#queueud

...Like. In general?

Robin Hood! Men in Tights! (TIGHT tights!)

Robin Hood, Men In Tights occupies a pretty important spot in movies from a personal point of view. Bearing in mind that I was born in ‘88, and this was released in 1993. My parents loved this movie (and in retrospect a lot of things broadening my horizon weren’t age appropriate but whatever!) and watched it a lot, so I think it probably influenced me in a lot of ways; I certainly love this movie’s campy tone, its musical bits, and the combination of non sequiturs and physical humor. So what happens when you pair a film like that with genuine critical insight? That was something on my mind when this was brought up for the film challenge.

On a side note, this is one of the few movies I actually own a physical copy; my mom got this one a long time ago, and it was one of the DVDs I’ve kept with me ever since. It’s been a long while since I watched a physical DVD, I can tell you that.

But in any event this movie is interesting in light that it's been a pretty consistent presence in my life. Between having been released at a good time for me to have been aware of it throughout the entirety of the conscious memory portion of my life as well as it been played pretty frequently from VHS tapes being ubiquitous in the same way that DVDs and now streaming services would later become as various expressions of how familiarity is delivered, Robin Hood: Men In Tights was ironically enough THE Robin Hood movie for me. The Kevin Costner Robin Hood movie arguably shares that spotlight in some ways (mostly because my mom really, REALLY liked it), and in retrospect I didn’t really have them connected beyond sharing source material. I might compare it to, say, people comparing the G1 Transformers movie and the 1st Michael Bay Transformers movie; my first response might be to say ‘yeah, okay?’ when comparisons are made. They’re both movies made from the same broad material, and while there is analysis to be made about it, I probably wouldn’t make direct comparisons just based on that.

Possibly the most significant thing to consider about this movie is that it is a LOT more specifically poking fun at the Kevin Costner movie in particular than any other Robin Hood source, trope or general plot threads. It’s a parody of Robin Hood, sure, and its not solely fixated on Prince Of Thieves; its just designed on a plot, character and joke level to fixate at parodying Prince of Thieves that while I don’t EXACTLY want to say it hurts the movie’s appeal in the same way that Spaceballs feels a bit of a shallow parody due to Brooks’ apparent disinterest in Star Wars overall. But all the same, it’s hard not to think about.

In the interest of critical analysis of a movie I’ve liked for well over 20 years of conscious awareness, that both my and my immediate family have put some efforts into making sure has consistently been available in our various media access for most of that time, that regularly a feature in movie nights (or at least specific scenes of it; less of the obvious sex jokes in the serenading bit, more of Rabbi Tuck and pretty much any scene where Achoo plays a notable role), I feel obliged to say that I DON’T dislike this movie. Quite the contrary! I still like it, flaws and all. Indeed, it’s not that understanding the flaws or bits I realize I don’t care so much for detract from the overall appreciation. If anything, it certainly makes the comic bits stand out MUCH further.

For some people, I feel that critical analysis feels uncomfortably like drifting away from something you used to like. For me, it’s both a fun thing to do as well as it is a toolset. Analyzing and poking at a movie’s workings, or indeed a TV series, is like disassembling something. 

You’re not damaging it, or your appreciation for it, you’re interrogating it on some level.

(There is a LOT of Princess Bride style bits about. I think on some level it might be that they’re approaching the subject matter with a similar sense of wry humor and SLIGHTLY over-the-top action outside of the physical comedy moments that, on reflection, seems specifically of the swashbuckling sub-genre of adventure stories that I mostly know from as a young kid knowing that my favorite X-Man Nightcrawler was into Errol Flynn and got a mental eye for when things were suitably Flynn-ish, and both these movies run on that general theme.)

The scenes that rely on physical comedy and exaggeration are probably my favorite overall, especially those that aren’t specifically riffing on Prince of Thieves. It’s not that I DISLIKE those bits, certainly, but the specific focus on that movie feels more than a little distracting at times. I can easily pinpoint bits, plot beats, characters and scenes that are whole-hog making a giggle at PoT, and it feels like some missed opportunities to do its own thing more often than not.

In the past I’ve compared Taika Waitit and Mel Brooks, with the point of the former perhaps being the current generation’s filmmakers equivalent to Brooks. They have very similar comedic timing and taste in comedy, there is a certain irreverence to their attitudes, but also when they do bits that I personally don’t care for, it sticks out much more for both of them. Much has been criticized of Love And Thunder (a movie that, as of this writing, I have yet to see and weigh in on it), but based on the tone of the less hyperbolic criticisms of Waitit’s less well received work, I speculate that their misses also show a lot in common. I wouldn’t say this movie is a miss, but it doesn’t ring quite as hard as I expected it to do from a critical lens, nor as firmly and consistently as Young Frankenstein, a movie that is rapidly rising VERY FAST in my personal esteem.

Now, I suspect this particular understanding has been around rattling in my brain for a while because while more direct and, to a certain degree, detached film analysis is a BIT new for me, personally, I HAVE always been interested in poking at the implications in movies ever since I watched Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 1990 (a movie released about two years after I was born and, according to reliable sources, AKA my mother keeping a fairly good track of my special interests across the years, might well have been SUCH a special interest that they had to replace it a few times because I watched the tapes over and over so much they kept wearing out) and noted that just as Raphael and Leonardo have a plot thread, Donatello and Michaelanglo have a role as a duo though more in the background.

Ultimately, I still like this movie; it’s a lot of fun and the slapstick moments are top notch; it’s just a shame that so much of it is specifically focused on parodying Prince of Thieves specifically, and not the larger body of Robin Hood works in particular. I think that if Brooks had not done so, it might have done better. That said, Prince of Thieves DOES have a few interesting elements to it that do lend itself to adaptation, but the specific-ness of it loses a bit of something.

One contentious point is Dave Chapelle, as Ahchoo. For the most part I like his performance a lot, barring the more body humor and ‘dude that’s kinda gross’ humor that is probably recognizable as Chapelle’s stock in trade. Its difficult not to discuss him without considering the controversy and anti-transgender attitudes that follows him, but I suppose a good thing about this movie is that if it was a theme then, he doesn’t really show it here. Not that he has opportunity TO do so, but good enough, I guess. This was apparently his first movie role as well; as such he seems to be a BIT more restrained than in the roles I tend to see him in.

I suppose in some ways I feel the urge to go a bit easy on him because while Ahchoo’s jokes are a bit hit and miss but generally hit WAY more when he acts as the only sane man to Robin Hood being comically serious (that is, Robin is in on the joke and fully engaged in the equivalent of Who’s On First, while Ahchoo would be the guy going off screen to give everyone flash cards so they can do it more sensibly and avoid misunderstandings). The anchronism stew that works well in this movie’s comedic attitudes are particularly present with them, and represented well in the set up song of Ahchoo and back-up singers constantly and smoothing transitioning from modern rap performances to dances right out of medieval celebrations and troupes that most likely popularized the character of Robin Hood in older times.

As an interesting side note, the chant they do there (‘Nonny nonny’) is an Elizabethian thing that was apparently used as a placeholder to allude to naughty or indiscret things. Given Chapelle’s general comic styles, that seems startlingly appropriate.

I probably give Ahchoo a bit of slack because he’s partially based on my favorite character from Prince of Thieves, Azeem. It might be noted that his father, Ahsneeze, is pretty bluntly based on Azeem in a much more direct way. It’s hard to even say he’s entirely a parody; he’s basically the same character with a more comedic attitude. Ahchoo otherwise has a few general stand out moments, and I think they tend to be strongest when he’s either acting as the only reasonable person or is going full ham on the anachronisms; stirring up the Merry Men by paraphrasing Malcom X being a good example.

So then, what of Robin Hood himself? Cary Elwes is, by far, my favorite actor in the movie. While Ahchoo might get comedy from being baffled or calling out the incomprehensible stupidity of everything around him, Elwes’ Robin Hood gets comedy through a very understated performance that contrasts really well against the more ludicrous people around him. He takes it so seriously even as abjectly weird stuff is going on around him, and his scenes are honestly the best overall, whether it is returning the Sheriff’s glove slap with an ARMORED GAUNTLET without ever really changing expression, battling Little John with increasingly tiny quarterstaff bits and being completely baffled as the man panics at drowning in a few inches of water, or goes full Mark Twain in disguise.

He is a LOT of fun in this movie, and I would even go so far as to say that he’s probably my favorite Robin Hood depiction, ever. He’s something of a case study on how to make things funny by having a more serious character contrast more openly silly ones. It helps that while he explicitly does have the same background as Prince of Thieves Robin of Locksley, it comes off as pretty minimalistic and more of an extended joke that also does a ton of understated comedy in a barrage of bad news. It also doubles as showing rapid fire Brooks comedy for sure!

Now, of the cast in general, the Merry Men feel a BIT by the numbers, in contrast. I can at least say that they don’t feel quite as specifically focused on Prince of Thieves; the worst you can say about them in general is that they, and by extension the rest of the Merry Men, are sort of a composite as the movie goes on, but at least they feel like drawing more from the lore of Robin Hood overall. In particular Will Scarlet (O’Hara) doesn’t really do much after some early physical gags, though Little John remains a good comic presence throughout.

Friar Tuck is Mel Brooks at his best. Best scenes are the ones with him in it, that’s just science.

Prince John and the Sheriff are interesting in context of the whole specifically parodying Prince of Thieves bit. John himself is actually a lot of fun, and the ‘bad news in a good way’ bit has lived rent free in my mind for DECADES; taking him as a slightly ditz Joiseyboi is a lot of fun. (I had trouble placing John in PoT at all, and that’s because he’s not in it, the Sheriff of that movie is a composite character with himself and Prince John.) The Sheriff himself is a fun villain for the most part (barring the various lack-of-consent jokes; the 90s was a dire time indeed), though his performance is specifically trying to outdo and lampoon Alan Rickman’s performance. Let’s get a thing straight; one does not outdo Alan Rickman. It just can’t be done. It would be like trying to out ham Vincent Price or Tim Currey, its a losing proposition no matter how you swing it. Maid Marian also feels a BIT by the numbers, while her assistant comes off as a somewhat weaker version of Frau Blucher in Young Frankenstein, but they’re both perfectly fine characters. Can’t say I really like the running gag with the chastity belt bit or the ‘greatest treasure in all the land’.

Does Patrick Stewart rock in his out of nowhere and extremely cool bit as King Richard? OF COURSE HE DOES. IT’S PATRICK STEWART. HE’S AWESOME. NUFF SAID.

The whole bit with Dom Deluise as the Godfather and celebrating the long friendship between England and New Jersey is an anachronistic bit with a lot of non sequiters but I honestly do like it a lot, even if it drags on a bit; he gives a great performance and the way he needles his henchmen is a lot of fun. It also leads into the over the top archery context where Robin one ups his own arrow splitting feat being done by GETTING A PATRIOT MISSILE ARROW INSTEAD.

Overall, I really DO like this movie a lot, though it doesn’t fair quite as well in a lot of ways from a critical perspective; there’s more scenes than not that I would skip on a casual watch, and that’s not a great endorsement. The stuff I wouldn’t skip IS quite good though, so its still a pretty solid movie, all things considered.

Camia ref sheet commission for @apprenticealec !! Thank you so much for comish me :)

about 577 (including this message): its one of the problems where not being able to keep up with incoming messages and a backlog have created a few difficulties!

im considering closing asks for a bit to get to these and ease up the backlog a little bit, if no one has anything particular they want to send in?

if i do this, i will probably do it that coming wednesday, and given that i won’t be able to do more than a few messages a day, they might be closed for some time!

i was playing super mario bros 3 and i got to some random freethinking and i had a very interesting idea for this AU: I’ve mentioned Bowser/Bowsette’s whole ‘not a particularly bad villain’ thing, with the whole go-karting with mario thing, and then I thought about the official statement that they’re often considered actors playing various roles, so I thought: Why not take that all the way in Crossthicc?

What if in this AU, Bowser isn’t a real villain at all, but just plays one?

Consider this: Bowser is not a real villain in any way, shape, or form. He doesn’t kidnap princesses for reals, he’s never SERIOUSLY tried to conquer the universe, and absolutely none of his genuinely villainous actions are something he has actually done. Every single one of his villainous roles from the games is actually a role, as in a performance, he has done with Mario, Peach and the others.

They might all be actors, though I’m leaning towards the possibility that Bowser is, at least. One interesting idea is that Bowser is a pro villain and an actor; all the in-game adventures happened, in a sense, but were extremely well set up adventures specifically for maximum spectacle. (I’m not sure if that’s as interesting to take this as, say, them doing really elaborate productions or films.)

All their power is genuine; Mario and Luigi are some of the strongest heroes in all the universe, Princess Peach is a powerful enchantress with unparalleled knowledge of magic, and all of Bowser’s feats are totally genuine. None of it is special effects, they are all absurdly powerful, and they’re well known for doing it for entertainment. Possibly Bowser specializes in the special effects?

I’m leaning towards Bowser, in particular, being the one most invested in acting, while the others have genuine adventures unrelated to their entertainment exploits; the events of non-Bowser antagonists are GENUINE, to varying degrees. (Basically, if Bowser is being a serious antagonist, it was part of a production, or has been altered in this AU to accommodate Bowser’s status as a pro villain who does it all as part of a show.)

This also might lean towards Bowser being the show persona, the face worn for being a proper villain everyone recognizes. Bowsette might be the form she takes off the set, in her personal life and with her family. The different Bowsette designs can also be incorporated as multiple one-off villains she’s played, usually in the ‘evil sorceress queen’ vibes. She’s close with the Mario bros and Peach, and the rest of the cast, because she’s so invested in their work, she doesn’t have many friends but them.

The Mario bros can be fit into this easily; they are genuine heroes, and they also love putting on a fun show, and are great friends of Bowser off the clock. Peach might actually be more of a figurehead leader, or a magical keystone whose mere existence helps things along, and so she doesn’t actually rule the Mushroom Kingdom per se. Bowser IS legitimately a king.

All in all, Bowser can generally be used here not as a serious antagonist, but as THE pro villain, the one you get to put on a great show and give it her all, and with maximum consideration for colaterall damage, care taken for the heroes’ well being, and generally being a good sport. Bowser tends most towards the Super Mario RPG personality in his personal life: a boisterous tough guy who is really reluctant to admit his real feelings and is extremely concerned about how he is seen, he’s so tied up in his villain portrayals that he is genuinely distressed at being a hero.

Note that non-Bowser villains are exactly as they are portrayed in the games, unless its more fun for them to fellow pro villains as well.

INSTAGRAM @ WICCAMOON

BLOG @MORGUEMAMI