Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Softwing Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Raymond Sierra The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

anaahnu This film is not so very known as the Kevin Costner version (action- packed, overloaded with fan-service and some uncensored sex scenes). This is a more serious movie. It goes on a slower pace and has less effects (aye, less special effects as well). In spite of this, it's a good movie. Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurman's acting looks quite decent (if it weren't for Costner and Mary Mastrantonio, I'd say even "defining", though that's really arguable).Baron Daguerre (Robin's main enemy in the film) is not that bad, he's just been insulted and needs to gain his former friend's trust once more. Prince John doesn't pose like a villain as well, we only have his cameo closer to the end. And -- no return of the good King Richard, the outlaws have got their victory themselves.So, as you see, the plot is not as simple as we've used to. But there are similarities to the Kostner film, nevertheless. For example, the celebration in the end (led by the Baron, not by the King!) Naked fat men in a so-called "garment" of branches and leaves -- Ah and Aw for all that Celtic stuff...The film is good to watch, and if you want to compare which of the 1991 versions was better, I think it senseless. Just watch both films, and enjoy. Each of them is interesting enough, each of them should be a treat for you.

smhirschsm 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!!

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

Jacobe I. of Ginsbourne Today, Costner is less popular than he was when he did "Dances with Wolves", which was his last really good movie (like Metallica's last good album, the Black one, for many many metallers and grufties the tombstone of that band, and really, much later in the end of the nineties, Metallica commented in news articles against Napster, so that they became commercial is out of question as proved hereby).So, for me, as for anyone who wants to indulge in medieval stuff that is authentic and not too much cliché-Hollywood, this movie wins highly over the great concurrent which we have all seen, "Prince of Thieves", that is admittedly done with a lot of humor, but also in a too Hollywood-style-overloaded way.By the way, the opening font of the title is the same as in the famous video game "Deadly Shadows", probably the designers of the latter took it from this movie.Well-done is the story with the longbows. But the Norman soldiers are better in "Robin of Sherwood", the series.The worst thing is the main actor. I like him personally, I mean... I don't know him and I'm a pure hetero, huhu... no, wit aside: I don't like the way he presents himself in the movie, it really DESTROYS the whole atmosphere and in front of all the authenticity and therefore the convincing factor of the movie, when the main actor has got a strong American accent!It's impossible that anyone spoke like that in middle-age Europe!All other actors are English, I don't know why they took such a Magnum-facsimile and if it had to be him, why they couldn't even let him take some crash-course in medieval English (possibly with Jeremy Brett, the best Holmes EVER, who quite had undergone some speaking handicaps, or Geoffrey Bayldon, the actor and brilliant medieval speaker in "Catweazle", a work of the writer and ex-actor Kip Carpenter, as is "Robin of Sherwood", the measure this movie here has to cope with!)?When they pay such a lot for it? Maybe, the producers were only after people's money at the cinema counter and the box-office - Robin Hood himself, if he ever existed, like Willhelm Tell or even King Arthur and Merlin, went for fame and not money.The whole person-to-person relations are either too seemingly macho-like or too comically overdone - when Prochnow is rejected by Marian played by Thurman, a cunning watcher recognizes the overwhelming countenance of the noble Prochnow which is hidden by him in a great effort of controlled rage. Thurman can't adequately cope with that ground-sticking niveau of acting craftsmanship.So, it is not convincing that in the plot as defined by the legend, she turns him down. because we can hardly imagine Thurman turning Prochnow down.Sorry to all, it is like that, admit it or not.To me, every second of the first two series of "Robin of Sherwood" is totally convincing, this series (maybe not the third one with that Connery-son), I took up into my heart's deepest regions.I cannot do that with this movie, sadly. It is not good enough. It is well done is many, many aspects, but the display of all the important personal relations is making a joke out of the whole movie.Many here said it was "WAY" better than Costner's Version. But back in 1991, I can't recall or imagine that they all would have said the same. Back then, we were ALL fascinated by Costner, admit it, folks!