if they were already free, they wouldn’t need to fight back.)
    Rating: 5 / 5

Leave a reply

Login/Register access is temporary disabled