Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)

Oh England, My Lionheart

***This Review Contains Spoilers***

No Robin Hood movie can dream of even coming close to the perfection that is The Adventures Of Robin Hood from 1938, but Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves ranks as my 2nd favourite movie about the famed English outlaw. If the 1938 Robin Hood is one extreme of a bright, colourful, tight-wearing, saccharine induced fantasy and the Ridley Scott Robin Hood from 2010 is the opposite extreme of an unnecessarily dark, gritty and overly mature version of the tale, then Prince Of Thieves is the middle ground.

Is the All-American Kevin Costner miscast as Robin Hood? Yes. But do I care? No, not really. Costner’s enthusiasm does come through in his performance and shows he has what it takes to be an action hero. Most people don’t think of Costner as much of a screen presence, but to me, he is (besides, realism is beside the point with a movie like this). Prince Of Thieves opens unexpectedly in Jerusalem showing that this is a Robin Hood movie which does things a bit different, largely with the character of Azeem Edin Bashir Al Bakir (Morgan Freeman), an Arabic man in medieval England. Azeem represents a positive representation of an Arab and the world from which he hails. He holds more enlightened views on women and in one of the movie’s pivotal scenes he hands Robin a rudimentary telescope (very similar to a paralleling scene in Dances with Wolves) which isn’t recorded to have been invented until the 17th century. However, the notion that an individual or individuals from the Arab world might have known about such technology isn’t a too “out there” idea if the claims of the Middle East being a far more advanced society than Europe during the middle ages are to be believed (it’s unlikely we’ll see a character like Azeem in the post-9/11 world in which the Middle East is no longer portrayed in media as an exotic fantasy land rather than a haven for terrorists). Costner and Morgan Freeman do make for a fun duo and who wouldn’t want to have Morgan Freeman always by your side giving you winsomely knowledge – what other actor embodies dignity more than Freeman? There is a big gaping plot hole when Azeem fulfils his duty to Robin by saving his life right after they land on the English shore yet for whatever reason this is not acknowledged. But do I care? No, not really.

However, if there is one actor who steals the show in Prince Of Thieves it has to be Alan Rickman as the twitchy, scenery-chewing, devil-worshipping madman that is the Sherriff of Nottingham. His performance is full of little things which feel like they were improvised and his many outbursts are music to my ears. Is it just me or do classically trained actors often make the most memorable villains? Sean Connery’s appearance, on the other hand, is one of the better uses of a celebrity cameo in a film. Just like how the characters are surprised to see Richard the Lionheart return to England, we as the audience are surprised to see Sean Connery (he is perfect in these kinds of roles).

Prince Of Thieves plays host to a number of anachronisms including the aforementioned telescope, the inclusion of the Beaux Tapestry in the opening credits to the presence of Celts in 12th century Scotland and Kevin Costner’s mullet. However, the most prevalent anachronism is the imparting of contemporary values into England circa 1194. The film does contain an undercurrent of feminism with the estate Robin visits shortly after his return to England, being run by women and guarded by a female in armour which is revealed to be none other than the Lady Marian (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio) in a portrayal of the character as a woman with a sense of self who is subservient to anyone. Concurrently, Azeem affectionately refers to Robin as “Christian” throughout the course of the film, despite the story being during the era of the crusades and despite the prejudice Azzem encounters on his journey with Robin in England (“In your country, am I not the infidel?”). Prince Of Thieves is a Robin Hood telling which takes a rather dim view of The Crusades with both Robin and Azeem making various comments throughout the film of their disapproval of the event. Some may look at Prince Of Thieves as a more politically correct Robin Hood, but I don’t feel as if the film is attempting to shove any messaging down my throat unlike that or more contemporary films, nor does it interfere with the storytelling.

Prince Of Thieves is good old-fashioned, swashbuckling adventure filmmaking. The action on display has a sense of weight and physicality with the impressive large-scale action sequences with even that out-there moment with Robin and Azeem being fired over a wall with a catapult still feeling believable, and not a computer-generated effect in sight – all practical glory. Likewise, how can that score by Michael Kamen not evoke the adventurer in you (the music is so good that it appears Disney has been using it on their own logo). I may also be the one remaining person in the world who isn’t sick to death of Bryan Adams’ (Everything I Do) I Do It For You – I still jam to it now and then. Ah the days when the pop song tie-in was as big, if not bigger than the movie itself. Prince Of Thieves even does the English landscape justice; regardless of the drab winter weather, there is still a beauty to it. Prince Of Thieves features some breathtaking money shots, such as that of Robin firing an arrow with an explosion behind him filmed at 300 frames per second; or perhaps my favourite shot in the film, the romantic elevator with the sun in the background splitting the trees. Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves is a film with its faults but I’m so engaged with the world and its aesthetic that I can look past them, a world in which everything feels used and lived in, one beaming with personality.

JFK (1991)

JFK, Blown Away, What Else Do I Have To Say?

I’m aware in modern times conspiracy theories have become detrimental in discovering the actual truth (largely thanks to the internet) but I can’t deny that I just love this sort of stuff. JFK requires your utmost attention and at a runtime of three hours, it feels like the movie leaves no stone upturned (pardon the pun) in its examination and deconstruction of the Kennedy assassination. Admittedly the first time I watched JFK I didn’t understand much of what is discussed in the film. It’s a lot to digest in a single viewing but there are more intriguing theories here than an entire season of Ancient Aliens (minus the bad haircuts and awkward line delivery); but I can happily watch JFK multiple times to further understand it and eat up every single word of dialogue. I doubt we will ever need another film made about the Kennedy assassination; what highly talented filmmaker could be more passionate about the subject matter? I also highly recommend watching the director’s cut for even more conspiracy goodness to evoke the paranoia in you.

JFK is one of those movies which makes you most appreciate the art of editing, incorporating many layers of time and reels of stock footage; no scene during the movie’s three hours is edited in a standard fashion. The editing help make the film’s exposition exciting; a character may be describing an event as the scene cuts to just that in an obscured or dreamlike manner. The Mr. X sequence with Donald Sutherland is a perfect example of how to pull of engrossing exposition; plus is there a more classic cold war, spy movie type scene than meeting a suited man in the park to receive classified information. Likewise, John Williams’ theme for JFK evokes my inner patriotic American, even if I’m not American. The militaristic and at other times conspiratorial nature of the score helps make the movie as compelling as it is. The black & white scenes such as those featuring the military feel reminiscent of Seven Days In May with shades throughout of the John Frankenheimer style. I’m sure Stone must have also taken some pointers from the first movie about the Kennedy assassination, 1973’s Executive Action.

JFK continues the tradition of films such as The Longest Day in which a large ensemble cast of familiar faces and great screen presences to help guide us through the story. It’s amazing seeing different generations of actors doing some of the best work their careers and utilizing their screen personas to full effect even if many of them are only on screen for short spaces of time. Some of the figures in the story strike me as too bizarre to have been real-life people, especially David Ferrie and Claw Shaw.

I’ve always been in defense of Kevin Costner against criticisms of being a dull actor. Granted his career did go downhill in mid 90’s and has never fully recovered but in his heyday of the late 1980’s/early 90’s he was such a hot streak of films. Casting him in the role of Jim Garrison couldn’t be more perfect as Costner is much like a modern-day classic movie actor in the vein of everymen like James Stewart, Henry Fonda or Gary Cooper. He’s been most commonly compared to Cooper (the courtroom section of the film is reminiscent of Cooper’s role in The Fountainhead) although with his southern demeanor I would compare him to being a modern-day Henry Fonda. I would defy anyone to call Costner a bad actor after watching the film’s courtroom scene. Talking almost non-stop for 40 minutes and never losing my attention while exuding a stern, emotional and towards the end of the speech, a fragile voice; with his final conclusion bringing a tear to my eye.

I find Jim Garrison’s family life interesting itself, mostly from the relationship with his wife. What does he see in her? She does not support his endeavors, despite his noble cause and unlike her husband, she is susceptible to believing what the media tells her. Here is a man who spends the movie questioning and fighting the system yet has a wife with a conformist personality. I can’t say for certain what they were like in real life but the in film I grew to dislike her character.

JFK  draws no conclusions, it doesn’t prove who assassinated Kennedy and allows the viewer to make up their own mind. Stone may be often criticized for his use of a dramatist’s license but as I say with many films based on historical events; this can make for a more compelling story. Even if there are untruths present, the film can act as a gateway to wanting to discover the real story. The movie did leave me a feeling of (good) anger and is one of the films I can credit with helping to influence the way I think.

“Dedicated to the young in whose the spirit the search for truth marches on.”