Princess of Thieves
#1
Yes, I'm embarassed to say that I watched a Disney movie today. I couldn't help myself. Keira Knightly just looked too cute on the DVD cover, so I rented it. Although, I'm now feeling like a dirty old man, cause I just found out that she was 15 when she made the movie! :anxious:

I thought it was alright, considering it's a made-for-tv Disney movie. I always enjoy Malcolm McDowell, even at his craziest. Actually, he's not crazy as the Sheriff of Nottinham, he plays it more realistic, which is good.

I think the movie borrowed some from Disney's animated Robin Hood movie. Didn't Robin split the Sheriff's arrow in the bullseye then too? Like father, like daughter, I guess. Smile
Reply
#2
The splitting the arrow bit, was, I think, featured in Howard Pyle's book The Adventures of Robin Hood. It certainly showed up in the classic Errol Flynn version from 1939, which was long before either of the Disney versions (THE STORY OF ROBIN HOOD, which was non-animated, and ROBIN HOOD, which was).

The Disney people do have a fair amount of good movies to their credit, but it seems strange to have a title which hints at a sequel to the awful ROBIN HOOD--PRINCE OF THIEVES, released by another studio.
Reply
#3
I didn't know that the arrow bit was from the book and earlier versions as well!

Personal tastes aside, wasn't Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves a big hit? That was the Costner one, right?
Reply
#4
I liked Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. The only thing bad about it was Costner's accent - or complete lack thereof. It was a pretty big hit, it was one of the top grossing for that year IIRC.
Sheldon: I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.

~ The Big Bang Theory
Reply
#5
Quote:Originally posted by GamgeeFest
I liked Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. The only thing bad about it was Costner's accent - or complete lack thereof. It was a pretty big hit, it was one of the top grossing for that year IIRC.


Well, that and the story, the plot, and some of the acting. Asside from that, and Morgan Freeman, it was a mediocre film.

I grant that it was a retelling of the story, but recasting the Sherrif of Nottingham in the role of some kind of evil, insane wannabe Prince John fairly ruined the story for me. I much prefer a Robin Hood who is taking on the whole kingdom of Britain, rather than a Robin Hood who only has to take on an upstart sherrif.

And what was the deal with the old lady/witch subplot. Was there really any point to this other than to make the bad guys even worse, and thus their death that much more justified? Wasn't killing, rapping and stealing from innocent peasentry enough?

Weak, weak, weak is all I can say about this film.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#6
To answer Boomstick, yes, ROBIN HOOD: DANCES WITH THIEVES, I mean PRINCE OF THIEVES was a big hit, but that didn't make it a good movie. While I didn't care for ROBIN HOOD: MEN IN TIGHTS either, I did love it when Cary Elwes (forever the Dread Pirate Roberts) said, "At least I have an English accent."

While Alan Rickman was fun, playing the film for camp, there is so much wrong with the Costner version it is hard to know where to begin. For example, in an era where the printing press is unknown and illiteracy is the standard, we have neatly printed wanted posters presented to a peasantry that couldn't read them. We have the invention of the telescope before the invention of the telescope. The original Merry Men were lively characters in their own right, but not here. I love swashbucklers, but here was a grand opportunity that was just squandered.
Reply
#7
Quote:Originally posted by SFfilmfan
While Alan Rickman was fun, playing the film for camp, there is so much wrong with the Costner version it is hard to know where to begin. For example, in an era where the printing press is unknown and illiteracy is the standard, we have neatly printed wanted posters presented to a peasantry that couldn't read them. We have the invention of the telescope before the invention of the telescope. The original Merry Men were lively characters in their own right, but not here. I love swashbucklers, but here was a grand opportunity that was just squandered.


Out of curiosity, do you know when the movie was supposed to be set? Durring one of the crusades, to be certain, which rings true with the legend of Robin Hood in the 12th century (one of the only historically correct things in the movie).
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#8
Quote:Originally posted by RobRoy
Out of curiosity, do you know when the movie was supposed to be set? Durring one of the crusades, to be certain, which rings true with the legend of Robin Hood in the 12th century (one of the only historically correct things in the movie).


I think it said in the beginning 1191 AD. And considering the story is a "legend" I think there can be a few historically inaccurate things presented. It's not like Costner was making "The True Story of Robin Hood"WinkSmile As for "Princess of Thieves," I think it's a cute movie, fun, and for kids--or big kids:bg:
This is like what the Greeks done at Troy...'cept they was in a horse...a wooden horse instead of dresses

"It's not possible!"
"Not probable."

--Barbossa and Jack Sparrow
Reply
#9
I can well believe that PRINCESS is the more entertaining of the two.

The Costner Robin Hood does have the Crusades setting, and there is an aspect of the Robin Hood films that none of them have really shown--namely that Richard the Lionhearted wasn't really such a great king, that he never learned to speak English (he spoke French), and that at the end of the story when he returns to reclaim his throne (huzzah!), he only had six more months to live, and then Prince John became King John.

Of course, King John signed the Magna Carta (under duress), which is one of the more signficant acts of any British king. Perhaps he has had a bad rap all these years....
Reply
#10
Quote:Originally posted by Melody
I think it said in the beginning 1191 AD. And considering the story is a "legend" I think there can be a few historically inaccurate things presented. It's not like Costner was making "The True Story of Robin Hood"WinkSmile As for "Princess of Thieves," I think it's a cute movie, fun, and for kids--or big kids:bg:


Nopers, nor would I argue such a point. I was simply asking in regards to the anachronisms that were brought up before, and wondering about the timing.

However, if the idea is to keep your audience entertained, and take them to another place, anything that breaks the suspension of disbelief is a bad thing. Very, very bad. Was there a point to having the telescope, other than as a comedic moment of a "backward" character reasoning out a new peice of technology?

If such an anachronism had served a plot point, driving the story, then I'd be willing to support it. But it doesn't, it breaks the mood, it dispels the illusion and so it's a bad thing for the movie.

Interestingly enough, regarding the arrow splitting, in the ever so famous The Adventures of Robin Hood starring Errol Flynn, Howard Hill, the professional archer hired for the movie (who also played the captain or archers that Robin defeats) split the arrow in the target. It was filmed in one take with no trick photography!
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#11
Well, I like it anyway. I guess it helps I'm not really concerned about historical accuracy, since I would have no clue if a movie was being historically accurate or not. It's just a cute little movie (imo) to watch when the mood for cheesy fun hits me, and I don't think the filmmakers were aiming for anything more than that.
Sheldon: I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.

~ The Big Bang Theory
Reply
#12
That was my view of it too, Gamgee. I have no idea about the "real" story, so I just go with what they give me.
Reply
#13
Quote:Originally posted by RobRoy
Wasn't killing, rapping and stealing from innocent peasentry enough?





Rapping? Huh
:paw: Speak up! Don't mumble!!
Reply
#14
:laugh: I was going to call him out on that, but I didn't for two reasons. One, I bug the poor guy enough, and two, I'm the last one that should be making cracks about grammer and spelling errors!
Reply
#15
Quote:Originally posted by moif
Rapping? Huh


No, I meant rapping. Don't you remember the "Ye Ole Notingham Crew" rap? The sherriff and his men "sang" about "busting a bolt/ in fair Robin's back". The dancing wasn't as great as it could have been, with all the codpeice grabbing and waving crossbows around, but what can you expect from 12th century Britain? :bg:

Sheesh.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#16
Boomstick...

I was thinking so much about the spelling of it, but I know RR sort of likes old school rap...


I'm just not sure how old... :tongue:
:paw: Speak up! Don't mumble!!
Reply
#17
Don't mind me. I'm just generally confused. :laugh: Are we talking about Robin Hood: Men in Tights, then?
Reply

MYCode Guide

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Princess Mononoke and other anime movies badlands 2 3,914 November 21st, 2013, 07:43 PM
Last Post: Michael
  princess and the frog badlands 0 436 December 15th, 2009, 10:04 PM
Last Post: badlands
  Video - Watch "Princess of the Universe" Parts 1 and 2 Michael 0 351 September 21st, 2009, 02:50 AM
Last Post: Michael
  Princess Mononoke Princess Mononoke 3 524 November 27th, 2004, 11:39 PM
Last Post: Alantriel the Elf
  The Princess Bride SeroWes 15 1,164 May 28th, 2004, 07:09 AM
Last Post: missferal

Forum Jump: