brando647
It's disappointing to revisit a movie you loved in your younger years only to discover the movie is almost intolerable now. It's even more disappointing when that movie comes from comedy legend Mel Brooks. The movie in question is, obviously, ROBIN HOOD: MEN IN TIGHTS. I seriously loved this movie as a teenager; one of my friends had it on VHS and we would watch it all the time. Since then, I'd always been on the lookout for a good DVD or Blu-ray copy so I could bring it into my collection and remind myself how awesome it was. When I bought the Mel Brooks collection, this was the movie I was most excited to own because I hadn't seen it in probably more than twenty years. Then I sat down and watched it and, man, I don't think I laughed once. Not once. Even my daughter, who'd gotten a kick out of SPACEBALLS, couldn't be bothered to pay attention. I can't say this is Mel Brooks' worst film because I there are still two or three I haven't seen, but I can say with utmost certainty it's the worst one I've encountered. It really kills me to acknowledge it; I haven't been this let down by a movie I used to love since MORTAL KOMBAT. But you know what? I'd rather re-watch MORTAL KOMBAT than MEN IN TIGHTS because at least it doesn't make me cringe. Did it not age well, or was it never good to begin with?No sense in recapping the plot: it's the classic tale of Robin Hood as told through the lens of Mel Brooks. It features Cary Elwes, a young Dave Chappelle, and Richard Lewis with minor roles for Brooks (as Rabbi Tuckman), Tracey Ullman, and even Patrick Stewart. This should have been a sure-fire win and, for many years, I believed it to be one. But, man, this was a rough one to sit through now. It hits you right off the bat with exposition in the form of a Sherwood Forest rap that's just…it's embarrassing to watch. From there we're taken to the Middle East where we're introduced to Robin of Loxley (Elwes) as he's tossed in a dungeon following his capture during the Crusades and we're given a taste of the style of humor we can expect: a dungeon maître d' named Falafel, a gag where Robin's tongue is stretched a foot out of his mouth while he goes cross-eyed, and Isaac Hayes making a "feat of strength"/"feet of strength" pun. None of it, and I mean none, was landing for me. It all came across as just incredibly dumb and at no point did it crawl its way out from that ditch. Recurring jokes, such as the Sheriff of Rottingham (Roger Rees) and his stress-induced speech impediment, hit with a thud but keep coming back whether you found them amusing or not. I felt bad watching MEN IN TIGHTS. A movie shouldn't make me feel bad for not laughing.I love Mel Brooks and I love his movies. He's had a few missteps but I can usually find enough about the movie to enjoy it to some extent. MEN IN TIGHTS tries its hardest to hide those positive notes under a pile of stale jokes, but they're there. Elwes doesn't actually cut it for me here. Sure, as he's proud to brag, he's "the only Robin Hood to speak with an English accent" but he's a freaking cartoon. He just mugs about for the entire movie. It's actually sort of annoying. Get your Elwes fix from THE PRINCESS BRIDE instead. Chappelle is great, even if he feels a little out of place in something so cheesy at times in the movie. His character is a man from Africa named "Ahchoo" so, you know, expect plenty of play from that gag. I also liked Mark Blankfield as Robin's loyal blind servant Blinkin. Sure there are plenty of easy gags to come from his blindness but he's adept at the physical comedy and it works. Let's see…there was a fun meta-gag late in the film that breaks the fourth wall. That's a fun Brooks trope and makes from one of the few honest laughs in the movie. Other than that, there's barely anything here worth a mention. This wasn't written by Brooks usual team. Instead, he's got J.D. Shapiro, the man behind…let's see…Oh…BATTLEFIELD EARTH and one episode of "Charles in Charge". Well I guess that explains a lot now.
Horst in Translation ([email protected])
"Robin Hood: Men in Tights" is Academy Award winner Mel Brooks' take on the famous Robin Hood story, especially on the Kevin Costner film from shortly before. I am not too familiar with Brooks' other works, but I kinda liked these 105 minutes here. There were a handful really funny scenes and some also that were not so entertaining as for every decent comedy. Maybe it was a bit too long for its own good, but then again they may have cut some of the scenes I liked the best if they had kept this shorter. I am not really familiar with the actors in here except Richard Lewis who I knew from "Curb Your Enthusiasm", which is usually a problem as I like seeing familiar faces, but here it worked well nonetheless.It is tough for me to point out a favorite scene or joke in here, but I preferred the action-based jokes more than the plays on words with one character for example constantly, as a recurring joke, messing up his sentences by mixing up syllables or words. That became repetitive at some point. The spoof scenes are possible the best aspect of this film. I have only seen the very old Errol Flynn movie when it comes to Robin Hood, but it's easy to see resemblance on many occasions. Overall, I must say that this was a pretty good watch, certainly one of the better comedies of 1993 I'm sure. So yeah, this film is over 20 years old and even if Mel Brooks was already in his late 60s back then, he is still alive and kickin'. He turns 90 this year and I am positive that his film here is one of his finest efforts. Even if it never reaches true greatness, I give this one a thumbs up and recommend it.
Phil Hubbs
'We're men...we're men in tights...YES! we roam around the forest looking for fights!'A strange choice for Brooks I think, he seemed to move into historical legends in the 90's along with his take on Dracula. The tag for the film is accurate I guess, this legend did have it coming for sure with so many variations out there at the time...most notably and laughably the Kevin Costner debacle. Also not forgetting the Patrick Bergin Robin Hood flick that was emulating Costner's version!Of course being a Brooks film the cast is made up of all his regulars...and I'm sure if his older regulars weren't dead he'd have used them too. Amy Yasbeck begins her brief Brooks career here as Marian before rejoining Brooks for Dracula. Dick Van Pattern is back after working with Brooks in 'High Anxiety' and 'Spaceballs', Megan Cavanagh and Matt Porretta both went on to Dracula along with Yasbeck and finally the magnificent pair of Dom Deluise and Robert Ridgely are both Brooks film veterans.Naturally there has been many liberties taken with the plot...well actually its based around other Robin Hood movies really, nothing to do with the actual fable at all. Its clear to see the classic Errol Flynn version and the classic animated Disney version are the two main influences here. Brooks pretty much follows both of these films scene for scene whilst adding his own unique brand of spoofery. This whole approach does actually work well in all honesty because you can enjoy the cartoonish tomfoolery and it also kinda harks back to a different age of cinema. Whether this was intentional or not I'm not sure, it probably just happened because they were spoofing two classic films but the quaint visuals, simple effects and colourful characters are very appealing.There is a thin line between the silly childish humour and the slightly more risky adult humour which I think is handled well. I say adult humour but its not really that bad, just a touch of toilet humour. Whilst most of the laughs fall flat I can't deny there are some nice chuckles to be had and some clever imaginative send-ups. The usual blend of visual slapstick and cheesy dialog is to be expected but much of it is all in the delivery and luckily this movie does have some noteworthy comedic performances.Its quite a surprise that Elwes does actually put in a solid funny performance as Robin Hood, what's even more surprising is the fact he does have a slightly similar resemblance to Flynn...a blonde Flynn. His little tufts of facial hair, the fact he's British, that wry smug smile of his when he fights and all tied together in the classic green and brown attire. At the same time Richard Lewis is also a great Prince John! I loved how his mole kept moving across his face in each scene and his 80's mullet hairdo, plus this guy can deliver a funny line. He has this great whiny nervous tone to his voice which really comes to life when he panics and cries 'hurt them! hurt them!!'.I also must confess to enjoying Brooks small cameo as a Rabbi, could of gone another way but the old ones are the best ones I guess. Eric Kramer is also surprisingly amusing as the towering Little John, not so much to say but he is good with the visual comedy side of things as was Blankfield as the blind 'Blinkin'...sounds utterly cringeworthy I know but it does work. It was only Rees as the Sheriff of Rottingham (*groan*) that seemed to swing and miss for me, clearly trying way too hard to hammer those funny lines in. Same could be said for Tracy Ullman as the witch who didn't even really need to be there.As I'm sure everybody knows by now a film like this is all about the delivery, the comedic performances of the actors, if that aspect is nailed then the film is reasonably secured. Its not about the effects or sets or costumes...although its nice if they look good but end of the day its whether you can laugh with the film and not at it for being crap. Personally I think this movie just about makes the grade, its earned somewhat of a cult status over time and I can see why. There is a lot of embarrassing crud in here this is true (Dave Chappelle), some visual gags are terribly simple bordering on downright infantile whilst some of the visuals are very basic. But (and its a biggish but) there is also just enough solid cheeky clever lampoonery and dialog along with performances to make you smile. Although it doesn't have the overall sheen of Brooks follow up vampire flick.6.5/10
