Robin Hood comes home after fighting in the Crusades to learn that the noble King Richard is in exile and that the despotic King John now rules England, with the help of the Sheriff of Rottingham. Robin Hood assembles a band of fellow patriots to do battle with King John and the Sheriff.
Critics in 1993 largely dismissed the film as a disappointingly slack entry from Mel Brooks, piling on complaints about recycled jokes, limp pacing, and a scattershot screenplay that never cohered the way his classic parodies had. Audiences were warmer, and over the decades a cult following has formed — creating a real gap between what reviewers wrote at the time and how the film is remembered and loved today.
“What's missing is the kind of densely packed comic screenplay that helped to make Young Frankenstein and High Anxiety two of the most delectable movie parodies of the last 20 years. Men in Tights has the manner of something that wasn't argued over long enough. A few good gags are supplemented by dozens of others that still need to be worked on or tossed out entirely.”
Vincent Canby·The New York Times
“a most disappointing Mel Brooks movie parody that suggests that the once hilarious Brooks has lost his way. The pacing is agonizingly slow, and many of the jokes are recycled from his earlier, better work.”
Gene Siskel·Chicago Tribune
“what's enjoyable about the best parts of Men in Tights is its grab-bag, throwaway style”
Peter Rainer·Los Angeles Times
“Men in Tights is not as relentlessly clever and comic as his '70s films, but its funniest moments prove that Mr. Brooks has not lost his shrewd, nutty irreverence.”
Caryn James·The New York Times
Comedy
Robin Hood comes home after fighting in the Crusades to learn that the noble King Richard is in exile and that the despotic King John now rules England, with the help of the Sheriff of Rottingham. Robin Hood assembles a band of fellow patriots to do battle with King John and the Sheriff.
Critics in 1993 largely dismissed the film as a disappointingly slack entry from Mel Brooks, piling on complaints about recycled jokes, limp pacing, and a scattershot screenplay that never cohered the way his classic parodies had. Audiences were warmer, and over the decades a cult following has formed — creating a real gap between what reviewers wrote at the time and how the film is remembered and loved today.
“What's missing is the kind of densely packed comic screenplay that helped to make Young Frankenstein and High Anxiety two of the most delectable movie parodies of the last 20 years. Men in Tights has the manner of something that wasn't argued over long enough. A few good gags are supplemented by dozens of others that still need to be worked on or tossed out entirely.”
Vincent Canby·The New York Times
“a most disappointing Mel Brooks movie parody that suggests that the once hilarious Brooks has lost his way. The pacing is agonizingly slow, and many of the jokes are recycled from his earlier, better work.”
Gene Siskel·Chicago Tribune
“what's enjoyable about the best parts of Men in Tights is its grab-bag, throwaway style”
Peter Rainer·Los Angeles Times
“Men in Tights is not as relentlessly clever and comic as his '70s films, but its funniest moments prove that Mr. Brooks has not lost his shrewd, nutty irreverence.”
Caryn James·The New York Times
Comedy