Watch Robin Hood For Free

The Worst Film Ever

Simply Perfect

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

My wife tried to talk me out of watching this and I sure wish I had listened. Truly appalling. I have just sat through basically two hours of some of the worst fight scenes ever, a horrific score, some appalling dialogue and a terrible butchering of a great story. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at such an awful attempt at a film and in an effort to serve humanity am writing this review. I simply cannot believe that the makers of this film thought they were making a good film. The cast holds some promise but is so badly let down by the script and score that no one could have held this together. I advise the utmost caution to anyone thinking of watching this dreadful film and would recommend watching grass grow as a far better use of time.

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.

When it came out, I read something about Patrick Bergen ACTUALLY SPLITTING an ARROW on the target during practice. I would love to know whether there were any eyewitnesses to this, because the Mythbusters busted that idea recently and I was just crestfallen. (Is that a pun? it should be).Lexie, if you're out there anywhere, ask your dad.I remember seeing the movie when it came out on TV and really did like it. It was refreshing to see the Middle Ages looking worn down at the heels rather than the usual polyester Technicolor Court Jester look. The peasants benefited from the recent release of Monty Python and the Holy Grail in that they really did look like they had s... all over them. Bergin's moustache is an unfortunate artifact of Hollywood costuming, but it's no worse than Flynn's wig in the 1939 version (which was utterly splendid in its own way) (I mean the movie, not the wig) (Did you know that Flynn was a descendant of Fletcher Christian?). And one of the funniest things I've ever seen: Uma Thurman, "Diguised as a Boy". That's like saying you can disguise a raven as a writing desk... there's really no confusing the two.In terms of comparison, Flynn's a 10, Bergen's a 7, Costner's a 3 for this role.But if I had to choose between Basil Rathbone and Alan Rickman... oh, Lord, can't I just have them both? purrr.

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!