Robin Hood - Prince Of Mullets

There are three reasons why I watched Robin Hood - Prince of Thieves again recently. It was on television anyway. I hadn't seen it for an eternity. And my lasting impression is that it's ten times more entertaining than the recent Scott/Crowe collaboration depicting the legendary English hero. And while it's a long way from perfect, Prince of Thieves might very well be twenty times more superior to the 2010 effort.

There's several things that sets it above the new version of Robin Hood:-

1/ Most obviously, it's telling a much better, far more engrossing story. That's because it adheres to the established Robin Hood lore (which is compulsive viewing...there's a reason this same story's been retold countless times) and because it puts all of the character's (both good and bad) at the heart of the tale. Like many Costner movies, it's a story that takes its time in being told...gradually building character, back story and the plot foundations before Robin is forced on the run.

2/ Even if the characters are under-written in what is a straight-forward period adventure yarn, they all spring to vivid life because of the fantastic casting. Before star Kevin Costner took a liking playing morally questionable folk in the mid 90's, he was the go-to guy in Hollywood for the clean cut everyman (The Untouchables, No Way Out, Field Of Dreams). And whatever aspects of a 'petulant teenager becoming wise warrior' he might bring to his Robin, it's that quiet, centred morality he brings to the role that grounds the whole movie. Bring in an actor with less ability, or someone with more a more aggressive attitude, and the story begins to unravel.

His opposite in The Sheriff of Nottingham is infamously performed by the incredible Alan Rickman who bounds around in full-on pantomime mode. This is the stand-out, scene stealing, having-more-fun-than-criminally-allowed acting of the entire film. Everybody else excels too. Christian Slater's angry, mis-trusting Will Scarlett, Nick Brimble's tough, West Country bumpkin Little John, Michael Wincott's snarling Guy Of Gisburne, Geraldine McEwan's scheming, lunatic witch, Michael McShane's booming, drunkard Tuck, Morgan Freeman's noble, intellectual Azeem and finally, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio's fragile but feisty Marion. I've never thought of her as the most attractive actress in the world, but her pitch perfect English accent combined with a studied comic delivery makes her adorable. Even tiny characters like Fanny, Duncan, Wulf and Sarah have moments to shine...just showing how much thought went into the scripting and casting process.

3/ Then there's Michael Kamen's score...absolutely a career-best piece of work. Kamen came to prominence in the late 80's with a string of action scores for Joel Silver, that included Lethal Weapon, The Last Boy Scout, Hudson Hawk and Die Hard. This was his first, full blown, epic composition since Highlander that not only had a valid life separate from the silver screen, but was instrumental in the success of the film. Not having Kamen's score wouldn't have made it a bad movie in any respect...but it's addition lifts the whole enterprise to a completely higher level; raising that sense of high adventure, thrills and grandeur. It's still one of the most accomplished score of the 1990's along with John William's Jurassic Park score and the early works of Hans Zimmer.

Still, despite all the great stuff, there's a surprising amount that doesn't come off as well as it should.

1/ Costner's mullet. WTF!?!

2/ Costner and Slater's accents. While Mastrantonio is 100% convincing as a Brit, Kev and Slates barely make an effort. But their characters are so distinctive and the story has so much momentum...you just about forgive them.

3/ It looks cheap. The forest scenes are flawless, whether it's the impressive tree house sets, the magnificent waterfall locations, or the beautiful shafts of light that pierce the woodland canopy. But the sets, from the Nottingham marketplace to the Jerusalem courtyard, all look like plywood with a lick of paint. A studio set basically. The bland photography doesn't help to sell the realism during interior scenes and the exterior shots rarely come to life unless the sun is out to lend a hand to the film crew. It means the whole enterprise frequently has a thrifty sheen instead of the multi-million dollar gloss that you'd expect from a major blockbuster.

4/ Perhaps the greatest hindrance to the film's potential for greatness is the uneven tone which director Kevin Reynolds gives the film. Much of the acting is played over-the-top, most noticeably Rickman...which is in sharp contrast (sometimes jarringly so) to Costner's restrained heroics. In fact the thespians are split firmly into two camps as to which acting style they use, with Freeman, Mastrantonio and Slater joining Costner, while Brimble, McEwan and McShane join Rickman...with Wincott treading the narrow line in between. In the first Pirates movie, Depp is the only one chewing the scenery in an OTT manner....and so the whole weight of seriousness occupying the rest of the movie neatly balances him out. But with Prince of Thieves, that balance isn't quite there. It sometimes feels like a Gilliam movie or maybe a little Pythoneque...which is fine...until you get to the next scene of Robin wrestling with thoughts of revenge and rebellion. It doesn't quite mix. However, it's down to the dynamic and compelling telling of the story that these different styles can exist in the same movie...and still make it a fun roller coaster ride.

4/ Oh, and the Bryan Adams song is shite.

The film is way too much fun for it's flaws to overwhelm it. The action is ten times more imaginative than Ridley Scott's effort and far better shot with Kevin Reynolds constantly tracking, panning, spinning, zooming and dollying camerawork. This is the type of film Prince Of Persia wanted to be but Bruckheimer never had the balls to get a cast and crew as talented as this to make it. Just 'cause a film isn't perfect doesn't mean it's not good. And Prince Of Thieves is very, very good.