8/10
Entertaining, despite it all
19 August 2003
The summer of 1991 was a lousy one for movies; there were only a few that stood out amid dozens of crummy releases. 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.

No, it isn't a masterpiece, on any level. Yes, I realize that Kevin Costner lacks a satisfactory British accent (he doesn't even attempt one). But the movie is still a fun, rip-roaring piece of escapism, sort of like 'Raiders of the Lost Ark,' only without the special effects.

Costner may seem miscast as Robin of Locksley, but there's no doubt that he had the physicality and screen presence to convincingly hold our attention as a larger-than-life hero. He'd just come off 'Dances With Wolves,' and so it was a thrill to see him on horseback again (it still is, in 'Open Range'). I'm willing to concede that he's no Olivier, but in the action hero mold, he still cut an exciting figure.

I also enjoyed Alan Rickman's great, over-the-top portrayal of the Sheriff of Nottingham. Out of place? You betcha. Fun? Funny? Wicked? Hey, that's why we pay admission.

The sets are all dank and gloomy and wonderful. The action is well-staged and had audiences on their feet all those years ago. Sherwood Forest is appropriately dense and spooky-looking. OK, so the movie has Christian Slater in it. I didn't say it was perfect.

'Robin Hood' marked the beginning of the end of Kevin Costner's unanimous popularity with audiences. Everyone started playing the part of Hollywood bean-counter and worrying about 'Waterworld's' budget. But you know what I like about both these movies? No CGI. I am sick and tired of CGI movies. Popping the deluxe 'Robin Hood' DVD into the old player is a refreshing treat and a thumb in the eye of digital junk like 'Pirates of the Caribbean.'
179 out of 223 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed