CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Adeel Hail Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Caryl It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

Eric Stevenson I thought that I was seeing the 2010 version of "Robin Hood" or possibly "Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves", but actually it was another movie called "Robin Hood" made in 1991. I guess there wasn't much point in me seeing this. Well, I was confused as I watched this, but I guess at least I got to see a movie of some sort. It was about as uh, mediocre as I thought it would be. Well, I thought I'd be watching the 2010 version or...whatever. Anyway, this version of "Robin Hood" is actually at a pretty good length. I admit that I'm not very familiar with the whole Robin Hood mythos.Are there any actual novels that first depict Robin Hood? Then again, a lot of us aren't even sure if he was real or not. I guess there is a pretty basic common plot with Robin rescuing Maid Marian and them getting married. I thought Friar Tuck was pretty good. I guess I haven't seen that many Robin Hood films, but this one at least had a very well known actress, Uma Thurman, in it. There was nothing that special for me and I feel weird having watch it thinking it was something else. It at least looks like it was made in 2010! **1/2

James Hitchcock In the cinema, as in most areas of life, one occasionally comes across some strange coincidences. In 1960, for example, there were two filmed biographies of Oscar Wilde and two of Coco Chanel in 2009. Two films about Wyatt Earp appeared in 1993/4, although that was due less to coincidence than to creative differences among the team working on "Wyatt Earp", differences which led to the creation of the rival film "Tombstone" on the same subject. In the early seventies two studios were working on disaster movies about skyscrapers on fire, but in this case the coincidence was detected early on and the studios joined forces to produce the film now known as "The Towering Inferno". 1991 was the year which saw two films on the legend of Robin Hood. "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves", a big-budget Hollywood blockbuster starring Kevin Costner, is by far the better-known of the two. This lower-budget version, simply entitled "Robin Hood", was only shown on television in the USA, although it was released in cinemas in other parts of the world. It did not feature any big Hollywood names; Uma Thurman may be a big name today, but in 1991 she was still more of an up- and-coming starlet. As in "Prince of Thieves" and several other films on this subject, Robin is portrayed as a Saxon earl, here named Robert Hode. (The idea that Robin was an aristocrat was a later addition to the legend; the recent 2010 "Robin Hood" with Russell Crowe reverts to the original story by making him a Saxon of more humble origins). He falls foul of the authorities, and is declared an outlaw, when he intervenes to prevent a miller, who has been caught poaching the King's deer, from being blinded. He flees into Sherwood Forest, gathers together the "Merry Men", and fights for justice and the rights of the Saxon peasantry against the corrupt Norman nobility. The film includes all the usual cast of Merry Men, including Little John, Will Scarlett, Friar Tuck and Much the Miller, as well as Maid Marian, but, oddly, not the normal villains. There is no Sheriff of Nottingham and no Sir Guy of Gisborne, and Prince John only puts in a brief appearance. (King Richard does not appear at all, although he is referred to). Instead, Robin's main antagonists are the Norman aristocrats Baron Roger Daguerre and Sir Miles Folcanet. (That is how it is spelt in the cast-list, although "Falconet" might be a more plausible French spelling). Sir Miles is a straightforward villain; it is he who wanted to have the unfortunate miller's eyes put out and he who is Robin's rival for Marian's hand. (She, of course, will have nothing to do with him). Daguerre, however, is a more ambiguous figure. He is Marian's uncle and originally Robin's friend; the two later fall out but are eventually reconciled, and Daguerre is converted to Robin's vision of an England where Saxon and Norman can live together in peace. One similarity which links this film with the Russell Crowe version is that both aim at a more "naturalistic" view of the Middle Ages to the romanticised "Merrie England" view presented in the Errol Flynn classic "The Adventures of Robin Hood" from 1938 and, to some extent, in "Prince of Thieves". Some might think this sort of naturalism misplaced in a film which is based on legend rather than historical fact, but both directors (John Irvin here and Ridley Scott in 2010) clearly felt that a film dealing with a peasant revolt against oppression should show us something of the conditions against which the peasants are revolting. Mediaeval life is therefore portrayed as drab, dirty and dangerous, not as something colourful and exciting. The look of the film is dark with muted colours; the leafless trees in Sherwood Forest suggest that the story takes place in winter and early spring. Patrick Bergin makes a charismatic hero, but few of the other characters, Thurman included, make the same impression. There is nothing particularly wrong with the performances of Jeroen Krabbé as Daguerre or Jürgen Prochnow as Folcanet, but neither of them makes as memorable a villain as Basil Rathbone's Gisborne in "The Adventures of Robin Hood" or Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham in "Prince of Thieves". Another weakness is it that lacks any real exciting or swashbuckling action sequences; not even the final attack on Nottingham Castle really counts as such. The climactic duel between Robin and Folcanet is in nothing like the same class as that between Flynn and Rathbone. This "Robin Hood" is certainly better than "Robin and Marian" from the seventies, which manages to be both dull and unrealistic, but I would not rate it as highly as either the 2010 version or "Prince of Thieves", both of which could generate greater excitement. As for "The Adventures of Robin Hood", that set a very high standard, and in my view none of the versions since 1938 have really lived up to it. 6/10

mike48128 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.

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