[7.1/10] Mel Brooks films like this one are hard to review, because they’re basically just joke after joke. That’s not a criticism necessarily, but it means that analyzing what works and what doesn’t quickly devolves into listing the gags and dissecting a series of frogs. It’s harder to take the 30,000 foot view of the project like you can for more narratively-driven works.

That said, while a perfectly enjoyable dose of zany humor, *Men in Tights* showed some of the tread coming off of Brooks’s tires. There’s scenes that run too long, material that was already out of date or vaguely offensive by 1993, and times that Brooks and company returned to wells they’d all but tapped dry by that point.

Still, the performers here are having lots of fun chewing scenery. Brooks and his collaborators still have a gift for utter, free associative absurdity in their humor. There’s tons of fourth-wall breaking bits, with characters winking at the audience in fun ways. The songs, while a little iffy, are still catchy. And the reference humor largely works (though, amusingly enough, *Men in Tights* left a bigger cultural footprint than *Prince of Thieves*, the main film it’s ostensibly parodying).

Cary Elwes is rightfully the star of the show, playing it straight enough to channel the convincing swashbuckling leading man (shades of his role in *The Princess Bride*), while also knowing how to exaggerate his bits just enough to lean into the movie’s loony humor. The other performers acquit themselves well, with Brooks himself hamming it up a delightful way as usual.

There’s just not much more to say about this one. By 1993, you knew what you were getting with Brooks’s spoofs. The movie is a tub of frosting, not terribly substantial and not exactly healthy, but still so cheap and tasty that it’s hard to put down the spoon.

_"No, no, no. We're straight, just merry."_

If I'd to be honest, and I will be, this film was somewhat weak. And you're probably going to be wondering why I gave it a rating of seven out of ten. So, being honest, I have no idea. By all means, this film is _very_ weak, hardly that funny, and waterboarded with Mel Brooks, and the only film (now films) that I've seen of his so far was _Blazing Saddles._

I'm already having an overload of Mel Brooks. But most directors probably have their moments of weak(er) films, so I don't care too much about that aspect of things in the sense of holding it against him. And despite being directed by the same man, this film was quite different than _Blazing Saddles._

I was a little surprised, even though I was not consciously aware that this film was one of Mel Brooks' films. Yet there were familiar aspects to recognize from _Blazing Saddles._

But that's beside the point. If I were to attribute this film to a single word, it would be 'goofy.' That isn't necessarily a bad thing, and it wasn't when it came to this film. Goofy can be good; extremely good. However, it wasn't quite that concerning this particular film. I do think it was more aligned with that enjoyable type of goofiness, don't get me wrong, but I felt that it still was lacking.

And interestingly enough, I feel as if this film would've been a bit better if Mel Brooks did his shtick differently, altogether, or toned it down a little. I think the similarities with _Blazing Saddles_, as far as those particular aspects are concerned, dragged down the film ever so slightly. I won't go as far as to say he shouldn't have been the director or one of the writers. This film was more of a miss than a hit, and it happened to be directed by/co-written by Mel Brooks; no big deal, it happens.

I'd say that the biggest draw from this film was the performance by Cary Elwes. Everything about the way he played the character was great. Something tells me his Robin Hood is the best one there is, performance-wise. It doesn't matter to me whether that's true or not. I don't know anything about Robin Hood, anyway. The point is: Cary Elwes' Robin Hood brought most of the life to this film.

The rest of the life put into this film were the characters of Mervyn, Sheriff of Rottingham, and Prince John. But not only the characters themselves. The performances by both Roger Rees and Richard Lewis were exceptional, especially by the former. His performance was probably better than Cary Elwes' performance. Despite saying that Cary Elwes and his Robin Hood brought most of the life to this film, I now think both him AND Roger Rees as the Sheriff of Rottingham were the life bringer(s) to this film.

The musical numbers were also exceptional. Out of "Sherwood Forest Rap 1," "Marian'" (Solo and Duet Version), and "Men in Tights," my favorite was probably the latter, entertainment-wise. It was genuinely good, too, I suppose. But the one that seemed that way the most was "Marian," the Duet Version at the end: more than the Solo Version. And "Marian," along with the feeling and emotion expressed through it, reminded me of the theme song for the show, _Reba._

Here are some of my other thoughts:

- I like how that beginning song/song performance gave us some backstory/exposition. I know that's pretty much the point concerning the musical aspect/genre: and how the songs in musical films contribute to the narrative. But I still thought that was cool; this film is the first one I've seen that includes elements of a musical, but not just a musical.

- Dave Chappelle's role in this came out of nowhere for me. I was not expecting him to show up. And his involvement was pretty pointless, too. But I guess it wasn't pointless because of [spoiler] that final joke, referencing _Blazing Saddles._ [/spoiler] But why Dave Chappelle? Maybe there's more meta behind the surface meta to where it _had_ to be him. Probably not, as I've just learned that his role in this film was his film debut.

- I'm pretty sure Blinkin wasn't blind. I think his glasses weren't see-through for some reason. That was probably the point of him being able to see and then going back to not seeing; the fall moved his glasses lower, and then crashing into the tree moved them back over his eyes. I could be wrong. If not, I feel like that was the most significant running gag in the film, one that went under the radar.

After taking everything I've written into consideration, it should be easy to conclude that I thought there were good elements throughout the film. I'm sure that's usually the case: even with films that aren't that good. But I feel like the film, as a whole, wasn't as good as some people consider it. It wasn't 'bad,' though; a tad bit 'overrated,' perhaps.

I have no idea what these people above saw, but I think I laughed three times and just at the last third of the movie.
What I think was really bad is the timing of the jokes and basically the nonsense of them to happen. I mean, you can predict them before they happen and the punchline never hits. So, I watched a serie of jokes poorly delivered that I already knew how they could develop largely haed. Also, there is no continuity, they seems just thrown off randomly. There is never a joke that serves for another one to follow and building layers; Literally just a serie of scenes that are taped together.
Actors are badly directed, and in a way I can't imagine how could it be to try to deliver with this bad script.

Such a disappointment, considering Young Frankenstein is one of my favourite comedy movie, but that one has consistency and it's a well executed idea. Now that I'm thinking about it I think the timing is a bit off in that movie too, but at least the jokes are sort of natural and you feel they serve the movie even in scenes like the candle one.

While not Mel's best work, it is a classic spoof of the genre and fictional character of Robin Hood. Giving the old tale a spin and turn it on its head. Having Cary Elwes as Robin was a pretty good choice, he plays it very well as a cocky-speaking rebel should.

The movie's comedy is good in some places, it works really well with the practical effects that were in this film. But is lacking in some jokes that you would keep with you. As a movie that tries to give off funny one-liners, it doesn't pull it off too well. It does break the fourth wall as many of Mel Brooks films, and it's done well here as usual. Not as good and grand as 'Blazing Saddles', but it's satisfying and funny all the same.

Though with any spoof it has the risk of falling victim to being a product of its era. Especially being a timepiece, adding the comedy of the 90s just made it unoriginal and unfunny in some aspects. Like I have said before, the 90s was not a good decade for "timeless" comedy. It is a good Brooks movie if you just want a laugh, but don't expect the richness that Mel gave us with previously said 'Blazing Saddles' and his other great film 'Young Frankenstein'.