Timashoe-1 I'm not sure what to call this ending. I think the accepted HappyEnding would be something along the lines of Gwyn and Prince William getting married and living happily ever after. Unfortunately, the film did too much work to make Froderick entirely too likable and didn't do enough character building for the handsome prince. So instead of the accepted HappyEnding being what I wanted to see, instead I badly wished that SINCE Gwyn and Prince Charming couldn't marry, then over time, she "settled" for Froderick, who in my opinion was much more steady, sensible, handsome (except for the hairdo), and would make a much better husband.As it was, Disney settled for neither ending, leaving me rather frustrated - that is, only as frustrated as I get from watching a movie that didn't do a whole lot character-building-wise, or plot-wise for that matter.Overall, it's a movie that I can show to my kids and not be ashamed, for which I'm thankful - goodness knows there's few enough of those movies out there... buuuut, as far as entertainment value and real, true, honest-to-goodness quality goes- yeah, look elsewhere.

zyxek This film is not worth your time. I watched it when it premiered on TV out of a lack of anything better to do. And I remember thinking very clearly that the lead actress was strikingly attractive, but a very weak actress. Since then, Keira Knightley has proved that my initial impression might was far too hasty. In fact, her performance in Pride & Prejudice is absolutely Oscar-worthy. But her performance is not worth sitting through this mess. It is a weakly conceived, cheaply made film, and has none of the inherent pleasure of the original Robin Hood legends. The acting is, without exception, overwrought. And many of the scenes are simply painful in memory (like the bad-guy speech right when he is prepared to kill an aging Robin, which gives the secondary hero an opportunity to regain his sword. Are writers never going to tire of that scene?) Robin Hood enthusiasts and Knoightley fans alike should pass this one over.

mwer347-1 I saw this movie on THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF Disney, and was immediately enchanted by it. In fact, I wrote to Disney repeatedly about how I could acquire it for my own collection, and got it at a Disney store, I think. I thought the actors were all good, but I especially liked Stuart Wilson, who played Robin Hood. He reminds me of Errol Flynn, who I thought played that part best in THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD, made by MGM in 1938. The actors who played Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham were quite good, and I thought Kiera Knightley and the guy who played Prince Philip were excellent. I'm glad the movie was made, because I always wondered what happened to Robin and Marian after King Richard's return. If I would be asked who should see it, I'd say anyone 12 or older, as it includes references that are sexual.

pippins The Princess of Thieves is a family movie and as such we enjoyed it for its lack of blood, less than fearsome fight sequences, and general lightness. As the director says on the DVD, 'this is melodrama.' Since Robin Hood is a legendary character, it seems appropriate that any film about him not take itself too seriously.Anyone over the age of twelve will deem this film banal and simplistic, but for young movie viewers, this film is perfect fit to their sensibilities. We saw many parallels with 'The Princess Bride', another charming melodrama with more comedy. Watch this film with three unjaded, young girls and see how charming this film can be. The plot is not too complicated. The production values are good enough. Plenty of action while the story never drags. Granted, 'The Princess of Thieves' is not as memorable as 'The Princess Bride', but the intended audiences are different.We could use more good, light family movies like The Princess of Thieves.