SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Justina The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

adrenalinejunkiegurl The only reason why I watched this throughout the whole thing was because of Kierra Knightly because, out of all the other actors and actresses, Kierra Knightly was the only one that seemed to do a very decent job. It was not one of her best works, but she still somehow made it seem very believable just like any other movie I have seen with her in it, but everybody else just made it look like a bunch of animal crap that people just step into by accident and get disgusted with it after you stepped into it :P.There was not enough dialogue between Gwyn and Prince Phillip for there to be any kind of relationship whatsoever, there was no spark between them! I do not understand why Disney has to make the main girl character go with someone who is rich and handsome all because he is a prince. It's like they just HAVE to put the girl with a prince when there is was not enough dialouge and not enough spark between them! If anything, Gwyn should have been with Froderick because I could feel the spark between them more than with Gwyn and Prince Phillip because Froderick seemed to be more of the better man and more of Gwyn's type: brave, intelligent, and protective while, on the other hand, this was Prince Phillip's character: naive, cowardly, spoiled, and idiotic.Kierra Knightly's character had a slight development where in that one scene where her father and Will get captured, and Gwyn realizes how stupid it was to have followed her father, but she remained strong to get her father and Will back just so she could save the kingdom. Everybody else, not so much. Prince Phillip's character development, though, changed so quickly that you probably would not have the time to figure out why he decided to be so brave all of a sudden! And both Prince John and Sheriff of Nottingham are not bad guys, in my opinion, they seem more like spoiled little princes just trying to get what they want when their mommies won't let them have what they want.Here's one question, though, before I am to close this review: Exactly how in the hell is Prince Phillip, a prince of France, the son of King Richard, a king of England? Did he screw a French princess while he was there? If he did, that would have brought disgrace and shame to his name, and not to mention, the princess and the baby would have their titles revoked and been sent into exile! If Disney thinks that the King and Queen would have shown sympathy for their daughter all because she "loved" King Richard, they might as well think again! Gosh, Disney, how stupid can you get?!?!?!?! Why don't you look back in the history book, so that you can actually make these things more historically accurate!If you want a good, historical accurate movie, don't watch this! If you also want a very good and entertaining movie, don't watch this, not even for your kids! I would not even let my kids watch this piece of crap!

Aura V If you are planning for a Saturday morning movie to watch in bed while eating breakfast, then this is your movie.The plot was simple and interesting, Keira Knightley was cute and convincing and the location were they shot was beautiful. I live in Bucharest, Romania and it was so easy and fun to determine all of the elements from the scenes that you can find only in this rustic country. There were some really old and amazing ruins from some medieval cities and then the forest and the Black Sea.The sword fighting in the movie was a mess, not convincing, not real at all, those men had no idea how to hold a sword, neither did Keira. She also, had no idea how to hold a bow, though she was more convincing. I can't believe she was 15 and that was her first lead role. It seems that she's been a star since forever and she didn't aged a day.

zyxek This film is not worth your time. I watched it when it premiered on TV out of a lack of anything better to do. And I remember thinking very clearly that the lead actress was strikingly attractive, but a very weak actress. Since then, Keira Knightley has proved that my initial impression might was far too hasty. In fact, her performance in Pride & Prejudice is absolutely Oscar-worthy. But her performance is not worth sitting through this mess. It is a weakly conceived, cheaply made film, and has none of the inherent pleasure of the original Robin Hood legends. The acting is, without exception, overwrought. And many of the scenes are simply painful in memory (like the bad-guy speech right when he is prepared to kill an aging Robin, which gives the secondary hero an opportunity to regain his sword. Are writers never going to tire of that scene?) Robin Hood enthusiasts and Knoightley fans alike should pass this one over.

Li-1 ** out of ****I'm still not sold on the talent or starpower of Keira Knightley, the teenage British actress who took audiences by storm in 2003 by appearing in three critically acclaimed films, Bend it Like Beckham, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Love, Actually (of the three, I only found Beckham truly enjoyable). Princess of Thieves, apparently her first lead role (which she received probably because of her resemblance to Natalie Portman), is a decent outing as far as Disney television movies go (which are usually total crap), but it could have been one corker of a swashbuckler.The film tells the "what if" tale of Gwyn (Keira Knightley), the headstrong daughter of the Prince of Thieves himself, Robin Hood (Stuart Wilson). England is in a current reign of terror under the rule of Prince John (Jonathan Hyde), who has usurped the throne in his brother's absence due to the Crusades. News of the true King's imminent death arrives, leaving the throne in the hands of his son, Philip (Stephen Moyer). But Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham (Malcolm McDowell) conjure a plan to murder Philip, thus leaving the kingdom to John's hands.Robin Hood is assigned to escort Philip to safety in England, a task Gwyn is eager to take upon herself, but is promptly refused by her father. Upset, Gwyn dresses in masculine clothing and sets out to prove she has what it takes to match any man in battle. Matters are further complicated when she bumps into Philip, who poses as a valet to keep his true identity hidden and safe. Princess of Thieves is a TV movie, meaning I should probably go a little easier on it when it comes to aspects involving production values and special effects. But I can't ignore what I see, the movie clearly suffers from a lack of budget. Faraway shots of castles are obviously painted backgrounds and Prince John's army appears to consist of approximately two dozen individuals, not exactly a number that would set fear into the hearts of enemy soldiers.But when it comes to matters of acting and pure entertainment, the film is mostly on decent to solid foot, with the lead performers mostly impressive and the film moving at a fast and perfectly watchable pace. It's a movie you could gladly show your kids, who will probably adore it, and you yourself could also watch along without too much fidgeting. It's no surprise the best performances are delivered by seasoned thespians Malcolm McDowell and Stuart Wilson, but Keira Knightley is also competent as Gwyn, even if she remains an actress of very limited range. Still, she's got the rebellious, "kick ass chick" down. Knightley looks well over twenty in this picture, even though her actual age was probably closer to fifteen (wonder if she'll always look six years older than her real age) and I can't even begin to fathom how she could possibly pass for a boy when her looks are so feminine.It's unfortunate Knightley has no discernible romantic chemistry with lead Stephen Moyer, who's kinda bland at first, but is also occasionally charming as the handsome Prince Philip. Would you be surprised if I told you the movie includes a pointless subplot that's mired in teen movie cliché, with Gwyn's goofy-looking best friend sporting a crush on her even though her affections are for the prince. Would you also be surprised if the goofy best friend decided to take an arrow meant for the prince even though they were standing twenty feet away from each other, meaning the prince also had ample time to avoid this arrow he saw being aimed at him (lots of trees for him to hide behind)? To put it simply, they should have just excised this "love triangle" portion of the story entirely.As a swashbuckling adventure, Princess of Thieves is mostly a failure, with terribly choreographed battle scenes that are miniscule in scale. And because the movie is aimed at kids, the running time is well under ninety minutes, resulting in a rushed feeling throughout the film, particularly in the second half, with the Sheriff inexplicably in the rebels' hands in the blink of an eye (all this happening off screen) or the sudden appearance of the rebel army outside the enemy castle gates. There are still a handful of enjoyable moments within all the action, particularly the scenes involving archery. I especially liked the archery tournament, even if its outcome was blatantly predictable.But it's hard to ignore what a movie this could have been. With several more million dollars, larger and more convincing sets, full-blooded sword-clashing battles, and more intense romantic chemistry, this could have been one hell of a medieval adventure. But this is Disney, and any film made directly by this studio has obvious limits and expectations that have to be met, even if they hinder the simmering potential. Princess of Thieves is adequately disposable entertainment, but for a truly fun, funny, and romantic tale of a dashing prince falling for a beautiful commoner, see the far superior Ever After instead.