Everyone knows that Costner's Hood was a bomb, but too few people have seen this superior version, shown on TV and then perversely released only on VHS by Fox. Patrick Bergin is spot-on as a darkly-mooded Robin, and the backstory on his loss of rank and property is both historically plausible and dramatically effective -- a welcome change from other film versions. The tensions between native Saxon and invading Norman are also accurately portrayed, as exemplifed by Robin's vexed friendship with the new Norman landlord (a great performance by Jürgen Prochnow). The supporting case is excellent, particularly Uma Thurman as a liberated Maid Marian -- handy with a broadsword -- and Jeff Nuttall as the best Friar Tuck I've ever seen. The way in which Tuck gives a benediction to one of the Normans even as his calmly breaks his neck has to be seen to be believed. If there is any justice for Robin Hood in the 21st century, Fox ought to bring this version out on DVD. Its moody colorations, dank forests, and dour yet Merry Men would surely shine through.

This is the movie that should have been in the theaters in the summer of 1991, not Kevin Costner's bloated monstrosity. This "Robin Hood" gives us a fine new twist to the legend, transporting us to a new world. The highly underrated Patrick Bergin makes a fine Robin Hood, a worthy successor to Errol Flynn -- he is a flawed man (when it comes down to it, it is his pride that gets him outlawed), but still noble and heroic. Uma Thurman is a dream as Marian, and the rest of the cast slip comfortably into their roles.

But the thing I really love out this movie is the way the villain, Falconet, meets his end. When you watch enough movies, you grow to appreciate a really dramatic, over-the-top death scene, and this is it. Falconet dies by the same method as the Sheriff in "Prince of Thieves," but his death is so much more dramatic and memorable than the Sheriff's, so much more... fitting, I suppose.

If you get a chance, this is the Robin Hood movie to see (assuming you've already seen "Adventures of Robin Hood", of course.)

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...

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.

There are very few truisms when it comes to movies. One, at least to me, has always been that, while each new version will be watchable, no remake of Robin Hood will be the equal of Michael Curtiz' and William Keighley's 1938 masterpiece.

Richard Green would make the story a weekly part of childhood. Sean Connery and Audrey Hepburn would add a poignant ending. Two Kevins (Reynolds and Costner) would add an interesting back story and Mary Elizabeth a fetching Marian as Morgan integrated the tale.

But who could compete with Errol Flynn as the most dashing hero ever to stand before a camera, Basil Rathbone as the most compelling villain, or Olivia de Havilland as the most winsome damsel ever to be in distress? Certainly not Patrick Bergin, at best a journeyman actor, Uma Thurman, a pulp film star, or John Irvin, a second tier British director.

Then I finally saw their 1991 effort, and the truism is true no more.

Bergin's hero is less perfect and less disarmingly charming than Flynn's, yet more compelling and much less comic bookish. This is a Robin Hood who does what's right not because his character allows no other alternative, but because his temper and pride compel him to or events or his reasoned choice lead him to. Robin becomes both believable and all the larger for that credibility.

Thurman does for Marian what Liv Tyler did for Arwen: makes her a full participant in the story and not just a symbol of chivalry. This damsel unsparingly spits on her unwelcome suitor, rescues herself, and is full of passion, not the Victorian addition of chastity. She lives up to the original notion of Marian, a folklore Queen of the May long before she was coupled in legend with Robin.

Sam Resnick and John McGrath wrote a story and screenplay that eschews Robin beating back four swordsmen at a time for one in which the action is believable, yet no less active. The good guys triumph because of their wit and ability, not just inevitability.

This Robin is a hero fighting for his downtrodden people, not Richard Coeur de Lion, who ruled from Aquitaine, spoke no English and seldom set foot on English soil.

I still love Errol and Olivia and will always treasure an hour and a half spent watching the Adventures of Robin Hood. But Patrick and Uma will forevermore be Robin and Marian in my imagination.

Don't be put off by the "TV" in the title-this is a full-blown, first-class movie. Patrick Bergin gives his Robin a sense of humor and a spark of humanity. Uma Thurman, though not the most beautiful girl in the world (that honor still remains with Olivia), is sexy, vivacious, and definitely post-modern. A few scenes don't quite develop as far as they can, but all is forgiven by the Parade of Fools in the climactic moments. One big difference between this movie and Flynn's is that here they use broadswords rather than rapiers (more realistically). Instead of the "tck tck tck" of swordplay, here there are loud "Clangs" when the blades miss their target. It makes for a really good setpiece battle between Robin and his fierce (here, French) enemy. Nothing will replace the Errol Flynn Robin Hood, but this account is vigorous, funny, and filled with little surprises.

I've described this commentary as having a spoiler, just to be on the safe side.

Having just bought the double-sided, full-screen/wide-screen version that is 103 minutes long, and being silly enough to get day-to-day inspiration from the ideal of Robin Hood, I wanted to encourage you all to try to find a copy of "Robin Hood," as it was originally broadcast on the fairandbalanced Fox network, in '91 (or was it '92?)--and see if anyone knows where to buy a copy of the longer original. When it was first shown, I video-taped the broadcast just off an antenna with crummy reception, assuming I'd be able to buy it, eventually. But, it seems the next time they broadcast it and by the time they started selling it, some nice, slightly rude, but merry, vignettes had been cut. I could see why Fox would do it with the televised versions, as a way to get more commercials into a two-hour program; but, why they did not restore the original scenes in the wide-screen version, I cannot imagine.

For an archery buff, "Robin Hood" gives some glimpses of one of the few weapons that helped make the little people a force that could not be dismissed or so easily oppressed. Robin's shooting a wand is as real a portrayal of archery as it gets. There's an odd bit of archery silliness when Emlyn's bow plows an arrow through a Norman helm, i. e., I'm pretty sure the arrow tip is a game tip, rather than the "pile," three-sided wedge used to pierce armor.

For the broad sword buff: "Robin Hood"'s sword play is anything but serious. Compared to, for example, the final fight in "Prince Valiant," between James Mason and Robert Wagner, no one in "Robin Hood" seems to be trying to hit each other. You might note that, as in almost every good guy vs bad guy sword-fight to the death, the good guy wins by stabbing from a low line of attack--a fairly stupid line of attack and somewhat unknightly, I suggest.

Some of the archery goofs and sword-play lameness, might have dimmed the final product for me, were it not for the fulsome humanity of this "Robin Hood." The wit, the merriness, the musical score, the politics and the texture of the characters makes this film somewhat more real and warm than other versions that revolve around the more heroic Robin Hoods.

Within the few extra minutes of the original broadcast, there is a surprisingly amount of the humanity that helps make Robin Hood the heroic ideal that inspires almost everyone faced by travails visited upon them by this or that sheriff-wannabe. S'il vous plait, I recommend you get your hands on the longer version; and, if you do, I very much recommend you email me with where it can be had. Thanks; and, here's to a strong draw and a fair aim.

We all know the story of Robin Hood, it's been told over and over in movie and cartoon form for decades, and of course the story itself is ancient. I've seen a lot of ho-hum adaptations of this story, and in fact I've never been all that impressed with Errol Flynn, nor have I ever been comfortable watching men in tights prancing around. I didn't see this adaptation when it came out, but I accidentally flipped to it today when I first woke up, and I was pleasantly surprised. Every deficiency in previous tellings was gone; for the first time, I was actually engaged in the story rather than rolling my eyes at the Hollywood excesses I'm used to seeing. Uma Thurman is absolutely spectacular as an ass-kicking Marian, and the actor who plays Robin Hood is by far the best yet. I liked everything about this film, how it was directed, the cinematography, and especially the restraint shown by the director. I can't recommend it highly enough, and it certainly beats the hell out of the incredibly lame Kevin Costner telling. I don't know if this version is easy to find on videotape, but it is worth seeking out. 9 out of 10.

You won't have many surprises in the plot of this new Robin, but the twists and turns on the old themes make this a surprisingly entertaining adventure. Bergin is excellent as Robin, giving the character a dark and sexy flavor that is very appealing. Thurman is a willful, `modern', but never unfeminine heroine. Unlike so many versions, this Robin uses a heavy, lethal broadsword instead of a rapier, and the fights are violent and convincing. I wouldn't want to do without the Flynn version, but I am very happy to have found this new, fresh and lively edition.

This version of the oft-told story adds depth to both the characters and the times to weave in an interesting cultural history approach. Can't comment on the accuracy of the cultural blending of French and Saxon, but at least this version makes the effort. While there are some clear-cut villains, the movie goes beyond the usual paper-thin, all-good or all-bad characters. A wonderfully refreshing experience. PS: I found the portrayal of Prince (soon-to-be-king) John brief but riveting.

Like Rachel Welsh, Uma is often a better actor than the films she appears in. She has that impossible figure and that scoop-shaped nose. She is a delight as a Tom-Boyish "liberated" Maid Marian and steals this picture out from under Robin Hood! A different version of "Robin Hood" that came out the same year (1991) as that Kevin Costner version, so nobody saw it. I just saw it uncut (137 min.) on the Fox Movie Channel. In the U.S., it was shown on T.V. It was theatrically released overseas. What's so different about it? No evil sheriff. No archery contest. No King Richard. (After all, he never really did return.) More humor in the adventurous escapades of Robin Hood. More for Maid Marian to do. An English Duke that can't decide which side he's on. First he's friends with Robin then strips him of his title and land and then at the end...oh well. An evil "Frenchman"-Sir Miles, with an atrociously bad accent. (Well, that's what happens when a German plays a Frenchman.) Rousing battle scenes as the Merry Men dress up as fools on "All Fools Day" to storm the castle and save poor Marian from marrying the nasty Sir Miles. She already "gave" herself to Robin anyway. (Hey, that "virgin" thing was a big deal in the olden days.) Good production values; filmed in England. A good swashbuckling sword fight at the end when good triumphs over evil. Only available in a edited DVD version. Great fun and worth your time but I still like the 1938 Errol Flynn "classic" the best, and I always will.

I grew up with these old classics, when we sort of had to picture the story in our minds as we read it. This is by far the most authentic version of a Robin Hood tale I've seen. No special-effects, no magic, just real life in the woods of medieval England. The characters are believable and the casting was spot-on. The timing of the release was unfortunate due to the publicity being generated for Costner's version (which I won't even waste my time reviewing), but if you're looking for a real genuine and human rendition of this timeless classic, set a few hours aside to watch Umma Thurman set the eternal bar for Maid Marianne. Better set a few more hours aside... you might want to watch it twice!!

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.

This lush realistic retelling of the popular legend is a pleasure to watch. The historical setting, the costumes, the armor, the attitudes of the people, are all in keeping with the time the events (supposedly) took place. Bergin's Robin is a believable portrait of a nobleman struggling with the assimilation of his culture by foreigners (the Normans) and what he sees as the betrayal of a friend (Sir Miles). Thurman's Mariam is a joy to those of us who have always wanted to see her character with as much spirit as Robin's, and she has it in bushels. She is a woman who knows what she wants and is not afraid to take a risk to get it. Go Mariam! I've seen numerous versions of the tale since it is one of my favorites, but this is the one I own.

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.

This is by far the best Robin Hood I have seen (since the flashy classic with Errol Flynn). This movie depicts people with feelings and flaws instead of the usual stereotypes. E.g. Robin Hood and Falconet start off as friends and when the break up occurs you actually feel with the "evil" Norman who tries to help Robin but is forced by Robin's pride to outlaw him. The movie has a much more medieval and believable atmosphere than any other I have seen. Together with the interesting characters it just brings you back there into the story. And as things don't always go smoothly and effortlessly for the hero in this movie, it remains interesting and entertaining the whole time. A definite recommendation.

This film is not nearly as historically "accurate" as some would have it, and thankfully so. It winks, it nods and nudge-nudges, but ever so gently. (If you want outright yucks, turn to the Mel Brooks version.) What it is is a delicious entertainment.

Bergin plays it (mostly) straight, Prochnow goes over the top (as he should in this role), Thurman adds sex (which she can't avoid), and Krabbé broods. Fox adds to the deliciousness with his wily vileness. Friar Tuck gets some of the best lines (without having to resort to mohel jokes). The Will Scarlet and Little John characters are boring (David Morrissey has had better roles, including Ripley in the recent Viva Blackpool series on BBC America), but the character actors playing the "little people" like the carpenter, the maker of long bows, the court jester, etc., strut their stuff and add greatly to the finished product.

For a TV movie, the photography isn't bad; the fog and dankness work well on the small screen. And, as others have noted, it's nice to see clanging broadswords in play. And the best part of Prochnow's death scene are the final words he hears from Friar Tuck.

This has just been run on British TV. What a pleasure to see something from Hollywood that feels realistic when referring to something over here (no US cavalry riding to the rescue at the critical moment!!). Apart from that it is also well made, enjoyable and I'm just sorry I didn't start the recorder at the beginning. Uma Thurman is not the most gorgeous Marion I have seen (not too bad either though), but she was believable and that counts for a lot. The action scenes had a touch of authenticity about them that is all too often missing (for example when Robin was handed a staff by Will to battle with John Little it was a thick branch, forked at one end and obviously from a tree, not a martial arts supplier - just the sort of thing that might have been picked up in a real situation ). All round, a film I will watch next time it is screened and I hope I manage to get the DVD recorder going in time next time.

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 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.

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 .

Unfortunately sometimes fate has a way of messing things up. Both this film and the horrid Costner film had been made and were to be released the same year. Because Costner was a bigger name they decided to only release this film in Europe in the theaters and this one only showed on TV. HOW SAD! This film is far and away a superior film to the other in everyway. 1. You can tell this Robin cares about what is happening, in the other it looked and felt like Robin was bored and had nothing better to do(or worse he didn't care one bit!)

2. The story made sense and didn't jump and change or have characters who were stong in the begining(Marion)become meek little screamers at the end. 3. So realistically done, history wasn't stomped on for this film you could see they really did their research into what people would have dressed and looked like. Not so the other film who tooted their own horn in numerous interviews about their accuracy and then delivered an Ewok Tree village, a Muslim following around Robin because he had nothing better to do, and the ridiculous costumes!!!! Please don't waste your time with that other film if you want camp that is aware it is camp then watch the much Better Errol Flynn RH if you want history and fantasy combined brilliantly with a superb cast and well thought out version of the mythos then see this version or the BBC Lionheart TV series. :-)

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.

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.