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'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.

This is an unfairly overlooked version of the Robin Hood story, with the misfortune of coming out in the same year as the bloated Kevin Costner film. What makes this movie work -- and what makes it unusual -- is that it combines gritty, dirty medieval settings with charm, wit, and the feel of a great swashbuckler.More so than any other Robin Hood film, this one delivers a degree of realism. The costumes are accurate. The Norman barons are played by Jeroen Krabbe and Jurgen Prochnow, who are Dutch and German respectively; this gives them accents to distinguish them from the English Saxons. They have also been renamed: instead of the usual Sir Guy of Gisborne or Sheriff of Nottingham, they are Roger Daguerre and Miles Folcanet. Robin Hood also gets a minor retool, to Robert Hode; he adopts his more familiar name as his outlaw nom de guerre. The conflict between the Norman ruling class and the Saxon peasantry helps to drive the plot, and the political aspect thankfully never sinks to good- versus-evil simplicity. Robin in this movie is not a loyal supporter of King Richard, as is normal -- instead King Richard never even appears, and Robin is simply rebelling against the oppressive local barons.So, visually this movie is dark and dirty, as you'd expect in a medieval movie from 1991. But the tone is something completely different. When Robin and Will Scarlett escape the castle after being outlawed, you'd think they were having the time of their lives. (Some of these early escapades reminded me of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid".) Robin wears a big grin for many of the action scenes, which are filmed with a moderate dose of slapstick and plenty of energy. Robin seems to be in it purely for the adventure; in fact, it is Will Scarlett and others who clue him in to the injustices going on. Patrick Bergen is an odd choice for Robin, being neither English nor particularly well-known, but he makes the role a lot of fun to watch.This is certainly not the biggest or most expensive version of the story, being outspent by Errol Flynn, Kevin Costner, and now Russell Crowe. However, it's probably the best.

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.