Oh course ! It made great actors look terrible . The movie was horrible !
shareRobin Hood: Prince of Thieves is Darker Than You Remember
http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/robin-hood/241954/robin-hood-prince-of-thieves-is-darker-than-you-remember
We look at how Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves came to be, what worked, and what didn't.
Yes, it does have some rather disturbing aspects.
shareIt's supposed to be a fun movie with one hilarious flaw, a flaw that everyone's poked fun at for the last 20-odd years.
It's actually a decent movie, although it could have been far better.
So what is the one hilarious flaw? Costner supposedly miscast? His dubious British accent? Rickman's hammy performance? Slater's character over-bursting with a secret?
shareYeah, people have been snarking at Costner's attempt at an accent for decades now. It's awful, it's inescapable, it's in ever damn scene, it really diminishes the quality of the finished film, which is fun but which could have been great if the star had given a good performance.
And I won't hear a word against Rickman's hammy performance! FYI this was the first film that really got him noticed by American audiences, his career took off after this. Because like I said Costner was terrible, and audiences weren't really buying it all, until Rickman came on and was hilarious! Adding a touch of real comedy made the film work, Rickman was universally agreed to have stolen the film from Costner, and I wasn't the only one who began to pay serious attention to Rickman and found it rewarding. He really was one of the greats.
I didn't think Costner was miscast, unless a person has a rigid image of what Robin Hood is supposed to be like. In THIS movie Robin Hood is more low-key and intelligent compared to other popular versions. While some argue that Costner was too humorless and brooding for the part, there are quite a few places where he can be seen smiling and having a good time, like when he makes it back to England after the Crusades or when he's spending time with Marian in Sherwood Forest. Thankfully, he's more three-dimensional than that and so you also see him desperate, angry, grieving, vengeful, strategizing, contemplative, etc. Costner was in his prime at the time and, IMHO, towers in the role; whether or not a person likes him or his performance is a matter of taste.
As far as accents go, I'm pretty sure if Costner spoke Old English in the way it was actually spoken 900 years ago viewers would hardly be able to understand him, if at all. As such, even IF he spoke with a proper modern British accent it wouldn't be accurate, which makes the criticisms of his non-accent irrelevant because we're all using a bit of imagination when we listen to these characters' words.
I wasn't criticizing Rickman, by the way, just stating a fact about his performance and trying to figure out what the "hilarious flaw" of the movie was that you mentioned.
I've always had mixed feelings about the movie due to its mixed tone. While it's often serious and brutal, not to mention dark, it's also sometimes cartoonish and over-the-top, like the amusing catapulted-over-the-wall sequence. As covered, Rickman particularly hams it up, entertaining though he is. Another good example is Geraldine McEwan as the ee-vil witch Mortianna. Her portrayal is spooky and Gothic in a comic book horror kind of way, but it sorta clashes with the many parts that establish the story as believable quasi-history.
Overall, though, it's an entertaining flick, which explains why I like to watch it every 5 years.
I have been meaning to watch this. Thanks for the info.
shareBryan Adams made it better
shareAre you serious ?
shareThe soundtrack song yes
shareEverything I Do - We missed this movie back in 1991. We did get married that year which may explain why.
shareDo you have a problem with Bryan ?
shareI loved his 1980s stuff
shareMe too. Can I ask what your wedding song was ?
shareWhile I disagree that a British accent isn't necessary just because a modern accent doesn't resemble old English anyway, the problem is that Costner is the only one who speaks with an American accent. Even Christian Slater makes a half-arsed attempt.
The other problem is that Costner is just a bore and looks uninterested throughout the movie. I simply can't believe that he could motivate a band of peasants to rise up against the authorities.
I do agree with the uneven tone of the movie. As entertaining as Rickman and McEwan are in their scenes, they just don't fit with the rest of the movie.
The other problem is that Costner is just a bore and looks uninterested throughout the movie. I simply can't believe that he could motivate a band of peasants to rise up against the authorities.
I just don't believe that that would appeal to a bunch of uneducated peasants. He needs to speak their language. I just don't think he has a lot of a charisma, especially not in this movie. He seems distant, haughty, unapproachable.
shareBut he had the warfare skills and the intelligence, as well as the guts, to defeat the Sheriff of Nottingham & his cronies. It didn't hurt that he also had the stature & fitness that (more average) men would gravitate toward. On top of this, HE was the only one to attract the top babe. In short, he became their chosen leader because all of these factors convinced them that they had a good chance against the oppressive government.
Getting back to the accent issue, Brits from 900 years ago didn't talk like modern Brits at all, so having actors with mod Brit accents is no more accurate than Costner's so-called American accent. Keep in mind that Kevin speaks standard English without the British flare. It's the middle America non-accent of Minnesota & nearby states, which English scholars have said is the best representation of today's English language. With all this in mind, the accent issue is really a non-issue.
At the same time I can see why people might prefer the current British accent because it helps them with the illusion that the characters in the movie are from that region.
Experience is not enough. Again, there was nothing I saw in his persona and attitude that could excite commoners to risk their lives and revolt.
Again about the accent, the problem is that Costner is the only one who speaks with an American accent.
Actually, I would think that peasants of the era might very well respond to an aristocrat who joined their team and became the leader. The medieval lords of that era were the ones who were trained in combat skills and strategy (and literacy), so obviously the outlaws would have been suspicious of his motives at first, but he really could be useful.
The class issues were a bit different back in the middle ages. Not only did people believe in The Divine Right of Kings, and by extension the aristocrats, but having a local Lord like Locksley on your side didn't get you an upper-class twit, it got you the equivalent of a hardass army captain and his combat weaponry. The outlaws would see the use of that.
I didn't say they wouldn't accept an aristocrat as their leader (that's really what a lot of the Robin Hood stories are about). I'm saying that Costner didn't have the charisma and character to lead a gang of peasant outlaws in an uprising. History shows us that such leaders usually have an enigmatic quality.
shareI agree about the accent part.
shareI admit I do have a fixed image of Robin Hood in mind, but it's a pretty broad one. It pretty much starts and finishes with being able to pass for a native of the British Isles. Beyond that, I'm easy! And yeah, Costner was okay otherwise, I like the film as as a whole, even if I think it could have been better.
And I don't have a problem with films that have a very mixed tone, like this one. Real life is like that, people in the midst of heartbreak can hear something funny and crack up, people can stop joking and get serious when the shit hits the fan. I'm okay with movies that go from hilarity to action to tragedy and back again, but I dont insist that other people like mixed-tone movies too. I know it's an unusual preference.
Real life is like that, people in the midst of heartbreak can hear something funny and crack up, people can stop joking and get serious when the shit hits the fan. I'm okay with movies that go from hilarity to action to tragedy and back again
Alan Rickman at his most cartoonish is still 100x more interesting to watch than Costner giving the best performance he's capable of.
He's still the best, everything an actor hopes to be!
Otter said, "And I won't hear a word against Rickman's hammy performance! FYI this was the first film that really got him noticed by American audiences, his career took off after this."
Ummm, there's this little movie called Die Hard (1988) that made him a star! Hans Gruber is one of the ultimate badies in movie history!
Alan Rickman is one of my favorites.
Enjoy your day
I always enjoy a day with Alan Rickman in it.
And BTW "Die Hard" was good for Rickman's career, but IMHO it was "Robin Hood" that made Americans really, REALLY notice him. Before that he'd been another good character actor and his work was always appreciated, but every critic who saw "Robin Hood" raved about him and said he's stolen the show from Costner (easy enough), and every audience member who saw the film raved about that guy who played the Sheriff and started looking for him in other films. I really think it was the role that made his Hollywood career.
Are you kidding?! This is a great movie! My brother loved watching this as a kid, and I still remember the romantic song they played during the credits!
shareIt wasn't supposed to, but it is.
shareIt's fun for what it is but I do get the impression they intended it to be far more serious.
share