User Reviews

Revisionist as well as dark version of the medieval tale . Modern recounting in which some Hood aficionados will appreciate the painstaking effort taken to adapt the vintage story to recent times ; including great action scenes with some fun images about the Merry Men . This time in the Sherwood forest , the adventurers inhabitants are amusingly portrayed by agreeable actors . In 13th century England , Robin is a noble Xaxon , he escapes from a nasty baron , the powerful Normand called Roger Daguerre (Jeroen Krabbé who had previously worked with John Irvin in Turtle Diary ,1985) , and the extremely villain Sir Miles Folcanet (Jürgen Prochnow) . Stalwart Robin goes to Sherwood forest where forms his brave band of marauders and confront corruption in the local villages and lead an uprising against Prince John (Edward Fox) and his underlings that will forever alter the balance of world power . Meanwhile , tax collectors brutally invade villages under the pretext of collecting Royal taxes . The legendary Sherwood forest's hero Robin Locksly and again the graceful Lady Marian (Uma Thurman) along with his Merrie Men , Will Scarlett (Owen Teale) , Friar Tuck (Jeff Nuttal) and Little John (David Morrissey), facing off the really malicious Daguerre and Sir Miles , two extremely crazed , wicked Normands . Later on , they save two kiddies from hanging .

This well developed movie has great action sequences stunningly staged with stylish and vitality , adventure , romance , poke fun and results to be pretty entertaining . Although is a little revisionist about characters , history , townsfolk , and time when is developed the action in a dirty , gritty Middle Age , as spectators generally disapproved the changes of Robin Hood's classic canon . Three studios announced plans to remake ¨Robin Hood¨ in 1990 and two were completed , including this one which was scaled down for Cable TV . Nice performances abound , as the politically correct rebel with a cause who battles the bullies , being rightly played by Patrick Bergin . Patrick is very fine as well as Uma Thurman who is memorable and attractive , she comes up the film as a valiant and obstinate heroine . Special mention to treacherous Sir Miles , magnetically performed by Jurgen Prochnow and Edward Fox as evil and crazed king in a sensationalistic interpretation as Prince John . Despite some critics' complete and utter distaste for the film , I found it fun , well-acted , and fast-paced . There are great action sequences including the battle into an impressive fortress and the final confrontation at the climax of the film . Impeccable but dark cinematography by Jason Lehel . Although a little shading and foggy , as the sun does not fully shine until the end of the film . Movie is shot on natural sets and English woods , and interior scenarios with impressive production design . Being shot on location in Peckforton Castle , Peckforton , Cheshire , England, UK . Lively and vivid musical score by Geoffrey Burgon . The motion picture was well directed by John Irvin who managed to stage some excellent action scenes , stunning scenarios and clever edition . However , being a flop , though the critics considered one of the best adaptations . John Irvin would later cast Uma Thurman and Edward Fox in another film of his prestigious career , A month by the lake (1995).

Other versions about this famous personage are the followings : ¨Robin Hood¨ (1922) an extravagant silent production by Allan Dawn with Douglas Fairbanks ; the classic rendition is ¨The adventures of Robin Hood¨ by Michael Curtiz with Errol Flynn and Olivia De Havilland. Furthermore , ¨Robin Hood price of thieves (1991)¨ by Kevin Reynolds with Kevin Costner , Alan Rickman , Michael Wincott and Morgan Freeman , the same year was exhibited this ¨Robin Hood¨ by John Irvin and thus did not receive a theatrical release in the United States . And a hilarious retelling : ¨Robin Hood , men in tights¨(1993) by Mel Brooks with Gary Elwes, Richard Lewis, Roger Rees Amy Yasbeck . Besides , ¨Robin of Locksley¨(1995) by Michael Kennedy with Devon Sawa , Joshua Jackson . Plus , ¨Princess of Thieves¨ by Peter Hewitt with Keira Knightley , Malcolm McDowell and Stuart Wilson . And TV series as ¨Robin Hood¨ produced by Hammer Films with Richard Greene , Peter Cushing , directed by Terence Fisher and ¨Robin Hood , the legend¨ (1995) with Jason Connery , Oliver Cotton , Nickolas Grace and directed by Ian Sharp and Robert M. Young .

In the cinema, as in most areas of life, one occasionally comes across some strange coincidences. In 1960, for example, there were two filmed biographies of Oscar Wilde and two of Coco Chanel in 2009. Two films about Wyatt Earp appeared in 1993/4, although that was due less to coincidence than to creative differences among the team working on "Wyatt Earp", differences which led to the creation of the rival film "Tombstone" on the same subject. In the early seventies two studios were working on disaster movies about skyscrapers on fire, but in this case the coincidence was detected early on and the studios joined forces to produce the film now known as "The Towering Inferno".

1991 was the year which saw two films on the legend of Robin Hood. "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves", a big-budget Hollywood blockbuster starring Kevin Costner, is by far the better-known of the two. This lower-budget version, simply entitled "Robin Hood", was only shown on television in the USA, although it was released in cinemas in other parts of the world. It did not feature any big Hollywood names; Uma Thurman may be a big name today, but in 1991 she was still more of an up- and-coming starlet.

As in "Prince of Thieves" and several other films on this subject, Robin is portrayed as a Saxon earl, here named Robert Hode. (The idea that Robin was an aristocrat was a later addition to the legend; the recent 2010 "Robin Hood" with Russell Crowe reverts to the original story by making him a Saxon of more humble origins). He falls foul of the authorities, and is declared an outlaw, when he intervenes to prevent a miller, who has been caught poaching the King's deer, from being blinded. He flees into Sherwood Forest, gathers together the "Merry Men", and fights for justice and the rights of the Saxon peasantry against the corrupt Norman nobility.

The film includes all the usual cast of Merry Men, including Little John, Will Scarlett, Friar Tuck and Much the Miller, as well as Maid Marian, but, oddly, not the normal villains. There is no Sheriff of Nottingham and no Sir Guy of Gisborne, and Prince John only puts in a brief appearance. (King Richard does not appear at all, although he is referred to). Instead, Robin's main antagonists are the Norman aristocrats Baron Roger Daguerre and Sir Miles Folcanet. (That is how it is spelt in the cast-list, although "Falconet" might be a more plausible French spelling). Sir Miles is a straightforward villain; it is he who wanted to have the unfortunate miller's eyes put out and he who is Robin's rival for Marian's hand. (She, of course, will have nothing to do with him). Daguerre, however, is a more ambiguous figure. He is Marian's uncle and originally Robin's friend; the two later fall out but are eventually reconciled, and Daguerre is converted to Robin's vision of an England where Saxon and Norman can live together in peace.

One similarity which links this film with the Russell Crowe version is that both aim at a more "naturalistic" view of the Middle Ages to the romanticised "Merrie England" view presented in the Errol Flynn classic "The Adventures of Robin Hood" from 1938 and, to some extent, in "Prince of Thieves". Some might think this sort of naturalism misplaced in a film which is based on legend rather than historical fact, but both directors (John Irvin here and Ridley Scott in 2010) clearly felt that a film dealing with a peasant revolt against oppression should show us something of the conditions against which the peasants are revolting. Mediaeval life is therefore portrayed as drab, dirty and dangerous, not as something colourful and exciting. The look of the film is dark with muted colours; the leafless trees in Sherwood Forest suggest that the story takes place in winter and early spring.

Patrick Bergin makes a charismatic hero, but few of the other characters, Thurman included, make the same impression. There is nothing particularly wrong with the performances of Jeroen Krabbé as Daguerre or Jürgen Prochnow as Folcanet, but neither of them makes as memorable a villain as Basil Rathbone's Gisborne in "The Adventures of Robin Hood" or Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham in "Prince of Thieves". Another weakness is it that lacks any real exciting or swashbuckling action sequences; not even the final attack on Nottingham Castle really counts as such. The climactic duel between Robin and Folcanet is in nothing like the same class as that between Flynn and Rathbone.

This "Robin Hood" is certainly better than "Robin and Marian" from the seventies, which manages to be both dull and unrealistic, but I would not rate it as highly as either the 2010 version or "Prince of Thieves", both of which could generate greater excitement. As for "The Adventures of Robin Hood", that set a very high standard, and in my view none of the versions since 1938 have really lived up to it. 6/10

This version is my second best one of Robin Hood tales on screen after "Robin and Marian."

Though the direction is uninspired, the performances are notable. First, Uma Thurman as Marian is the backbone of the film. She is lends color to the otherwise grey and morbid ambience. So does Edward Fox as an intelligent King John--most other versions show the King as a stupid tyrant. This is Fox's best performance since "Day of the Jackal". Patrick Bergin was not exceptional, but his Robin was a credible perspective of the character. He has talent as he proved in his meaty role in "Durango." Jurgen Prochnow is a great German actor in any film either as a good guy ("Das Boot") or as a bad guy ("The English Patient"). Jeroen Krabbe was also notable though his character of the Baron left me totally puzzled--the director was totally at a loss to etch out facets of his relationship with his niece, with Robin (early part of the film and the later parts), his relationship with his wife... This was an interesting character that the director John Irvin could have fleshed out, having invested so much screen time to the character. The direction and screenplay were the weak departments.

But all in all it was Uma Thurman who really made this version important.

This gave the viewer the same basic story of the famous forest marauder, but added a few new wrinkles which made for a fresh look at an old tale. Many here in IMDB seem to not care for the Costner version, a film I still remember with great admiration, and compare it unfavorably with this translation. Me, I think they were both interesting and entertaining: I especially appreciated the differences in the two - never caring for a re-make which follows it's predecessor line for line. All Robin Hood fans should see this one.

Okay, let's get this straight: just because ROBIN HOOD is more realistic and less bombastic than Kevin Costner's ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THIEVES from the same year, that doesn't make it any good. It might be a more traditional film, but I actually prefer the Costner version, despite the many faults, errors and cheesiness, purely because it's a lot more fun.

ROBIN HOOD gets a lot more of the facts right but it's lacking as a decent piece of drama, mainly because the characters, although carefully depicted, are all rather unlikeable. That's particularly true of Patrick Bergin, whose Hood, all wild eyes and wilder hair, appears to be something of a sociopath instead of the folk hero of old; I just can't buy Bergin in good-guy roles, and that's the same here. Stick to SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY, buddy.

The supporting actors are better, with one exception. Jurgen Prochnow is less hammy but no less amusing than Alan Rickman in the Costner version, and it's always good to see Jeroen Krabbe in Hollywood fare. Owen Teale, Danny Webb and David Morrissey are all good choices as Merry Men. The exception is Uma Thurman, who's terribly miscast as Marian; the scenes in which she disguises herself as a boy are excruciating.

Other than that, the script is overlong and underwritten and the action scenes just aren't very exciting. The sets and costumes are decent though, so it's just a shame that more effort couldn't have gone into making this a rousing swashbuckler of old. Instead it's a dour, uninspiring and ultimately forgettable version of a classic story.

I watched this despite the rating, encouraged by some of the positive reviews. Probably shouldn't have.

The movie isn't awful, but somehow it just falls short as a whole. The actors are okay, the props are okay. Music is a bit corny at times, but I guess that was the plan.

Something's missing, though. A whole lot of something. Plenty of good and excellent movies in the world, no need to watch this.

Inspired by my re-watch of Kevin Costner's take on the tale, I decided to seek out a selection of other RH movies. First up is this little remembered RH flick from the same year. Debuting on Fox TV here in the U.S. a full month before 'Prince of Thieves', it tried to capitalize on the latter's growing hype. But featuring neither Kevin Costner nor a hit pop ballad, it has since fallen into obscurity, occasionally championed by a small minority of people who claim that it's superior to the far more popular film.

There are recognizable faces here. Patrick Bergin ('Sleeping with the Enemy', 'Patriot Games') stars as the titular character, but he lacks the chops both physically and charismatically to pull it off. There is no Sheriff of Nottingham in this version, no Guy of Gisbourne, and Prince John makes only a brief appearance. With the focus here on Norman/Saxon tensions, two other antagonists are introduced, one played by Jürgen Prochnow, who is no Alan Rickman, but then again who is? But the biggest name here is Uma Thurman as Marion. Barely 20 years old at the time, she's downright ethereal here.

This is the TV cut of the film (I've read a German cut runs twenty or so minutes longer) and clocks in at about an hour and forty five minutes. It certainly moves along more briskly than the bloated 'Prince of Thieves', but it feels chopped up, with Robin falling in with his Merry Men and becoming their leader and renowned outlaw in all of about ten minutes. The action-- such as it is--is painfully dull, the film is bleakly shot and many of the performances fall flat. Though it has a few moments here and there, this version of the classic tale is one best left forgotten.

Action? Adventure? Swashbuckling excitement? Well you have come to the WRONG Robin Hood for that. The choreography is non-existent. But that's okay.

There are other reasons to watch this movie, especially for aficionados and romantics. The costumes and sets are beautiful, delicately balanced between realism and romanticism. The greenery is lush, the settings are well chosen. There is a poetry in the dialogue, and the acting is heart-felt. This movie makes you think a little bit, including a moving, moral ending.

The classic trope scenes of the Robin Hood fairy tale are a let down. Little Jon on the river is painful to watch, and not in a good way. The bow staff fight is a yawn, as is the absurd "action" scene of Robin floating down a gentle river. If you seek excitement, again, this is the wrong movie.

On the other hand, you are treated to a version of the Robin Hood tale that offers an educational slant. Unlike Prince of Thieves, this Robin Hood dives into the Saxon-Norman antagonism that characterized the centuries following the successful invasion by the Normans under William the Conqueror. Set one to two hundred years after, this Robin Hood takes place in an England that is hosts to a ruling class of French/Viking descent. (There is even a clever allusion to the French Baron being a descendant of pirates).

As mentioned, the acting is quite good, as is the script. The characters, which at the start of the film seem one-dimensional, become infused with real humanity as the movie progresses. No cartoon villains here, just flawed humans from a vicious era, and a meditation on the attractiveness and seductiveness of simple decency when presented as a possibility.

Yet another version of the classic epic, but done from such a different perspective and with enough accuracy and authenticity that you'll think you are seeing this story for the very first time...

The story line is pretty much the same, of course, as those numerous versions before it, but is told from a more realistic and authentic English point of view... This version focuses on the Norman - Saxon struggle at that time in history and that is the pervasive influence throughout this superb motion picture....

Most of the characters are quite different from those you've come to expect from the afore-telling of this story, in particular Uma Thurman's very special Maid Marian and Patrick Bergen's unique and coup d'etat performance in the title role...

The cinematography is outstanding, giving the story a somewhat darker but more realistic tone and feel, and the direction is about as flawless as I have seen in this type historically-based film...

Unfortunately, this film was conceived and distributed around the same time as the AWFUL Kevin Costner version and consequently was swept aside by that highly marketed but substantially inferior 'Hollywood' version released in the same year and about the same time... It is really a tragedy too, because this is possibly the most authentic and well-made version of the Robin Hood story made to date... One can only imagine what a masterpiece this film would had been if the circumstances surrounding its release had been different...

It was said in the print media that when the English producers of this film learned Hollywood was producing a similar movie on the same subject, they pared their losses, and opted for this final product that even with a lower budget than originally planned, is a MUCH better and more accurate re-telling of the classic Sir Robert Hode, 4th Earl of Huntington (a real person) legend...

Well written and adapted for the screen, expertly cast, and superbly directed by English director John Irvin, this relatively low budget production has never received the accolades it deserves...

Look for some stellar performances by Uma Thurman as Maid Marian, Patrick Bergin as Robin Hood, Jürgen Prochnow as Sir Miles Folcanet, Owen Teale as Will Scarlett and an unforgettable performance by Dutch actor Jeroen Krabbe as Baron Roger Daguerre...Also worthy of mention was a brief but commanding performance by Edward Fox as Prince John, and memorable performances by David Morrissey as Little John and Carolyn Backhouse as Nicole, Roger's Mistress...

If you have seen the "Hollywood formula", American version of this story with Kevin Costner, but not this one, or if you have seen neither, do yourself a tremendous favor and see this film....

This movie will transport you back to another time and place, to see an accurate glimpse of medieval history come alive on film... Not to be missed by students of Medieval history or those curious about their European ancestry and origins...

A film that is a rare hidden treasure and is very worthwhile seeking out and seeing... Outstanding...

For those that say this version that came out the same time as the Kevin Costner version was better, I don't know what movie you saw. While it put a different spin on the story as it added a lot of focus to the historical conflict between the Saxons and the Normans, it was simply an inferior films in all facets. By itself, it's a decent film but when you try and compare the two, I see obvious reasons why they chose to release the Kevin Costner version and limit this one to Europeon and video release. If I hadn't seen the KC version, I might have enjoyed it better but it just can't compare. The characters in the KC version were much more entertaining and memorable, I barely cared about some of the characters in this one and they made one the main villains a sympathetic character which I didn't particularly care for. While Patrick Bergin's Robin Hood might have been more enjoyable on it's own and Marian a stronger character in this version, the overall movie wasn't good enough to make it better than the Kevin Costner version. In Robin Hood - Prince of Thieves, the story and Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham were VERY entertaining as was Little John, Friar Tuck and the other members of Sherwood Forest much more so than the ones in this film. I think if it had been about something other than Robin Hood and been more a historical focus on the Norman and Saxon struggle, I would enjoyed it more. Like I said, this movie by itself is decent but if someone said I had to watch a Robin Hood movie and gave me a choice between this one and Kevin Costner's, I would pick KC's every time. And trust me, this is coming from someone who is not a Kevin Costner fan.

Another of the many film takes on the legend of Robin Hood, from my point of view, two essential things were missing from this version: proper character development and any real sense of nobility. In regards to the former, I guess many would suggest that the characters are sufficiently well known that they don't really need to be developed at length. Nevertheless, I found their respective introductions to the story - the most important in this version were Little John (David Morrissey) and Friar Tuck (Jeff Nuttall) - rather jarring and sudden, which I thought left the respective actors struggling a little bit with the parts. Robin's rise from simple outlaw to leader of the gang also seemed a little too quick and easy, although I appreciated the background that was offered to his character, which offered a reasonable explanation of how Sir Robert Hode became Robin Hood. In regards to the latter point, I didn't feel that Robin came across as particularly noble in this movie (although he does decide to return the taxes to the common folk) but rather he seemed interested primarily in Marian (Uma Thurman). Thurman I thought was a bit miscast in the part, as was Jurgen Prochnow as Sir Miles Folcanet. I also found Daguerre's jester irritating after a while. The only truly noble scene in the movie (aside perhaps from the decision to return the taxes) was the exchange near the end of the film between Will Scarlett (Owen Teale) and Daguerre (Jeroen Krabbe) about the future of England. There's some good swordplay involved - particularly when Robin and his men crash Marian's wedding - but in the end it all seemed a little too simple. In particular, while Robin's victory over Daguerre and Folcanet was accomplished, I was left wondering what was going to happen when King John (OK - Prince John) returned with his troops to collect the taxes. There was no sense in the movie that the return of Richard the Lion Hearted was imminent, and taking on the King (even an unofficial king acting as regent) would be a pretty daunting task. I can't say I was overly impressed by this telling of the story. There's some original material (particularly about Robin's background) which fills in some holes from the common legend, but not enough to make this a truly good movie. 4/10

Robin Hood has come to the big screen in many ways and with many faces. Errol Flynn in 1938 remains the classic, although it is a little dated by modern standards. Kevin Costner starred in a big-budget 1991 version, notable for an outstanding Alan Rickman as an over-the-top sheriff but otherwise fairly forgettable. (If you're lucky.) I've seen most of them, and the best by far is Robin Hood, directed by John Irvin and likewise released in 1991. Patrick Bergin is a dynamic Robin Hood, hitting the mark with the perfect mix of arrogance, compassion, charm and devil-may-care, hell-bent glory-seeking. Sure, there's a list of noble reasons why Robin Hood takes to the forest to fight Norman oppression and protect the unfortunate Saxon serfs from tyranny. But let's face it, Robin is a hero who enjoys what he does. He loves nothing more than laughing at danger and tweaking the nose of authority. It's easy to see that Bergin enjoyed the part, and his pleasure translates to the screen, making it an enjoyable romp for viewers. Bergin shares Sherwood with a fine cast. Uma Thurman is a surprisingly strong Marian. Owen Teale is an excellent, fun-loving Will Scarlett, and David Morrissey is the best Little John I've seen yet. Jeff Nuttall is also a picture-perfect Friar Tuck. On the Norman side, Jurgen Prochnow is the malicious knight, Sir Miles Folcanet, who pursues Robin through the forest, and Jeroen Krabbe is Baron Daguerre, a greedy lord with a conscience. There's a brief, but impressive, appearance of Edward Fox as the would-be King John. The movie boasts excellent swordplay, good costuming, authentic-sounding accents (Are you listening, Kevin?) and some great pagan symbolism. This film also has immense respect for the history behind the legend. While we may not know much about the real Robin Hood -- if there even was one -- we do know a lot about the time period in question, and Irvin keeps his cameras focused on the truth of feudal Britain. This is a Robin Hood I can believe in without reservation.

I thought that I was seeing the 2010 version of "Robin Hood" or possibly "Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves", but actually it was another movie called "Robin Hood" made in 1991. I guess there wasn't much point in me seeing this. Well, I was confused as I watched this, but I guess at least I got to see a movie of some sort. It was about as uh, mediocre as I thought it would be. Well, I thought I'd be watching the 2010 version or...whatever. Anyway, this version of "Robin Hood" is actually at a pretty good length. I admit that I'm not very familiar with the whole Robin Hood mythos.

Are there any actual novels that first depict Robin Hood? Then again, a lot of us aren't even sure if he was real or not. I guess there is a pretty basic common plot with Robin rescuing Maid Marian and them getting married. I thought Friar Tuck was pretty good. I guess I haven't seen that many Robin Hood films, but this one at least had a very well known actress, Uma Thurman, in it. There was nothing that special for me and I feel weird having watch it thinking it was something else. It at least looks like it was made in 2010! **1/2

I've seen this movie, the Kevin Costner movie and the Russell Crowe movie. They each have their good points but of the three the Costner movie was by far the worst. I'd rate it a 4/10. The Russell Crowe movie clearly pointed out that King Richard never returned from the crusades. I rate the Russell Crowe movie a 7/10. The Patrick Bergin movie is by far more historically accurate. For this time period was a struggle between Normans who came from Normandy and Saxons who came from Saxony (Germany). Both of these countries of course were influenced by Viking heritage. Norman and Saxons were also influenced by the Celts who we were steadily pushed westward by Roman expansion. So as can be seen there was much influence present at the time of this movie. At the time of this movie England consisted of Wales, England and Scotland. Further this movie also clearly noted that King Richard never returned from the crusades and that Prince John urssuuped the crown and became King John and signed the Magna Charta.

Whilst nearly keeping close to the traditional Robin Hood Theme apart from the missing Sheriff of Nottingham (Replaced by a Baron for some reason) this film starts well but is of course sadly lacking in any real acting talent apart from the actor playing Much The Miller and perhaps Ms Thurman.

However for those that like to see really really badly directed movies then there's a treat for you in the last five minutes of the film. The fight scene has to be one of the worst ever seen eg "Are Robin and Marion going to make that balcony whilst swinging on the bell rope or are they going to smash into the wall because the rope is too long ? - no chance, cut scene, phew they made it".

Funniest line ? - (To Uma) "you are the most beautiful bride in England" followed by a cut to Uma looking more like a rejected model for ET.

Certainly the worst ever Robin Hood film EVER made, even the many TV series put this in the shade.

Today, Costner is less popular than he was when he did "Dances with Wolves", which was his last really good movie (like Metallica's last good album, the Black one, for many many metallers and grufties the tombstone of that band, and really, much later in the end of the nineties, Metallica commented in news articles against Napster, so that they became commercial is out of question as proved hereby).

So, for me, as for anyone who wants to indulge in medieval stuff that is authentic and not too much cliché-Hollywood, this movie wins highly over the great concurrent which we have all seen, "Prince of Thieves", that is admittedly done with a lot of humor, but also in a too Hollywood-style-overloaded way.

By the way, the opening font of the title is the same as in the famous video game "Deadly Shadows", probably the designers of the latter took it from this movie.

Well-done is the story with the longbows. But the Norman soldiers are better in "Robin of Sherwood", the series.

The worst thing is the main actor. I like him personally, I mean... I don't know him and I'm a pure hetero, huhu... no, wit aside: I don't like the way he presents himself in the movie, it really DESTROYS the whole atmosphere and in front of all the authenticity and therefore the convincing factor of the movie, when the main actor has got a strong American accent!

It's impossible that anyone spoke like that in middle-age Europe!

All other actors are English, I don't know why they took such a Magnum-facsimile and if it had to be him, why they couldn't even let him take some crash-course in medieval English (possibly with Jeremy Brett, the best Holmes EVER, who quite had undergone some speaking handicaps, or Geoffrey Bayldon, the actor and brilliant medieval speaker in "Catweazle", a work of the writer and ex-actor Kip Carpenter, as is "Robin of Sherwood", the measure this movie here has to cope with!)?

When they pay such a lot for it? Maybe, the producers were only after people's money at the cinema counter and the box-office - Robin Hood himself, if he ever existed, like Willhelm Tell or even King Arthur and Merlin, went for fame and not money.

The whole person-to-person relations are either too seemingly macho-like or too comically overdone - when Prochnow is rejected by Marian played by Thurman, a cunning watcher recognizes the overwhelming countenance of the noble Prochnow which is hidden by him in a great effort of controlled rage. Thurman can't adequately cope with that ground-sticking niveau of acting craftsmanship.

So, it is not convincing that in the plot as defined by the legend, she turns him down. because we can hardly imagine Thurman turning Prochnow down.

Sorry to all, it is like that, admit it or not.

To me, every second of the first two series of "Robin of Sherwood" is totally convincing, this series (maybe not the third one with that Connery-son), I took up into my heart's deepest regions.

I cannot do that with this movie, sadly. It is not good enough. It is well done is many, many aspects, but the display of all the important personal relations is making a joke out of the whole movie.

Many here said it was "WAY" better than Costner's Version. But back in 1991, I can't recall or imagine that they all would have said the same. Back then, we were ALL fascinated by Costner, admit it, folks!

Quentin Tarantino cast Uma Thurman in his Kill Bill movies to give her the shot he thought she deserved. This was due to her getting panned for movies like this less than High School play caught on film perhaps by a proud parent and mistakenly published by ANY movie studio.

This movie sucked.

Uma Thurman looks ridiculous in drag while faking an English accent. But the male lead doesn't even try to fake an accent, so kudos to Uma I guess.

That's just the beginning.

The campy hokey music playing during every fight scene makes me believe this was intended as a comedy. But the rest of the movie is an attempt at drama, with dramatic music while horses speed by. Dramatic music while people jump in rivers. Dramatic music while plans are being made and even presented. (But not during any fight.)

The Baron's court scenes include no furniture, none. No throne. (No budget, no prop master who knew how to make furniture? Both? Is the King on a budget? Allergic to wood and fabric?)

Jurgen Prochnow overacts tremendously, irritatingly so. Das Boot this is not. Das Bomb? Yes.

The whole movie is just, bad.

Every copy should be bought up and stockpiled to become required purchase and viewing by all theater and performing arts students. A lesson in exactly how not to make a movie.

That is the only thing I can think of which might redeem this drivel.

This time it's Patrick Bergin who dons the Lincoln Green to lead the Saxons against the oppressive Normans who would steal their lands and tax them out of their homes. He is pitched against the menacing "Folcanet" (Jürgen Prochnow) who not only has it in for him, but also plans to wed the lady "Marian" (a terribly uncomfortable looking Uma Thurman) who just happens to be the neice of the local sheriff "Daguerre" (Jeroen Krabbé). Initially "Robin" and this latter fellow were friendly, but an altercation in the woods and some provocation from his new nemesis throws that to the wolves. Exiled from civilisation, and with only "Will" (Owen Teale) for company, the pair befriend others who have taken to the woods for safety and together there are soon a formidable thorn in the side of the authorities just as Prince John (Edward Fox) is due to arrive to collect his 50,000 marks! Now the scene is set for a battle royal to save "Marian" from wedded hell and to relieve the Normans of the tax money. It's all pretty standard fayre, this adventure, and the production has quite an earthy grittiness to it. The casting, however, is pretty shocking. A motley collection of accents may have been intended to provide an international scope to this, but for the most part it is little better than a spaghetti outlaw story with way too much dialogue and nowhere near enough action. Some remakes were simply unnecessary and this, I'm afraid, is just one of them...

One of the characters talked about gourmet meal with Madeira wine...Madeira island only to be discovered 200 years later!

Only thing I liked about Costner's RH was Alan Rickman as the Sheriff. But this take was a "stylistic" departure from the old story. The "theives village" was fascinating! And Bergen was a much more convincing Robin. If you like this one check out the BBC TV production, "Robin of Sherwood" (1984) [TV-Series 1984-1986] starring Jason Connery (son of Sean.) It's the most intersting and "magical" of all Robin versions!!

This is a pathetic attempt to remake Robin Hood. The acting is feeble and totally unconvincing. This is a low budget movie with little conviction from the characters and little or no plot. It is hardly a swash-buckling tale, it almost put me to sleep and I was overjoyed when it ended.