Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) - Action, Adventure, Drama

Hohum Score

2

Breathtaking

When Robin and his Moorish companion come to England and the tyranny of the Sheriff of Nottingham, he decides to fight back as an outlaw.

IMDB: 6.9
Director: Kevin Reynolds
Stars: Kevin Costner, Morgan Freeman
Length: 143 Minutes
PG Rating: PG-13
Reviews: 35 out of 341 found boring (10.26%)

One-line Reviews (242)

The battle scenes are very well done, especially the against the Celts, the musical score is engaging and Rickman is perfect as the Sheriff.

This film is full of action and keeps the viewer on the edge of their seats.

It is fun and entertaining and I LIKE IT!

It was exciting to watch and it never got boring or worn out.

It's entertaining though with a very good cast.

How many movies from 1991 are still enjoyable?

guy of gisborne and sheriff of Nottingham make this an entertaining movie for guys, and the ladies seem to like them as well.

Alan Rickman's character was thoughtfully acted out, and the most enjoyable to watch.

He is the driving force of the film and every scene he's in is truly entertaining.

Other than that Robin Hood is an exciting, tense, magical fairytale, wonderfully photographed, with the right dashes of boyish romance and chivalry just as we would suspect of an american feel-good movie!

Maybe not how it's supposed to be, but very entertaining anyway.

His Robin of Locksley was bland, cold and downright grouchy.

I was so bored, I almost feel asleep.

In contrast, "Prince of Thieves" is a joyless, dreary affair.

Much ballyhooed and maligned by critics, Robin Hood Prince of Thieves plays out as an exciting adaption of the legend about Robin Hood and his merry men of Sherwood Forest.

I have always wanted to see the film Alan Rickman was acting in, because it seemed to be totally different (and much more entertaining) than the drivel Costner was in.

Entertaining, despite it all .

It is a rousing and entertaining spectacle.

I found it boring, dull, and not at all interesting to watch, and I blame Costner.

The movie was so intense and it kept me guessing on what was going to happen next.

This film is anything but boring.

Yes, it's nonsense, but it's entertaining tosh and I for one was thoroughly enjoying myself while I watched it.

That music deserved to be in a much better movie, and it possesses the fun, exciting spirit that the movie itself utterly lacks.

All in all, this movie is very entertaining.

So the plot is very predictable.

He is so dull!

" The music by Michael Kamen was beautiful and quite rousing.

The characters were believable, fun and the story was very engaging.

" Sheriff: "Because it's dull, you twit, it'll hurt more!

worth watching .

the only time i really really laughed during this pretty dull and not to worth seeing film.

) Great yawning periods in the script ...

But apart from that it's quite entertaining.

A fine cast and an entertaining movie.

This is one of thoser enjoyable movies that you are going to watch over and over.

I cannot begin to express the extent of my rage at this performance, so utterly banal, so utterly insipid.

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.

Mastroithingy was as dull as unsalted porridge, god only knows why she was cast in this seminal feminist role.

There is plenty of exciting action that has a more fierce approach and the visuals are always impressive.

But as soon as the opening credits end, the film shows its true colors…a dark, dank, gore-laden bore.

Somehow they managed to make a boring Robin Hood movie.

Looking away from that (although hard) and the American accents, it is a greatly entertaining movie that brings a smile to my face anyway: guess it's the boyhood attraction to the legend.

Yes, I enjoyed it very much.

On the other hand, Rickman, Mastrantonio, Freeman, Slater, and others gave outstanding performances and made the movie more entertaining opposite Costner.

An extremely enjoyable film with only a few let-downs (SPOILER) .

High production values and some really exciting sequences are the things that set this one apart from lesser versions.

As a film in itself it tends to be rather padded and a bit slow in places.

The setting of the film was very dull and gloomy.

Kevin Costner is fine as Robin, if a little bland, and Alan Rickman does his best pantomime villain as the Sheriff.

where nothing happens.

A sweet, family film it's certainly not, but a rousing, action-packed adventure with a first-rate cast it certainly is, though the romantic subplot/love story never quite resonates.

It's cultural value is pretty slim, but the entertaining rate is way up.

Anachronistic and enjoyable to the bone.

Breathtaking movie .

I first saw this movie at the age of about 6 years old and always got too bored to watch to the end.

Entertaining...

Kevin Costner gives a good performance, not by any means along the lines with Dances with Wolves, but he is very entertaining as the dashing, rogue Robin of Locksley (Robin Hood) And all this drama about his accent.

It is brilliant, its funny, entertaining and captivating, mainly due to Alan Rickman himself.

Always enjoyable, can watch it again and again .

I thought that he was a bit on the boring side apart from his flirty scenes with Mary E.

Entertaining and fun, despite its flaws .

Just as bad is the overall pacing of the film: the total lack of any time passage gets very tedious, everything seems to happen during the same afternoon; the lack of any pace or flow to the narrative makes it feel way too long.

Sean Connery's cameo as King Richard is fun, but pointless.

Nevertheless, "Prince of Thieves" an entertaining Robin Hood adventure and is iconic of early 90's cinema.

As enjoyable and watchable as a film adaptation of the legend of Robin Hood is supposed to be made out to be, this film is woefully underdeveloped and silly!

The plot is engaging, and the majority of the threads are followed up on, and are interesting.

But it is the villains that make this film so utterly enjoyable.

Okay, I'll admit that this movie is predictable.

Rickman's portrayal of the Sheriff is possibly the most entertaining villain I have ever seen.

Overall you could do much better - go watch the original Michael Curtiz version (one of the greatest ever and certainly the best Robin Hood film adaptation), the Disney cartoon (aw come on it's entertaining) or the Mel Brooks version.

Sitting through 2 hours and watching this junk was a complete waste of my precious time.

The more recent 'War of the Worlds' springs instantly to mind as a waste of time.

Its ridiculous that this film cuts the part where Robin gives the Sheriff a cut on his cheek, and I can't figure out if it was cut due to some sort of censorship or the editor fell asleep in the cutting room.

An entertaining adventure .

Perhaps the pacing, was, at times lethargic, and the plot somewhat predictable; the 'epic sword fight conclusion', a cliche in itself, was ultimately a somewhat bathetic affair.

Far from ideal, but still entertaining in its own right comes this rendition of the beloved and classic adventure tale.

This movie had good scenes and boring scenes.

Really, what a waste of time.

Robin Hood's excitable band of accomplices construct the most wondrous tree forts that it's remarkable that they choose to even waste their time giving to the poor.

The only thing worth watching in this movie was Alan Rickman - and even his performance didn't convince me entirely because his character, the Sheriff of Nottingham, is written so poorly Rickman didn't get much of a chance to do more out of him as some silly comic.

Will Scarlett is a tad boring in this, compared to the character and his potential...

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is a respectable and entertaining take on the Robin Hood legends, and I recommend it to anyone who enjoys a good adventure story.

The scene is made naturally and it is visually stunning.

Alan Rickman plays so well as a narcissistic and ambitious Sheriff, with so many great lines, that it is worth watching just for his Bafta winning performance.

It's not a patch on the wonderful Errol Flynn version-that version will probably never be surpassed, but this one might be more enjoyable for a modern audience.

On the whole, it is an entertaining film with a good balance between the action and the romance.

What's really fascinating here is the elevation of the Sheriff of Nottingham who is lifted a few notches from ordinary villainy.

As soon as it was over and the credits had finished moving up the screen all the way to the top I rewound the tape and watched it again about a week later and enjoyed it even more.

Somehow I just find this film to be quite dull and plodding and over-long.

Kevin Costner is very bland and dull in the title role, but Alan Rickman is wildly entertaining and the rest of the cast is pretty great.

The big battle with the Celts has a lot of swordplay and intense moments.

The modern day interpretation of ye olde tale of those fearless folk of the forest going about robbing the rich, and giving to the poor is basically a very enjoyable romp.

Entertaining merriment .

The film was exciting, well plotted, great scenery, fun and campy.

It's so ponderous and serious that there's no sense of fun to be had.

I was bored.

" etc) and a fantastic battle scene culminating in a wonderfully drawn out and dramatic death.

Fun, swashbuckling, adventure, exciting action including fencing(if some of the coverage of it could be better), camp, great dialog, etc. I'd say that this does the best job of any of them at conveying the guerrilla war they wage against the authorities.

While still dark by design and slightly gloomy in tone, overall I found it most enjoyable.

Despite the amount of time skillfully invested in the character, Robin comes across as a boring, introverted man.

Overall this is a very enjoyable film that has made a decent attempt to tell a story that has been told for 800 years in one form or another (with sticking close to the source material) the story of Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves.

The characters are not engaging, the action scenes are uninspiring, the whole thing is just completely lifeless.

Worth watching again and is safe for kids 10 and older.

A romantic, action packed adventure that will make you sigh out loud .

I've always seen Robin Hood as a young outlaw, but ignoring that little tidbit the film is very entertaining.

I thought Robin Hood's moves were very predictable and I grew pretty tired of that goofy smirk of his.

It makes you laugh, it makes you cry and get's you on the edge of your seat.

For each rousing moment, we get sequences like the exchanges between Robin and Marian in the forest, where we are taken by surprise by how smart and thoughtful some of the dialog actually is.

4) Robin Hood, who is as dull as dishwater.

Well produced, but kind of a bore .

At the time I really enjoyed it, and today it is still good to watch.

The storyline is wonderful, suspenseful, and spellbinding.

Oh, and it was hugely enjoyable.

Watchable And Entertaining .

Some were brilliant, some were still enjoyable (Million Dollar Baby, Bruce Almighty and Now You See Me) some were not (Take your pick!!

OK, it's a bit of a cliché, but this formula makes for the perfect escapist film and one thrilling and emotional ride.

Costner's portrayal is solid and enjoyable.

The only Kevin Costner flick worth watching.

Sitting through 2 hours and watching this junk was a complete waste of my precious time.

While it's good for maybe a long, slow, dull Saturday night, it's hardly a classic.

The result is a handsome, rousing and romantic adventure story.

The stuntwork is spectacular and the score is breathtaking.

I find it fascinating that when the English are cast into American roles in American films they are forced to speak with American accents.

An excellent movie, I enjoyed it very much.

The plethora of unforgettable quotes, provided in no small part by Alan Rickman and Morgan Freeman, mixed with the well managed action scenes certainly make this an entertaining experience.

He is the only reason this movie was entertaining, and why I recommend watching this film.

It's not Errol Flynn, but it's still entertaining and Costner plays the part of the Sherwood Forest savior well, while Rickman is scene stealing as a snarling Sheriff of Nottingham.

Entertaining In Spite Of Itself .

Okay, here we go again: Kevin Costner, while an endearingly bland actor, is very much out of place here as a very American Robin Hood when he should be sounding British.

The film has a lot of good action scenes but its also a very boring film.

Prince of Thieves features some breathtaking money shots, such as that of Robin firing an arrow with an explosion behind him filmed at 300 frames per second; or perhaps my favourite shot in the film, the romantic elevator with the sun in the background splitting the trees.

Robin Hood is boring and far too lengthy, and the only good thing that came out of it was Mel Brooks's spoof.

I enjoy this film for what it is: a swashbuckling adventure that doesn't take itself seriously, but I could absolutely see where others would find this movie predictable and over the top.

The weak chin, no accent, monotone voice, and absolutely no sense of emotion pretty much ruined what could have been a truly great classic.

Kevin Costner, the monotone Southern American, is just about as far from Robin Hood as you can get.

It is a compelling idea to develop and question the character of such a legend and it is a relevant theme to explore in our time where "heroes" of our society are dethroned when their morals are unveiled, muting their actions.

Getting past one of the worst examples of hero casting imaginable, this is enjoyable enough tosh to pass some time.

BUT, I have to say that despite all that , this is still an enjoyable way to kill two and a half hours.

I'm willing to concede that he's no Olivier, but in the action hero mold, he still cut an exciting figure.

The whole thing is far more violent than it needs to be and way too long.

But I think that this Robin Hood film is one worth watching if only for the cast.

Despite the contrived cheesiness of the film it is a belter and sure to produce rib-busting laughter in our household.

The "action" scenes are weak, the plot is ludicrous, and somehow the direction managed to make even Alan Rickman uninteresting.

The frivolity of 1990s film making is beginning to show through in the numerous cracks in this film, yet it still manages to be entertaining in spite of Kevin Costner not even attempting a British accent, or any of the other numerous flaws.

Kevin Costner is a bland problem.

Something of a mess, but still pretty entertaining for all that .

I really liked Robin Hood:Prince of Thieves, I found it enjoyable and beautifully filmed.

You could forgive all the gloom if the story was compelling.

The story is pure cliché.

Watch the Fox 1991 version (one of the best ever, IMHO), but pass over this, unless you are a Costner fan (and why people are, I have no idea - he seems to be able to play one character, himself, and if it doesn't fit the character he's playing, it becomes wooden and predictable...

This film became an instant classic, is thoroughly entertaining, hilarious, with visual confetti and great action scenes.

This film is certainly a lot more fun and entertaining than Russell Crowe's Robin Hood, which, supposedly, was far more historically accurate.

Seen today, Robin Hood Prince Of Thieves is a bit of a mess, but fairly entertaining.

But these are minor criticisms in what is a genuinely watchable, (and if you can wince/cringe through Connery's all too predictable cameo), and thoroughly enjoyable film.

Everybody's wearing browns and blacks, which makes the film monochromatic and dull.

But, in the end, the film's kind of a big bore.

It's a lot of nice nature and landscape, some of the Robin Hood style is there and it's pretty entertaining.

On one hand, there's the adventure line - Hollywood-styled action sequences, loads of appropriate funny lines, a good amount of unreal-but-acceptable-and-still-enjoyable moments.

Rickman particularly hams it up, entertaining though he is.

Another noteworthy element of this film is the breathtaking battle scenes.

This film is a very entertaining, funny look at the legend of 'Robin Hood' and his merry men of Sherwood Forest.

I found myself quite bored during the first half of the film.

Who asked for a dark and dreary Robin Hood?

The films excellent production values; beautiful cinematography, wonderful period costumes, romantic and uplifting music, inventive storyline and superior cast make for an exciting adventure all around.

Nobody could have done it better, and he also had the best lines ("Because it's dull, it'll hurt more!

The story is a mix of cliché elements of Robin Hood tales and deviations from the formula.

i loved it back then but now i did find it pretty dull and boring to sit through the two hours it takes for Robin to fight and be a romantic man.

The film is funny, action packed, touching, romantic, and did I mention, unexpectedly funny?

The films score was breathtaking.

Overall this was a very fun and enjoyable addition to the legend.

Sure, Costner is not particularly English, but if viewer can get past that, result is a most enjoyable film, with a delightful surprise cameo at the end.

He is Excellent at playing bad guys.. i would love to go back to that time.. and hang out with them all.. it would be soo neat.. this movie is great, good acting, lots of action, and a good story to it.. i Highly recommend it to anyone who likes Kevin Costner.. i sure do Love the guy.

From the first uplifting bars of the film's excellent and award-winning score, to the delightful cameo of Sean Connery as King Richard the Lionheart, the movie Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is consistently entertaining, action-packed, and full of wonderful grungy Medieval realism.

As with most Kevin Costner films (whatever role he assumes - actor, director, producer), it all ends up as a tiresome exercise in self-indulgence on his part.

Exciting and entertaining film is less corny than the Errol Flynn version, and much grittier and more realistic.

This movie has a good action, and was thoroughly entertaining.

It's an old fashioned romp with some '90's trimmings, and viewed as such is very entertaining.

The serious tone at the beginning of the film is particularly enjoyable, preceding as it does the inescapable, inevitable descent into romantic mush.

There are beautiful, breathtaking, and amusing scenes: Robin's father, dressed in his black battle armor on top his black stallion, preparing to battle the 'men in masks'; sweeping shots of the English countryside as Robin and Azeem escape Sir Guy of Gisborn and his soldiers; the bout with quarterstaves across a stream; plenty of flaming arrows flowing through the greenwood along with some exciting fighting; and like Burt Lancaster in "The Flame and the Arrow," who pauses in the middle of a frantic battle to plant a kiss on a kitchen maid, Alan Rickman plants his kiss on Maid Marian in the middle of his frantic duel with Costner...

Finally, Michael Kamen provides a rousing score as a backdrop.

Seeing Sean Connery in a cameo was enjoyable enough.

The only movies that summer that I admired were 'Terminator 2,' 'Thelma & Louise,' and this one, which still stands as one of the most entertaining action-adventure movies I've seen.

The production is lavish, and the set pieces are thrilling and well executed.

During boring moments we automatically put this film on and consequently my sister and I knew every single line off by heart.

From the beautiful scenery and the costumes, to the riveting action sequences and fights.

But Kevin Costner was totally wrong for the part of Robin, I'm not saying he's a bad actor but he just makes Robin, who is the hero of the film, boring and dull.

This movie wasn't great, but it was extremely entertaining, warts and all.

He steals the show subtley and easily, and this evil sheriff is worth watching!

It just really makes the story of Robin Hood enjoyable, better than all the rest.

This is a very, very enjoyable movie.

) and you have a pointless, empty mess of a film.

Worst movie, worst 'actor' ever .

It's not the best film out there, but it is enjoyable for an evening.

The supporting players are so dull they aren't even worth mentioning.

At least Kevin Costner, despite the accent, delivers with an exciting and different look at medieval times and the "Robin Hood" legend.

If you ignore the anachronisms and the awkward American accents -- or better yet, accept them as part of the comic element to this movie -- it feels just as epic and even more thrilling than Braveheart.

"Because it's dull, you twit, it'll hurt more!

Azeem is a more natural and rousing leader than Robin.

Enjoyable despite some glaring flaws .

Years later, and it's still enjoyable.

There are beautiful, breathtaking, and amusing scenes: Robin's father, dressed in his black battle armor on top his black stallion, preparing to battle the 'men in masks'; sweeping shots of the English countryside as Robin and Azeem escape Sir Guy of Gisborn and his soldiers; the bout with quarterstaves across a stream; plenty of flaming arrows flowing through the greenwood along with some exciting fighting; and like Burt Lancaster in "The Flame and the Arrow," who pauses in the middle of a frantic battle to plant a kiss on a kitchen maid, Alan Rickman plants his kiss on Maid Marian in the middle of his frantic duel with Costner...

It has a thrilling action finale and to top it all off, Sean Connery appears at the end as King Richard.

Get the popcorn out and have a really enjoyable couple of hours of film.

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.

Sherwood Forest looks dirty and gloomy instead of inviting and exciting.

The plot is simple but exciting, with plenty of stunts and humour.

Enjoyable, old-fashioned swashbuckler with occasional misjudgements.

Highly enjoyable!

A monotonal, 35 year old bloke with '90s blow-dried hair, his character is so bland and demystified, the film has no intrigue.

Good action, rather funny scenes, and an entertaining finish with one of my favorite actors makes for a very memorable time.

Rousing and entertaining despite miscast lead .

However the performances by Morgan Freeman and Alan Rickman were thrilling.

Saturday, June 29, 1991 - Village DoncasterRobin Hood is a lot slower and more dull second time around.

Cool and entertaining antagonists in the faces of Alan Rickman and Michael Wincott.

") As long as you don't take the movie seriously and you don't expect to be seeing something intelligent, then it's enjoyable.

When the Celts attack the camp at the 95-minute mark I always start to lose interest and the rest of the movie is a tedious blur.

Without doubt, the worst movie with the worst so-called 'actor' ever.

On this point, it was not Costner's accent which upset, but rather the overt arrogance and nauseating moralism which were accentuated in his otherwise fairly bland reading of the character.

Costner's lousy English accent is a small obstacle in this often exciting version of the Robin Hood fable.

The sword fighting in the film is clumsy, but some action scenes, such as Robin's river encounter with Little John and an attack on the hideout are exciting.

Entertaining .

Tedious and Tiresome beyond Measure .

Everything you could ever wish from the great, enjoyable film!

All in all, maybe not as good as the Errol Flynn film, but this is actually very enjoyable.

Emotionless, but Nontheless Entertaining .

This movie is extremely entertaining.

The action scenes are boring, confused and loaded with useless special effects.

And just entertaining alone.

I found it tedious and tiresome (and at times ridiculous) beyond measure.

Kevin Costner's Robin Hood has Errol Flynn's Robin Hood looking more like Peter Pan but both are outstanding performances and enjoyable movies in their own right!

My favorite scene, hard to choose from so many, is the ending battle scene where they discover that Robin Hood is alive and he is there at the castle to save his beloved Marian, it's a great scene that keeps you on the edge of your seat.

I think this is Kevin Costner's best role (besides Dances With Wolves) I thought it was very entertaining.

Prince of Thieves, even with its historical inaccuracies, makes for a very intriguing interpretation of the Robin Hood tale.

He has neither the presence or the attitude this character requires, and he's always talking in a droning monotone.

no, actually, just take a few seconds and you'll realize how empty this movie would be if rickman wouldn't be there displaying his wild acting skills, with THE VOICE, Michael wincott as his right hand.

Whilst also entertaining Lady Marian, the King's cousin, Robin and Azeem train the local villagers to into an army to fight and rise up against the dictatorship of the Sheriff of Nottingham.

I cannot understand all the nit picking where this great and entertaining film is concerned.

I guess it started with being bored out of my skull with the Bryan Adams song back then (was glad Smells Like Teen Spirit was released!

She is dull and pretty poor all round.

For all my complaints about the story it is still an eminantly enjoyable action film.

The highlight performance for me had to be Alan Rickman as the sheriff and Morgan Freeman as Azeem, i found both of these characters immensely entertaining.

My point is (there's one there somewhere), is that Prince Of Thieves may not be a "good" movie, but it's a fun and enjoyable one all the same.