Critics’ reviews

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)

10 reviews from 10 publications. Critics’ score 50: 4 positive, 1 mixed, 5 negative.

Back to our review of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves

50
Positive
4
Mixed
1
Negative
5

The reviews are divided, with enthusiasm for the swashbuckling competing with frustration at the storytelling. Praise clusters around the supporting cast, particularly Alan Rickman’s gleefully camp Sheriff of Nottingham, while Morgan Freeman also draws favourable notices. Admirers enjoy the action, humour and irreverence, finding enough dash to forgive the untidiness. Even some less persuaded critics find the action sequences entertaining and the supporting performances stronger than the leads.

The divide is wide: what supporters find spirited, detractors find muddled or simply dull. Kevin Costner’s casting and performance attract repeated criticism, alongside complaints about the length, script and awkward insertion of modern social messages. Direction also splits opinion, earning praise for imaginative staging and criticism for being stolid. The AV Club goes further than most, arguing that racism, sexism and inconsistent characterisation make the film difficult to enjoy beyond its nostalgic appeal.

Radio Times
★★★★ · Alan Jones
80

The critic praises the swashbuckling adventure for its handsome entertainment value and dash. Director Kevin Reynolds is singled out for imaginative staging and a roving camera that turns familiar events into an enjoyable popcorn epic, with strong turns from Costner, Rickman and Freeman.

Read the full review →
Time Out
70*

The review finds the mix of comedy, '90s sensibility and swashbuckling action more hit than miss, though the overall effect is rather slapdash. It calls the film spirited and irreverent, but notes it will not suit those who prefer their myths kept sacred.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Phil Thomas
40*

The critic finds the film fun and frantic but undermined by historical inaccuracies, a turgid script, and Kevin Costner sleepwalking through the lead role. It is largely saved by Alan Rickman's gleefully camp performance as the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
14 June 1991 · Kenneth Turan
40*

The critic calls the film muddled and overlong, a jumble of action, preaching, and comic antics that tries to please everyone. Notes Kevin Costner's awkwardness in the lead role.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
14 June 1991 · Vincent Canby
30*

The critic finds the film a mess and joyless reconstruction that awkwardly incorporates modern social messages. Praises the performances of Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio and Morgan Freeman as the highlights.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
2 October 2014 · Marah Eakin
20*

The film does not hold up on rewatch and is a clunky, poorly acted mess that is disjointed, racist, and sexist. The critic singles out the inconsistent characters, spotty plotting, and uncomfortable scenes for complaint while noting some nostalgic appeal from childhood viewings.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
1 July 1991
20*

The critic describes the film as a dull, dutiful trek through the legend with no real affection from the filmmakers. Notes the stolid direction and miscasting of Kevin Costner.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
18 June 2009 · ★★★★ · Simon Brew
80

The critic calls it one of the most enjoyable blockbusters of the 1990s despite flaws like Costner's accent. They single out Alan Rickman's outstanding, scene-stealing performance as the Sheriff of Nottingham for particular praise.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
9 December 2008 · Stephen Carty
80*

Despite some cheese and ham, this is popcorn of the best kind thanks to its entertaining action, rousing score and standout Alan Rickman performance.

Read the full review →
HeyUGuys
30 November 2022 · ★★★ · Sam Inglis
60

The film remains fantastic fun in its action sequences and strong supporting turns, though it feels dated and long at times with miscast leads.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate