Robin Hood

1991 "The Adventure. The Romance. The Legend."
5.7| 1h44m| PG-13| en| More Info
Released: 13 May 1991 Released
Producted By: WDR
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

The Swashbuckling legend of Robin Hood unfolds in the 12th century when the mighty Normans ruled England with an iron fist.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

WDR

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Fluke_Skywalker 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.
sddavis63 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
Nop-8 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.
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.