Hermione Granger This is somehow lacking and strange, the type of movie that you watch and then know you could've spent two hours of your life doing something else. Though the story of Robin Hood is great, it was "brought to life" the wrong way. Something that was especially disliked was that Alan Rickman put his talent to waste here. He was an amazing, incredible actor, but here he does something wrong and is actually a bit giggly about it, not grinning in evil or actually being the bad guy.

JelenaG890 Okay, so as Robin Hood, Kevin Costner cannot hold a candle to Errol Flynn. He plays the role the same way he acted in all of his films from the 1990's- kind of like Wyatt Earp in the Middle Ages. However, Costner isn't what makes the film entertaining for me. The supporting cast, especially Alan Rickman and Morgan Freeman, steal the show from Costner, the supposed star of the film. As the Sheriff, Rickman is (like always) brilliant and even better, considering his role was mainly ad- libbed. Morgan Freeman is also great in his role, and has some truly memorable lines.Aside from Costner's performance, famously spoofed by Mel Brooks, the weakest link for me is the actress who plays Marian. At times, she seems like she truly does not want to be the film at all, and would rather be anywhere else other than near Costner. Then again, she was a last minute replacement for the role, so perhaps that's why she has zero chemistry with her leading man.The action scenes are fun, though, and worth a view. If you want to see a really good Robin Hood film, though, check out Errol Flynn's version from 1938! Flynn was born to play Robin Hood. Costner... not so much.

Miguel Neto Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is the best adaptation of the Robin Hood of I watched , the cast is already very good , Kevin Costner does a great Robin Hood , Morgan Freeman as always look great and still have the great Alan Rickman makes a great villain , you feel anger, film photography is very good, the landscapes are good, the costumes are great, the direction is good , the action scenes are good, it's even better when you know that this movie is 1991 , the film also has a good humor, the film does not get to be so violent in battles such as the Braveheart would a movie four years later, more is understood by the fact that the release gap is great, and Braveheart has much more resources , Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is a good film, which gives to spend time watching , and still having a great cast is very funny moments. Note 7.6

luke-taylor I just re-watched this recently - first, Alan Rickman steals this film. Every time he is on screen the film comes alive. But outside of that its all a little serious - and I understand the desire to move away from the Errol Flynn image, but that doesn't mean it can't be fun. The trouble with too many Robin Hood movies is they feel the need to over explain the back-story rather than have fun with his adventures robbing the rich. We do get a few scenes of that fun, but not enough. Maybe that seems nitpicking but the wonderful hideout in the woods is barely glimpsed and we could have spent so much more time there. That said, it's a good watch and better than some, more recent Robin Hood interpretations.