Little John (Eric Allan Kramer) and Robin Hood (Cary Elwes) clash with staffs in the forest
Film review

Robin Hood: Men in Tights

1993 · Directed by Mel Brooks · 1h 44m

In a sentenceCary Elwes can do the accent; the script cannot always do the joke

Robin Hood (Cary Elwes) is chained in a dungeon in Jerusalem during the Crusades when a fellow prisoner, Asneeze (Isaac Hayes), helps him escape and asks him to look after his son Ahchoo (Dave Chappelle), who is studying in England. Robin swims home to find his family castle repossessed, his blind servant Blinkin (Mark Blankfield) guarding the empty plot, and Prince John (Richard Lewis) running the country while King Richard is away. The Sheriff of Rotingham (Roger Rees) collects the taxes and covets Maid Marian (Amy Yasbeck), who wears a chastity belt and is chaperoned by Broomhilde (Megan Cavanagh). Robin gathers Little John (Eric Allan Kramer) and Will Scarlet O’Hara (Matthew Porretta), puts the villagers in tights, and sets about robbing the rich.

Fi1m review

Mel Brooks aims at the Costner Robin Hood and hits it about one gag in three. Cary Elwes plays it straight and Roger Rees plays it scrambled, and between them they carry a spoof that would otherwise sit down and rest.

Mel Brooks takes aim at Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, the 1991 Kevin Costner film, and at the whole Sherwood legend behind it, and the target is the first thing to say about the result. Costner’s film was already solemn to the point of comedy, so a spoof of it has to get laughs out of things that were faintly funny to begin with. Brooks, Evan Chandler and J.D. Shapiro manage it about one gag in three. The other two are either a pun on a name or a routine Brooks has done better before.

Cary Elwes is the film’s best decision. He plays Robin absolutely straight, chin up, hand on hip, and lets the nonsense happen around him, and when he points out that, unlike some other Robin Hoods, he can manage an English accent, the line lands because he has spent twenty minutes earning it. Roger Rees, as the Sheriff of Rotingham, does the opposite job. He speaks in sentences whose words have been shaken up and poured out again, and he does it with such conviction that we laughed every time, then felt slightly foolish for still laughing on the fourth go. These two are the reason the film works whenever it works.

The support is more variable. Richard Lewis plays Prince John as a Los Angeles neurotic with a mole that moves about his face between scenes, which is a good joke twice and is told six times. Dave Chappelle, young and loose as Ahchoo, gets some of the sharpest lines in the picture and is given oddly little to do with them. Amy Yasbeck’s Marian is sweet and padlocked and not much else. Mark Blankfield’s Blinkin gets a run of gags about not seeing things that carries on well past the point where the audience has noticed. Brooks himself turns up briefly, and the film wakes up the moment he does.

The film looks cheap, and mostly on purpose. Michael D. O’Shea lights everything flat and even, like a television studio, so that Roy Forge Smith’s castle walls look like painted castle walls; nobody is pretending otherwise. Dodie Shepard’s tights are the tights the title promises, and the song that celebrates them is staged with real energy and cut by Stephen E. Rivkin at a pace the rest of the film could have used. Hummie Mann’s score plays the swashbuckling straight, all brass and galloping strings, and it is the correct choice, since a spoof needs one department taking things seriously.

What does not work is the rhythm. Brooks’s best films, Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein, both from 1974, threw jokes at a rate that meant a bad one was buried by the next before you had noticed it. Here Rivkin holds on the reaction after the punchline, so the bad ones sit in the open. Our honest experience was of laughing hard perhaps five or six times across 104 minutes and spending the stretches between waiting, politely, for the next one. We were never bored enough to be cross, but we did check the time, which we do not remember doing during Spaceballs.

The PG certificate is fair and the rudeness is of the seaside-postcard sort: a chastity belt, a rap about tights, a hag named Latrine (Tracey Ullman) who fancies the Sheriff. Patrick Stewart arrives late as King Richard with a Scottish accent that anyone who sat through the Costner film will recognise, and his few minutes are among the best here.

Most critics have been lukewarm and we are more or less with them. This is Brooks in his slippers, fond of his old routines and in no hurry to find new ones. If you have children of the age at which a wandering mole is the funniest thing in the world, it will do the job on a wet afternoon. If you remember what Brooks could do when he was properly awake, keep Blazing Saddles to hand for afterwards.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

49
Positive
1
Mixed
2
Negative
3

Most critics find Robin Hood: Men in Tights an uneven spoof, likeable enough but a long way below Brooks’s earlier comedies, and the reviews lean mildly negative. Where the praise lands, it lands on the same few things: Cary Elwes’s straight-faced Robin, Amy Yasbeck playing it equally po-faced, the running Sheriff of Rottingham joke, and Brooks’s own brief appearance, which the Los Angeles Times reckons the funniest thing in it.

The reservations cluster on the gags, which several reviews call obvious, borrowed or thin, and on a structure that wanders between set-pieces. The spread is narrow; only Variety comes out clearly in favour, taking the borrowed jokes as part of the fun rather than a fault. Roger Rees’s Sheriff is the one real split: Variety enjoys him, Radio Times does not. Slant, writing years later, is the harshest, calling the whole thing lazy.

Variety
28 July 1993 · Leonard Klady
75*

Klady finds the film an entertaining return to Brooks’s anarchic comedy, though its borrowed jokes sometimes blunt the fun. He singles out Cary Elwes’s straight-faced Robin and Roger Rees’s comic Sheriff for praise.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
17 May 2010 · ★★½ · Chris Cabin
50

Cabin finds the film a lazy, largely unsuccessful late-career effort from Brooks. He notes that a few cameos and scattered jokes provide some languid merriment, but the humor rarely reaches the heights of Brooks’s earlier work.

Read the full review →
Time Out
29 April 2013
50*

The critic suggests the premise is a weak foundation for the comedy, though the verdict is not wholly negative. The Sheriff of Rottingham joke is singled out as a source of amusement.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Angie Errigo
40*

Errigo finds the spoof likeable but uneven, with too few laughs to make it a Brooks classic. She singles out the Sheriff of Rottingham and the late Good King Richard cameo as highlights.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
28 July 1993 · Peter Rainer
40*

Rainer finds the comedy uneven, with obvious spoofs and a hollow feel when Brooks is absent. He praises Brooks’s brief on-screen performance as especially funny and singles out several supporting players for comic energy.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★ · David Parkinson
40

Parkinson finds the spoof uneven and ultimately disappointing. He praises Cary Elwes and Amy Yasbeck’s po-faced performances, but criticizes the weak gags, untidy structure and Roger Rees’s Sheriff.

Read the full review →

Straight answers AI written, from our review

Is Robin Hood: Men in Tights worth watching?
Robin Hood: Men in Tights is worth watching only if you are fond of Mel Brooks or have children young enough to find a wandering mole hilarious, and we scored it 55. Cary Elwes plays Robin straight and Roger Rees scrambles his sentences with conviction, and between them they land about one gag in three. The stretches between are polite waiting.
How long is Robin Hood: Men in Tights, and what is it rated?
Robin Hood: Men in Tights runs 1h 44m. It is a comedy film.
Where can I watch Robin Hood: Men in Tights in Switzerland?
Robin Hood: Men in Tights is not on any streaming or rental service in Switzerland at the moment. It is available in 24 other countries; change your country at the top of the page to see where. Availability is checked daily.
How does Robin Hood: Men in Tights compare to The Adventures of Robin Hood?
Robin Hood: Men in Tights is a spoof of the Robin Hood legend, while The Adventures of Robin Hood is the legend played straight, and the earlier film is much the better of the two. Errol Flynn's Technicolor swashbuckler is simple, loud and built on one clear moral line; Brooks's film is cheap on purpose and funny in fits. Choose the Flynn unless you specifically want the jokes.
What should I watch after Robin Hood: Men in Tights?
After Robin Hood: Men in Tights, try The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938, Fi1m 90): Errol Flynn in green, the legend played straight and still the version to beat. Then Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991, Fi1m 65): The film Brooks is laughing at; watch it first and the jokes double; and Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975, Fi1m 87): Medieval England spoofed on no money at all, and funnier for it.

Cast

If you liked this, try…

  1. The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938, Fi1m 90)Errol Flynn in green, the legend played straight and still the version to beat.

  2. Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991, Fi1m 65)The film Brooks is laughing at; watch it first and the jokes double.

  3. Blazing Saddles (1974) · not on Fi1m yetBrooks at full speed, a joke every ten seconds and most of them landing.

  4. Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975, Fi1m 87)Medieval England spoofed on no money at all, and funnier for it.

  5. The Princess Bride (1987, Fi1m 86)Elwes plays another straight-faced hero in a fairy tale that knows it is one.