This film has an ego problem—it makes *Prince of Thieves* seem really good by comparison. I have to admit, I enjoy watching *Prince of Thieves* repeatedly; it’s entertaining as long as you focus on Alan Rickman's performance. Rickman seemed to operate independently for much of the movie, able to improvise and let loose, while Morgan Freeman was consistently paired with Costner and generously deferred, allowing Kevin a chance to avoid even trying to act. There are some talented performers and character actors here, plus Russel Crowe. A common issue I have with many of Crowe’s films is that he isn't as giving as Freeman; he doesn't recede into the background so others can shine and contribute to a successful movie. Crowe dominates every scene he's in, and even when he’s not speaking, his movements and actions are designed to draw attention to himself rather than the other actors. *Master and Commander* suffered because of this. He likely didn’t dare compete with Pacino in *The Insider*, and I imagine Bale would be similarly assertive in *3:10 to Yuma*. But in *Robin Hood*, Crowe is back to his old habits. It's another Russel Crowe showcase, which quickly becomes wearing. My personal guideline for Crowe movies is straightforward: if it appears he’ll have to share the spotlight, it will likely be a good film; if he can take over, the movie will probably be bad. *Robin Hood* stinks.

Source on TMDB