Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)

 "That's it, then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans.No more merciful beheadings. And cancel Christmas."

I've seen this film many times, but not since the turn of the millennium. It is, of course, a highly entertaining Hollywood blockbuster, perhaps the most popular celluloid version of the Robin Hood myth. Yes, Kevin Costner is... well, adequate, but we all know the real star is the late Alan Rickman. Was ever scenery chewed with such aplomb? This is one of the finest bits of moustache twirling villainy in cinematic history, and perhaps the performance for which Rickman will be best remembered. 

And it's a fun film, lots of set pieces. It's good. And yet... it drags a bit in places, doesn't it? And... we need to talk about Robin of Sherwood.

Yes, Azeem, the character played superbly by the always excellent Morgan Freeman, is clearly based on Nasir, and no previous version of the legend had included such a character: the film was lucky not to get sued. Yet the overall plot, the feel, and especially the climax feels suspiciously similar to the TV series, right down to the mild fantasy elements in the person of the witch character.

The geography is, of course, hilarious, and not only the start of the film where the White Cliffs of Dover are apparently within easy walking distance of Hadrian's Wall. The implication throughout is that Nottingham is in some way close to London, and that the Sheriff is in some way a figure of national imporance.

The revelation about Will Scarlet is hilarious too. And doesn't quite feel plausible how Little John's merry band so easily accept Robin as their leader.

Despite all that, though... ah, it's fun watch, and what more do we want?

Frankenstein Unbound (1990)

 "This is not the end of the world."

Some films are very good, so you enjoy them. Some films are pants, so you dontr. This film fits into an interesting third category: the interesting failure. And this is one of those: Roger Corman's first film in twenty years and one which is, although right up his street- a mainly period adaptation of a novel by serious science fiction author Brian Aldiss featuring both interesting ideas around time travel and a postmodern riff on Mary Shelley's Frankenstein featuring the lady herself... er, shagging John Hurt's hero. Er, yes.

The film starts in the (this being 1990) far fututre of 2031, where there are no longer any Brazilian rainforests and KITT from Knight Rider exists, thus predicting both the disgusting Jair Bolsonaroand self-driving cars. If only cars in 2022 looked so cool.

Anyway, John Hurt is maverick scientist Joe Buchanan, selling out his country to the Yankee dollar, tut tut, and risking tim slip side effects in his attempt to sell a superweapon to the US military. He fails, but is propelled back in time to 1817, where he meets not only Mary Shelley but Percy Bysshe Shelley and Lord Byron, both of whom are played for laughs, at Lake Diodati, in an early Nineteenth Century Switzerland where language differences are airily handwaved. There's all sorts of what I rather suspect are clever subtexts about the meaning of "unbound" from the novel that are never quite explored and which remain unclear.

John Hurt is superb. He cannot be otherwise, Bridget Fonda is adequate, as ever. Raul Julia chews the scenery with his usual class. Yet something doesn't quite work. Nevertheless, the film is far from dull.