Caltexkid My wife tried to talk me out of watching this and I sure wish I had listened. Truly appalling. I have just sat through basically two hours of some of the worst fight scenes ever, a horrific score, some appalling dialogue and a terrible butchering of a great story. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at such an awful attempt at a film and in an effort to serve humanity am writing this review. I simply cannot believe that the makers of this film thought they were making a good film. The cast holds some promise but is so badly let down by the script and score that no one could have held this together. I advise the utmost caution to anyone thinking of watching this dreadful film and would recommend watching grass grow as a far better use of time.

The_Other_Snowman 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.

alana-dill When it came out, I read something about Patrick Bergen ACTUALLY SPLITTING an ARROW on the target during practice. I would love to know whether there were any eyewitnesses to this, because the Mythbusters busted that idea recently and I was just crestfallen. (Is that a pun? it should be).Lexie, if you're out there anywhere, ask your dad.I remember seeing the movie when it came out on TV and really did like it. It was refreshing to see the Middle Ages looking worn down at the heels rather than the usual polyester Technicolor Court Jester look. The peasants benefited from the recent release of Monty Python and the Holy Grail in that they really did look like they had s... all over them. Bergin's moustache is an unfortunate artifact of Hollywood costuming, but it's no worse than Flynn's wig in the 1939 version (which was utterly splendid in its own way) (I mean the movie, not the wig) (Did you know that Flynn was a descendant of Fletcher Christian?). And one of the funniest things I've ever seen: Uma Thurman, "Diguised as a Boy". That's like saying you can disguise a raven as a writing desk... there's really no confusing the two.In terms of comparison, Flynn's a 10, Bergen's a 7, Costner's a 3 for this role.But if I had to choose between Basil Rathbone and Alan Rickman... oh, Lord, can't I just have them both? purrr.

yldonaldson I thought this was a wonderful version of the Robin Hood story. I've read a lot of comments comparing this to the Costner version, but I haven't seen that one so won't comment that way. In this version, I really appreciated the historical aspect of it. I enjoyed seeing how some of the relationships began. I found the story to be thorough without being tedious. They took the time to share the background of Robin himself and the reason behind his ways. The fight scenes were also intense enough without being too disturbing. Overall, this was well written and well acted. My husband thought it felt like Shakespeare, and I would have to agree. It was definitely worthy of the big screen release it didn't get.