Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

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.

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

There are some legendary heroes, whose stories you can tell a hundred of times and every time it is different. There are the three Musketeers, King Arthur, Sherlock Holmes and of course Robin Hood.In the history of movies are so many adaptions of this legend and each is different in what style and atmosphere they set the piece.There f.e. is the flamboyant, tight wearing Robin of Errol Flynn (and Cary Elwes), who takes his life as an outlaw with jest and humour.There is the avenging Robin, out for revenge to some slights done to him and/or family and friends like the Costner Robin Hood.There are some, really trying to help the poor while having some fun and laugh at the cost of the ruling government as in the Disney cartoon version.There are many differences in the opponents who are battled by Robin, though the Sheriff of Nottingham is the constant one. There are sometimes John Lackland (King John), Guy of Gisbourne (in the legend he is only a mercenary quickly disposed and then impersonated by Robin) and others.This version looks at it a new way. They show a country divided into an anglo-saxon populace and norman ruling class. Only a few saxon nobles exist. One of this noble families are the Hodes. Though Robert Hode is normally a friend of his norman Baron, Daguerre, a visiting norman nobleman insists on Hode being punished for some slight offense. Pride Hode does not comply and flees. Thus he is being outlawed and his family stripped of title, claims and life. This way his fight begins....The look of this movie is the darkest and bleakest Robin Hood there ever was. The forest looks not friendly, many scenes play at night, and the merry men get real dirty (unlike the Flynn Hood). The story behind the whole movie may be the most "political" ever, because of that division of being saxon or norman.The acting is very good, in my opinion it even supersedes the Costner Robin Hood from the same year. Especially the three leads (Bergin, Krabbé and Prochnow) are great. But down to the smallest role you get fine acting.The swordfights (as another commentator mentioned, real swords not rapiers) are really nice to watch and the finale...well, you better see it for yourself.All in all, if this movie runs on TV or is available on DVD, get it.

Few subjects for a movie have been more thoroughly worked over than the (hi)story of Robin Hood. Yes, he was a real historical figure, but it is the legends rather than the history which are most remembered today. True histories, serious books, children's books, comic strips and magazine articles galore have been thick on the ground ever since before I was born. Probably the very name contributes to this - 'Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robbing the rich to help the poor' was a story which appealed greatly to generations of children. Would it ever have achieved such a grip if he had been named Richard Hong or even Robert Homer? Picking which of the available movies to watch is therefore not easy. Some guidance is important and writers of User Comments here should provide this by indicating whether a particular film is a historical study, a comedy or just a parody, and whether it is more suitable for children than adults, as well as expressing their opinion on the overall quality of the final work. Looking through the very crowded page of the IMDb database listing films with Robin Hood in the title we can see that they fall into several different groups - some were prepared for the cinema and others for TV. Not surprisingly most of the latter are episodic, like the many books which concentrate on the legends rather than known history and devote separate chapters to a series of separate largely fictitious adventures of Robin and his band of Merry Men. With many such texts available to provide the necessary raw material, it is not surprising how many TV series have been created over the years.How should we start commenting? In fairness any reviewer should first give some indication of what he or she is looking for - apart from the essentials of a movie with good film-script, acting, direction, lighting, and camera work. I am one of those with strong childhood memories of reading about Robin Hood - I enjoy watching any good swashbuckler film, but I do not like watching when it misleads me about a real and not unimportant historical character. The various Robin Hood films I saw many years ago differed greatly in the story they told, and were often very skimpy about the historical background that is so necessary to make the story meaningful. This film was shown by a local TV station recently and, as many IMDb users clearly admire it greatly, I decided to watch and compare it with what I remembered of these earlier films. Concurrently I also reviewed other available DVD's to see whether there was anything listed that might provide a more worthwhile home movie. First I deleted from consideration all films which were clearly intended to present the entire story as a lightweight comedy. One cannot expect anything better than a chuckle - and a feeling of having wasted time - from films such as "The Ribald adventures of Robin Hood", "Robin Hood - Men in Tights", "Robin Hood - Prince of Thieves", "Robin Hood - Thief of Wives" etc. Equally I rejected Walt Disney's 1973 animated version. which portrays Robin Hood as a fox and other characters as various animals. His company has the ability to create animated films about real characters that are very popular and often command considerable respect, but for me their subjects should be restricted to fantasies, myths or legends. "Robin and Marian" and Robin Hood and the Sorcerer" were rejected because I was not looking for either a romance or a film about wizardry. Meanwhile Patrick Bergin's name drew me to this film - He is a great but often under-rated actor. He was perhaps a little old (40 I believe) when playing Robin Hood (perhaps the epitome of a youthful adventurer), but I correctly trusted his acting ability and the work of the makeup department would minimise this problem.Make no mistake, this is a fine film, not a great one but it belongs in the same stable as the 1922 version by Douglas Firbanks and the Errol Flynn version of 1938 (which is still widely regarded as the one to beat). It was filmed in Europe for release in two forms; a serial for TV viewing, and this cinema version the budget for which was slashed when it became clear that the release date would inevitably be very close to that of Hollywood's Kevin Costner version, so Fox decided not to release it in North America. Critics have noted a few rough edges when the separate episodes were merged to create the DVD and the cinema version that was screened only in Europe, Asia and Australia. The only other widespread criticism appears to have been that Uma Thurman (Maid Marian) played her part in too feisty a manner for a woman of the period. I am not sure this is valid. Our image of women in history is coloured by Victorian expectations of quiet demure behaviour. From Boudeccia through Queens Elizabeth and Anne, on to Lady Hamilton, I think British history rather shows the reverse.Comparing versions; for my taste Errol Flynn's is great fun to watch but somewhat erratic in presentation (e.g. fighting with rapiers rather than the broadswords of the period). I still rate the 1922 Douglas Fairbanks silent version as the best. Admittedly it starts slowly but it is one of the few films to give adequate attention to the history of the period, and in the second half Douglas is spectacular, exactly portraying the character I somewhat romantically like to think Robin Hood would have had. But, as other IMDb users have acknowledged, this 1991 film has an exceptional capacity for drawing viewers back into the period in which it was set, and I would certainly rank it as the second best Robin Hood film - for those no longer in tune with silent B/W films, the best.